GMG Classical Music Forum

Just like the one with Brahms vs. Bach.
I'll explain why I made this poll later, because if I did now, I might accidentally influence votes.

Sorry, Bach. You helped lead the way but you were not the summit.  ;D

Quote from: Greg on February 13, 2011, 06:13:49 PM
Just like the one with Brahms vs. Bach.
I'll explain why I made this poll later, because if I did now, I might accidentally influence votes.

I have decided to occidentally influence votes here and now!
BEETHOVEN
I hope all are suitably influenced.  ::)

And also, make sure to vote in terms of "greatness" (whatever that means), and not personal taste. But if they happen to be the same, cool.

(http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/images/customprofilepics/profilepic16580_16.gif)

Where's the "Neither" button???

Neither is "greater." They're different.

"Who is greater" is for sports fans, eh? (And in this case, it isn't even two players at the same position on rival teams, it's a shooting guard on a basketball team and a pitcher on a baseball team. They're not even trying to do comparable things.)

Bach. I would bet my immortal soul. That's the strength of my conviction about this.

Quote from: James on February 14, 2011, 03:04:56 AM
Again, absolutely no contest .. no one can compare to Bach in music, despite the result of any stupid poll here. Period. If you don't realize that, than you don't know much. And even though Brahms to some degree built on the formal innovations of Beethoven, he was far better!! (more well-rounded musically and minus any of the daft attention seeking melodrama that LvB loved to wallow in)

I was wondering, if we put aside our feelings and opinions about the music itself (the subjective stuff), are there any objective reasons for picking one or the other and what are they? Was either innovative in the use of music or new approaches/combinations? Did either have an impact on the existing generation or subsequent generations? Did either help other composers advance their craft? ETC...  This would be interesting for me to disuss. I am somewhat familar with the answers to those questions with Beethoven, but I really could not say very much on Bach. For me, if I were to vote, these issues would be of far greater importance than whether I liked a particular piece or not.

Quote from: Bogey on February 13, 2011, 06:32:27 PM
(http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/images/customprofilepics/profilepic16580_16.gif)

:D

Quote from: some guy on February 13, 2011, 11:17:19 PM
Where's the "Neither" button???

Neither is "greater." They're different.

"Who is greater" is for sports fans, eh? (And in this case, it isn't even two players at the same position on rival teams, it's a shooting guard on a basketball team and a pitcher on a baseball team. They're not even trying to do comparable things.)

I'll help you out with that analogy.

Who is greater: Mickey Mantle or Michael Jordan?

Quote from: Brian on February 14, 2011, 04:17:28 AM
Who is greater: Mickey Mantle or Michael Jordan?

Easy, Michael Jordan.  ;D

Quote from: Greg on February 13, 2011, 06:29:21 PM
And also, make sure to vote in terms of "greatness" (whatever that means), and not personal taste. But if they happen to be the same, cool.

It's all personal taste. :P

Quote from: Antoine Marchand on February 14, 2011, 04:32:51 AM
Easy, Michael Jordan.  ;D

BTW, I don't know anything about baseball, just excepting some favorite movies like "The Natural" and "Major League":

http://www.youtube.com/v/CL34mQTB5kI

:)

Quote from: Antoine Marchand on February 14, 2011, 04:56:57 AM
BTW, I don't know anything about baseball, just excepting some favorite movies like "The Natural" and "Major League":
:)

Well, neither Bach nor Beethoven can beat this one:

http://www.youtube.com/v/suoDWoLU9e8

I have the best (same as 'great') solution: Michael Jordan playing Baseball -- or not.

http://www.youtube.com/v/JAiJpurX5Mo

Series tied again:  :D

(http://images.checkoutmycards.com/zoom/ede4ae38-59d0-4094-b2eb-b83338381d44.jpg)

Quote from: Antoine Marchand on February 14, 2011, 05:30:21 AM
Series tied again:  :D

Not so quickly, Antoine. Jordan played professional baseball, albeit for a short while. :D

Quote from: Marc on February 14, 2011, 05:21:28 AM
Well, neither Bach nor Beethoven can beat this one:

No doubt, sir.

http://www.youtube.com/v/z6Ia2Hd_IvM

:)

Quote from: Opus106 on February 14, 2011, 05:37:27 AM
Not so quickly, Antoine. Jordan played professional baseball, albeit for a short while. :D

Have you read my signature, Opus? As Mallarmé said "everything in the world exists in order to end up in a collectible card".  ;D

Quote from: Antoine Marchand on February 14, 2011, 05:46:33 AM
Have you read my signature, Opus? As Mallarmé said "everything in the world exists in order to end up in a collectible card".  ;D

And quite a visionary she was. ;D

http://www.youtube.com/v/t-hupiwCFkg

Quote from: Antoine Marchand on February 14, 2011, 05:39:47 AM
No doubt, sir.

[Madonna's This used to be my playground]

:)

Lovely.
Had not seen that clip for ages.

(Sigh.)

Oh, Madonna! :-*

Once in my life, when I was young and innocent, I had such sweet dreams under my Who's That Girl? quilt cover .... 0:)

(http://i56.tinypic.com/125573q.jpg)

I only had the one on the left.
My friends gave it on my 24th birthday party and I was so happy! ;D
They chose this one because it looked a bit more peaceful and dreamy, I guess.

After more than 10 years of serving, it sadly passed away. :'(

Are there any Bach quilt covers?
Or do you think a portrait of good ol' Ludwig would be more appropiate?
(Just desperately trying to build a bridge to the original topic ....)

Quote from: Marc on February 14, 2011, 06:25:10 AM
Oh, Madonna! :-*

Once in my life, when I was young and innocent, I had such sweet dreams under my Who's That Girl? quilt cover .... 0:)

(http://i56.tinypic.com/125573q.jpg)

I only had the one on the left.
My friends gave it on my 24th birthday party and I was so happy! ;D
They chose this one because it looked a bit more peaceful and dreamy, I guess.

Nice memories! I recall a friend of mine who -when we were in secondary school- watched Desperately Seeking Susan eleven o twelve times at the cinema in our small city (named Osorno) in the South of Chile... BTW, what a lovely girl was also Rosanna Arquette!  :) 

Quote from: Antoine Marchand on February 14, 2011, 08:05:20 AM
Nice memories! I recall a friend of mine who -when we were in secondary school- watched Desperately Seeking Susan eleven o twelve times at the cinema in our small city (named Osorno) in the South of Chile... BTW, what a lovely girl was also Rosanna Arquette! :)

She certainly was!

All I wanna do when I wake up in the morning is see your eyes
Rosanna, Rosanna
I never thought that a girl like you could ever care for me, Rosanna

All I wanna do in the middle of the evening is hold you tight
Rosanna, Rosanna
I didn't know you were looking for more than I could ever be

Madonna and Rosanna!
:-*
Two hotties in Desperately Seeking Susan!
It's an eighties classic!

(I think I saw it about five times, that's normal, isn't it?)

In those years I somehow turned to Madonna and her music, because:
1. I was still a teenager despite my age (and will be a teenager all my life). ;D
2. I eventually got rather sick after all those years of digging myself into Joy Division, The Sisters of Mercy, The Cure et al. Madonna proved to be The Cure to me! ;D

Oh, btw, at almost the same time The Cure released The Walk after all those years of Pornography. Robert Smith got cured, too! ;)

Oh, btw 2: I never lost my love for Bach. :)

Oh, and about the poll: you may wake me every hour of the night for some great Ludwig van Beethoven!
You may NOT wake me every hour of the night for some great Sebastian Bach, because I already listen to him each day!!

Beethoven is number 10 in my list of top composers while J. S. Bach is number 2. What did Beethoven write to compete with B minor Mass??

At the moment I am concentrating on Beethoven more closely and I will re-evaluate him if needed. The 3rd movement of Symphony 9 is actually very good and exploring his piano sonatas might offer many surprises. Please give me time! Beethoven wrote plenty of music.

Quote from: mn dave on February 13, 2011, 06:19:35 PMSorry, Bach. You helped lead the way but you were not the summit.

You, sir, are correct.

Quote from: 71 dB on February 14, 2011, 09:58:18 AM
What did Beethoven write to compete with B minor Mass??

Missa solemnis.  ;D

Quote from: Florestan on February 14, 2011, 10:05:04 AM
Missa solemnis.  ;D

Well, yeah but personally I find B minor Mass clearly greater work, at least when it comes to counterpoint. Awesome work anyway.  ;)

Beethoven: 11
Bach: 6


If one is decided to be "greater" than the other, why is that?

Quote from: Greg on February 14, 2011, 05:46:52 PM
If one is decided to be "greater" than the other, why is that?

Due to an OCD to rate and poll on stuff?

Quote from: Brian on February 14, 2011, 04:17:28 AM
I'll help you out with that analogy.

Who is greater: Mickey Mantle or Michael Jordan?

Mickey Mantle was my first hero/idol and he shall always remain so. It's a generational thing, you know.

Quote from: 71 dB on February 14, 2011, 09:58:18 AM
Beethoven is number 10 in my list of top composers while J. S. Bach is number 2. What did Beethoven write to compete with B minor Mass??

You actually have a numerical order for your favourites?!

Quote from: Guido on February 15, 2011, 02:24:37 PM
You actually have a numerical order for your favourites?!

I also have a numerical order; just about everyone does.  When are you going to join the majority?

Quote from: Guido on February 15, 2011, 02:24:37 PM
You actually have a numerical order for your favourites?!

I prefer to order my favourites alphabetically.

Quote from: 71 dB on February 14, 2011, 09:58:18 AM
Beethoven is number 10 in my list of top composers while J. S. Bach is number 2. What did Beethoven write to compete with B minor Mass??

The Agnus Dei from the Missa Solemnis is in B minor.

Quote from: 71 dB on February 14, 2011, 09:58:18 AM
At the moment I am concentrating on Beethoven more closely and I will re-evaluate him if needed.

But if you make him higher than 10 someone else will have to sink to double digits.

J. S. Bach lived in a different historical period. He composed music as a tribute to Almighty God. Beethoven lived during the Napoleonic Wars. Revolution was in the air, as well the noise and smoke of artillery shells.  It was the beginning of the Enlightenment and it was also a period of political repression and secret police. New ideas were being brought forward from such luminaries as Kant, Hegel and Schiller. Beethoven's music aptly expressed this new world and still does to this day. Each was great for his time. Even so, my love for classical music began and took off with the music of Beethoven and it shall always remain that way. Although we live more in a Beethovenian world than we do in a Bachian one I think a combination of the two makes for a very solid foundation to shape ones secular and spiritual life. We could say that Bach was a Spiritual-Secularist and that Beethoven was a Secular-Spiritualist.

J.S. Bach was the summation of all that went before; Beethoven--despite those who want to box him into the Classical period--the avatar of all that came after.  You really cannot compare them, though they're both among the truly greatest.

I think they were both great for different reasons, as some people here have suggested (just like Madonna & Rosanna Arquette, LOL!). There should be an option to that effect in the poll.

As to which one I like best, that's another story. Beethoven wins hands down, although I'm only beginning to get into J. S. Bach's music in a bit more depth now. Just listened to Ruggiero Ricci's recording of two of the solo violin sonatas & partitas & it is amazing music. I prefer Bach played on a solo instrument, like violin, cello, organ or piano/harpsichord. Otherwise, I find his music a bit too complex & the counterpoint a bit too heavy. I really like, however, how composers in the c20th like Hindemith & Villa-Lobos (to take two) used the techniques laid down by old J. S. & shed new light on them. So I kind of like the people who Bach influenced more than his music per se, but with Beethoven I can listen to virtually anything he wrote (especially the chamber music) & have no problems with enjoying it...

In his voluminous output, much larger than Beethoven's, Bach did not write any duds even in his smallest works  This is in contrast to the sometimes uneven quality of Beethoven piano sonatas, not to mention the monstrous Choral Fantasie and Wellington's Victory.  Bach's absolute mastery of counterpoint is undisputed, that places him in a higher class than those who wrote mainly homophonic tonal harmony, which he already excelled in.  His peers can only be the likes of a Shakespeare or Michelangelo.

ZB

Quote from: zamyrabyrd on February 15, 2011, 11:15:19 PM
...not to mention the monstrous Choral Fantasie and Wellington's Victory. 

Sorry, what's the problem with these? I love listening to them. 

Quote from: mc ukrneal on February 16, 2011, 12:11:43 AM
Sorry, what's the problem with these? I love listening to them.

+1.

Actually, I prefer the Choral Fantasie to the last movement of the Ninth by a wide margin.  ;D

Quote from: RJR on February 15, 2011, 02:58:52 PM
We could say that Bach was a Spiritual-Secularist and that Beethoven was a Secular-Spiritualist.

We could say anything we want, no doubt. The truth, though, is that Bach was a devout Lutheran, while Beethoven was an unconventionally-devout-bordering-on-deism-and-pantheism* Catholic.


* yet these "heresies" did not hinder him receiving the Last Rites, nor the Church burying him in consecrated ground with a Requiem Mass.

Quote from: mc ukrneal on February 16, 2011, 12:11:43 AM
Sorry, what's the problem with these? I love listening to them. 

I have generally found (in Internet forums) that they (at least Wellington's Victory) are to Beethoven, what the Canon in D is to Pachelbel, "The Four Seasons" is to Vivaldi, and what Dittersdorf is... well, to himself. They are simply too popular to be "great" or not profound enough. ::)

Quote from: zamyrabyrd on February 15, 2011, 11:15:19 PM
In his voluminous output, much larger than Beethoven's, Bach did not write any duds even in his smallest works  This is in contrast to the sometimes uneven quality of Beethoven piano sonatas, not to mention the monstrous Choral Fantasie and Wellington's Victory.  Bach's absolute mastery of counterpoint is undisputed, that places him in a higher class than those who wrote mainly homophonic tonal harmony, which he already excelled in.  His peers can only be the likes of a Shakespeare or Michelangelo.

ZB

Lots of arguable assertions there. Bach does have his share of duds in my opinion, and Shakespeare has his Titus Andronicus and Timon of Athens. Counterpoint is not ipso facto superior to other textures, Beethoven was a superb contrapuntist himself, and it does not matter that Beethoven wrote Wellington's Victory when the real point is that he wrote the Op. 131 quartet (including its fugue).

Quote from: Opus106 on February 16, 2011, 05:06:23 AM
I have generally found (in Internet forums) that they (at least Wellington's Victory) are to Beethoven, what the Canon in D is to Pachelbel, "The Four Seasons" is to Vivaldi, and what Dittersdorf is... well, to himself. They are simply too popular to be "great" or not profound enough. ::)

"Greatness" and "profundity" are overrated IMO.

Quote from: Eusebius on February 16, 2011, 05:54:31 AM
"Greatness" and "profundity" are overrated...

... or, at least, badly defined.  :)

Quote from: Sforzando on February 16, 2011, 05:35:20 AM
Lots of arguable assertions there.

if "arguable assertions" is a euphemism for "nonsense" I concur.   8)

Quote from: Antoine Marchand on February 16, 2011, 06:01:54 AM
... or, at least, badly defined.  :)

I agree that's a more accurate way to put it. One can be "great" in lightness (as the Strauss family) or "profound" in frivolity (as Rossini).

Quote from: Eusebius on February 16, 2011, 06:13:34 AM
One can be "great" in lightness (as the Strauss family) or "profound" in frivolity (as Rossini).

You see the glass half full, whereas those who look for True Greatness will find those waltzes to be light in greatness. :)

Quote from: Opus106 on February 16, 2011, 06:17:44 AM
You see the glass half full, whereas those who look for True Greatness will find those waltzes to be light in greatness. :)

Nice pun! Still... it was not enough to have a badly defined "greatness" --- now we have a badly defined "true greatness" as well...  :)

Quote from: Eusebius on February 16, 2011, 06:20:29 AM
Still... it was not enough to have a badly defined "greatness" --- now we have a badly defined "true greatness" as well...  :)

I actually meant the badly defined one. Just gave it a nice, polished name. ;D

Quote from: Eusebius on February 16, 2011, 05:54:31 AM
"Greatness" and "profundity" are overrated IMO.

Thanks, but I'll continue to overrate them.

Quote from: Scarpia on February 16, 2011, 06:08:03 AM
if "arguable assertions" is a euphemism for "nonsense" I concur.   8)

I was being polite.

Since the comma-free version of this thread has been locked, I was pointing out that Greg, being an American, was following established American punctuation, which (though neither logical nor consistent) is the way we do things here. Videlicet:

"Closing quotation marks go inside commas," and "periods."
"Closing quotation marks go outside semicolons"; as well as "colons":
"Closing quotation marks go inside exclamation points when the whole sentence functions as an exclamation!"
Closing quotation marks go outside exclamation points when "only a part of the sentence functions as an exclamation"!
"Do exclamation point rules apply also to questions?" Yes.

Quote from: James on February 14, 2011, 03:04:56 AM
Again, absolutely no contest .. no one can compare to Bach in music, despite the result of any stupid poll here. Period. If you don't realize that, than you don't know much. And even though Brahms to some degree built on the formal innovations of Beethoven, he was far better!! (more well-rounded musically and minus any of the daft attention seeking melodrama that LvB loved to wallow in)

I absolutely loathe these kind of elitist and negative opinions. If you love J.S. Bach & think he was the greatest composer on earth, then simply tell us why you are so passionate about him. These kind of rubbish put-downs just turn me right off, and do no service to properly advocating any composer's music (elevating one and putting down others - a primitive way of doing things, imo). Ok, rant over...

Quote from: Sid on February 16, 2011, 02:35:47 PM
I absolutely loathe these kind of elitist and negative opinions. If you love J.S. Bach & think he was the greatest composer on earth, then simply tell us why you are so passionate about him. These kind of rubbish put-downs just turn me right off, and do no service to properly advocating any composer's music (elevating one and putting down others - a primitive way of doing things, imo). Ok, rant over...

Yeah, I'm trying to find all this "daft attention seeking melodrama that LvB loved to wallow in." Where, please? The 7th and 8th symphonies? the Grosse Fugue? the variations from the op. 127 and 131 quartets? the Missa?

Yeah, & I love how James was preaching down to us, but at the same time couldn't properly spell a word in the sentence I put in bold above. Maybe I'm being pedantic but his negativity and snobbism is what gives us classical fans a bad name in some places, so it kind of really winds me up to no end...

I love the "3 Bs"--Bach, Beethoven, and Banana!

http://www.youtube.com/v/361DwXNvxKg&feature=related

Quote from: Sid on February 16, 2011, 02:47:11 PM
Yeah, & I love how James was preaching down to us, but at the same time couldn't properly spell a word in the sentence I put in bold above. Maybe I'm being pedantic but his negativity and snobbism is what gives us classical fans a bad name in some places, so it kind of really winds me up to no end...

I don't think James has a definition of what "greatness" is. At least JDP tries- once he said "Bach is the greatest composer because he combines the highest complexity with the highest interest." That's actually a pretty decent attempt, except for the fact that interest is subjective.

"Greatness" is probably a term that shouldn't be used. There is:
1. Popularity (how much a composer and their music is liked)
2. Skill/Craftsmanship

I think most of us add up these two qualities, whether intentional or not, to define "greatness," such as in polls like these (ten greatest vs. ten favorites). But adding two unlike things just produces something bizarre. It's like adding up a real number and an imaginary number to produce a complex number.

Quote from: Sforzando on February 16, 2011, 02:30:46 PM
Since the comma-free version of this thread has been locked, I was pointing out that Greg, being an American, was following established American punctuation, which (though neither logical nor consistent) is the way we do things here. Videlicet:

"Closing quotation marks go inside commas," and "periods."
"Closing quotation marks go outside semicolons"; as well as "colons":
"Closing quotation marks go inside exclamation points when the whole sentence functions as an exclamation!"
Closing quotation marks go outside exclamation points when "only a part of the sentence functions as an exclamation"!
"Do exclamation point rules apply also to questions?" Yes.

BTW, if the paragraph ends with a quote with suspension points (as when  the quotation is incomplete), I guess the period is not put inside the quotation marks.

Example:

John said: "This rule is completely illogical...".  :)

Quote from: Eusebius on February 16, 2011, 12:53:55 AM
+1.

Actually, I prefer the Choral Fantasie to the last movement of the Ninth by a wide margin.  ;D

We could say anything we want, no doubt. The truth, though, is that Bach was a devout Lutheran, while Beethoven was an unconventionally-devout-bordering-on-deism-and-pantheism* Catholic.


* yet these "heresies" did not hinder him receiving the Last Rites, nor the Church burying him in consecrated ground with a Requiem Mass.

Not sure that I would call Beethoven a Catholic. He believed in a Creator, but I can't recall him ever referring to Jesus Christ or the Roman Catholic Church.

Quote from: Eusebius on February 16, 2011, 06:13:34 AM
One can forget about morality occasionally, but one should not slap it in the face --- Arthur Schopenhauer

Or knock one's landlady down the stairs.

Greg put his comma in the wrong place and when I replied I forgot to put the comma in the right place. A few minutes later I wanted to change some wording in my text and I clicked on Modify. It didn't work the way I thought it would. Now it appears that my remark on page 2 that prompted several comments on page 3 of Greg's thread somehow ended up as a new thread. I have no idea how and it certainly wasn't my intention to take over his thread. As to Scarpia's remark I have noticed that many threads run on for years and, yes, there were some that I replied to that were quite old. I often go back and check old threads to see if anyone else has added a comment or two. I also spent a good two weeks rummaging many of your threads before I even began to make comments of my own.

Quote from: Antoine Marchand on February 16, 2011, 04:31:40 PM
BTW, if the paragraph ends with a quote with suspension points (as when  the quotation is incomplete), I guess the period is not put inside the quotation marks.

Example:

John said: "This rule is completely illogical...".  :)

Correct. No final period after the ellipses and quotation mark.

 Aside from the question of who is greater (if the question even makes real sense), Bach's Well Tempered Clavier was a foundational instruction book for young pianists of succeeding generations including Beethoven. Additionally it provided examples in every key and helped rid the musical world of tunings which did not allow excursions into keys distant from the tonic. Also its inspired short compositions nurtured the imaginations of generations of young composers, his use of complex subtle harmony as exemplary as his counterpoint. Beethoven had high praise for the WTC and for Bach, even though his knowledge of the old master's compositions was limited, as this was before Mendelssohn got the Bach revival underway. It is relatively easy to see Bach's influence after the Bach revival. But even before it, Bach was an important influence in the development of music, through the WTC and a few other compositions which remained prominent while most of his work had sunk into neglect.

Quote from: RJR on February 16, 2011, 06:14:59 PM
Greg put his comma in the wrong place and when I replied I forgot to put the comma in the right place.

Hmmm... must mean nearly everything I've ever read that does it like that is wrong, too?... or are you saying I should use a hyphen (-) instead?

QuoteIt didn't work the way I thought it would. Now it appears that my remark on page 2 that prompted several comments on page 3 of Greg's thread somehow ended up as a new thread.

That's weird...

Quote from: RJR on February 16, 2011, 06:14:59 PM
Greg put his comma in the wrong place

Why do you say that?

Quote from: グレグ格雷格그래그-G on February 16, 2011, 03:07:13 PM
It's like adding up a real number and an imaginary number to produce a complex number.

What's weird about complex numbers? I think they are great. ;D

Quote from: Sforzando on February 16, 2011, 02:18:24 PM
Thanks, but I'll continue to overrate them.

Oh, please do --- just be sure you define them correctly.  ;D :P

Quote from: RJR on February 16, 2011, 05:40:14 PM
Not sure that I would call Beethoven a Catholic. He believed in a Creator, but I can't recall him ever referring to Jesus Christ or the Roman Catholic Church.

He wasn't a devout Catholic, for sure, and all the above is correct. But he didn't explicitly reject his Catholic upbringing or his formal membership in the RCC, and --- which is of paramount importance --- he did not reject the last rites. Now, Beethoven was a boldly frank person, and he would surely not refrained from denouncing and renouncing the RCC if that's how he felt.

If the question was "who's music do you prefer to listen to?" I'd go with Bach, primarily because of his sacred cantata cycles.

However the question was to do with greatness.

I would say that because of the sheer breadth of musical forms that he wrote so consistenly well for and also the extent to which his musical voice developed so dramatically during his composing life I would go with Beethoven.

Quote from: RJR on February 16, 2011, 06:14:59 PM
As to Scarpia's remark I have noticed that many threads run on for years and, yes, there were some that I replied to that were quite old. I often go back and check old threads to see if anyone else has added a comment or two. I also spent a good two weeks rummaging many of your threads before I even began to make comments of my own.

Many threads do run for a long time, but a thread that hasn't received a post for years has died a probably deserved death. When you start posting in numerous old threads, especially with cursory responses that don't lend themselves to new discussion, you bury the new and active threads that most members are following.

Quote from: Sforzando on February 16, 2011, 06:42:16 PM
Correct. No final period after the ellipses and quotation mark.

Thanks, Sforzando. It has been interesting to learn these particularities of the American English. I won't use your rules because -as everybody recognizes- they are highly illogical, but I love this kind of knowledge.  :)   

Quote from: Antoine Marchand on February 17, 2011, 03:09:22 AM
Thanks, Sforzando. It has been interesting to learn these particularities of the American English. I won't use your rules because -as everybody recognizes- they are highly illogical, but I love this kind of knowledge.  :)

Well, this is logical to me:

"Well," she replied, "there isn't much logic in that!"

because if you drop she replied you are left with Well, there isn't much logic in that! --- which is just the way it should be.

But

Who is "greater," Bach or Beethoven?

is highly illogical (and I'm not even sure it is grammatically correct). The quotation marks here are not quite quoting anything: their function is to show that greater in the context has a rather elusive meaning and is not to be taken literally. The comma has nothing to do with this and its proper place should be outside the quotation marks, where the logic of its grammatical function dictates it should be placed.

Quote from: Antoine Marchand on February 17, 2011, 03:09:22 AM
I won't use [USAmerican] rules because -as everybody recognizes- they are highly illogical

[A new case for a vendetta. ;D] ;)

Quotebut I love this kind of knowledge.  :)

Many months ago, I mentioned this another thread, but I don't know if you saw it: http://www.worldwidewords.org/index.htm A wonderful site about English usage, etymology and stuff.

Quote from: Eusebius on February 17, 2011, 03:22:14 AM
Well, this is logical to me:

"Well," she replied, "there isn't much logic in that!"

because if you drop she replied you are left with Well, there isn't much logic in that! --- which is just the way it should be.

But

Who is "greater," Bach or Beethoven?

is highly illogical (and I'm not even sure it is grammatically correct). The quotation marks here are not quite quoting anything: their function is to show that greater in the context has a rather elusive meaning and is not to be taken literally. The comma has nothing to do with this and its proper place should be outside the quotation marks, where the logic of its grammatical function dictates it should be placed.

I believe that American and British English may differ on this point. In American English, the rule is that the comma goes inside the quotation regardless of logic. But I believe that British English may allow your variation. The rules get a bit more specific when the discussion turns to other punctuation marks. But perhaps a question for Cato's thread...

Quote from: mc ukrneal on February 17, 2011, 04:13:09 AM
I believe that American and British English may differ on this point. In American English, the rule is that the comma goes inside the quotation regardless of logic. But I believe that British English may allow your variation. The rules get a bit more specific when the discussion turns to other punctuation marks. But perhaps a question for Cato's thread...

Would Shakespeare and the other writers of his time, who gave a great creative jolt to the language, have given a waste-object about this issue (To put it in a way suitable to a family-type forum) ? [or] "(To put it in a way suitable to a family-type forum.?)."?

Quote from: Chaszz on February 17, 2011, 06:06:29 AM
Would Shakespeare and the other writers of his time, who gave a great creative jolt to the language, have given a waste-object about this issue (To put it in a way suitable to a family-type forum.) ? [or] "(To put it in a way suitable to a family-type forum.?)."?

In short; no.

If someone wants to start a punctuation thread in the Diner, feel free. Otherwise, any further posts on that subject will be binned. This topic was already silly enough before this all started ::)

8)

Quote from: Gurnatron5500 on February 17, 2011, 06:09:51 AM
In short; no.

If someone wants to start a punctuation thread in the Diner, feel free. Otherwise, any further posts on that subject will be binned. This topic was already silly enough before this all started ::)

8)

I'm a little confused.  I think the question of whether a comma belongs inside or outside of quotation marks is much more substantial and interesting than whether Bach is "greater" than Beethoven.  And I'm not kidding.

Quote from: Scarpia on February 17, 2011, 02:48:44 PM
I'm a little confused.  I think the question of whether a comma belongs inside or outside of quotation marks is much more substantial and interesting than whether Bach is "greater" than Beethoven.  And I'm not kidding.

Quote from: Gurnatron5500 on February 17, 2011, 06:09:51 AM
....This topic was already silly enough before this all started ::)

This should actually tell you my own feelings. The comma thing deserved 1 or 2 posts, the other thing didn't deserve any. And yet here we all are... 

8)

Quote from: Antoine Marchand on February 16, 2011, 06:01:54 AM
... or, at least, badly defined.  :)

A more palatable statement.

Quote from: Sid on February 16, 2011, 02:47:11 PM
Maybe I'm being pedantic but his negativity and snobbism is what gives us classical fans a bad name in some places

Having a bad name in certain places (specifically, the places that do not appreciate classical music, or great art in general) is actually a sign you are doing something right.

Quote from: Gurnatron5500 on February 17, 2011, 06:09:51 AM
In short; no.

If someone wants to start a punctuation thread in the Diner, feel free. Otherwise, any further posts on that subject will be binned. This topic was already silly enough before this all started ::)

8)

Gurn, are you a moderator here? I had no idea (awestruck)....

Quote from: Chaszz on February 17, 2011, 04:15:36 PM
Gurn, are you a moderator here? I had no idea (awestruck)....

Chaszz, yes, it has been my cross to bear for lo these many years, since I first knew you in fact. I am the one that can be counted on for crankiness. :)

8)

----------------
Now playing:
Scottish National Orchestra / Neeme Jarvi - Rimsky-Korsakov Orchestral Suite from 'Le Coq d'Or'  pt 4 - Wedding Feast - Death of King Dodon - Finale

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on February 17, 2011, 03:00:38 PM
Having a bad name in certain places (specifically, the places that do not appreciate classical music, or great art in general) is actually a sign you are doing something right.

This negative discourse of flogging people who don't appreciate "great art" is exactly what I'm talking about. The more you put yourself on a pedestal away from the plebs, the more classical music will be seen as something untouchable to the everyday person. Former Chinese leader Mao Tse Tung had that exact opinion - he said classical music was for the aristocracy, not for the common people, and banned it for decades in China. History has proven him wrong, classical music is now quite popular in that country. I think classical music can be accessed by anybody with a reasonable degree of flexibility and interest. The more we label it as superior to other types or traditions of music, the less other people will be willing to embrace it wholeheartedly, imo. By elevating it too much, we make it inaccessible, and it can be in danger of becoming a relic, like say ancient Greek music...

Quote from: Sid on February 17, 2011, 08:03:12 PM
This negative discourse of flogging people who don't appreciate "great art" is exactly what I'm talking about. The more you put yourself on a pedestal away from the plebs, the more classical music will be seen as something untouchable to the everyday person. Former Chinese leader Mao Tse Tung had that exact opinion - he said classical music was for the aristocracy, not for the common people, and banned it for decades in China. History has proven him wrong, classical music is now quite popular in that country. I think classical music can be accessed by anybody with a reasonable degree of flexibility and interest. The more we label it as superior to other types or traditions of music, the less other people will be willing to embrace it wholeheartedly, imo. By elevating it too much, we make it inaccessible, and it can be in danger of becoming a relic, like say ancient Greek music...

Well said, Sid. I couldn't agree more.

Quote from: Sid on February 17, 2011, 08:03:12 PM
The more you put yourself on a pedestal away from the plebs, the more classical music will be seen as something untouchable to the everyday person.

Yet, the exact opposite is occurring. The more classical music is seen as no better then the average music appreciated by the every day person, the less incentive people have to put the extra effort required to enjoy it. Anti-elitism is not the solution, it is the problem.

Quote from: Sid on February 17, 2011, 08:03:12 PM
Former Chinese leader Mao Tse Tung had that exact opinion - he said classical music was for the aristocracy, not for the common people, and banned it for decades in China. History has proven him wrong, classical music is now quite popular in that country.

What makes you think the current situation in China isn't a direct result of Tse Tung's elitist stance in the first place? Classical music is after all seen as something prestigious in China. Where do you think they got the notion in the first place?

Quote from: Sid on February 17, 2011, 08:03:12 PM
I think classical music can be accessed by anybody with a reasonable degree of flexibility and interest.

Yeah but what for? If it isn't really better then other forms of music, why should anybody care? It took me nearly one year before i was able to fully understand Bach. You tell me why anybody would want to put themselves through such an ordeal unless they knew there was a big pay off at the end of it.

Quote from: Sid on February 17, 2011, 08:03:12 PMThe more we label it as superior to other types or traditions of music, the less other people will be willing to embrace it wholeheartedly, imo.

Yet, like i said, the exact opposite is occurring. People will embrace something only if it draws their interest or if it elicits their respect. In order to sell classical music to the masses you have to make it worth their time, and the best way to do that is to simply stand your ground to the truth. Classical music IS superior to most musical forms and traditions. Lowering the standard of classical art in order to pander to the masses is not only extremely arrogant and condescending (you are essentially admitting that the every day person is too stupid to understand classical music, so we need to lower it to their level. I can't think of anything more insulting), but its also counter productive. Young people in particular do not care about classical music or anything of great value at all, because they have never been imparted the right values and standards.

Quote from: Sid on February 17, 2011, 08:03:12 PM
By elevating it too much, we make it inaccessible.

It is already inaccessible to most people by its very nature. By elevating it to its rightful standard we are merely being honest. Tricking the every day person into thinking classical music can be as easily understood and enjoyed as the latest popular fad is an admission to their inadequacy, which like i said is extremely insulting. Upholding a standard is not a form of snobbery, its a service to humanity. Without values and standards there is no reason for anybody to ever better themselves, and our culture will quickly descent into the most primitive and base of human impulses, which is what is happening in the first place. Every generation seems to be worst than the previous one, can't you see that? This is what young people are flocking to this days:

http://visit-x.net/rammstein/

(The video in question is called "Pussy (unzensiert)". Careful, the warning of the site is fully justified)

How far are we going to let our civilization degrade? When is the time when we can just put our foot down and start upholding the right values?

BTW, i thought this might be pertinent here:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704364004576132671193830818.html

Quote from: Scarpia on February 17, 2011, 02:48:44 PM
I'm a little confused.  I think the question of whether a comma belongs inside or outside of quotation marks is much more substantial and interesting than whether Bach is "greater" than Beethoven.  And I'm not kidding.

Neither was I, which is why I pursued it. But at the risk of being "binned" (kindly note how the usual comma rule is affected by the parentheses in American usage), I will not reply to the objection raised by "Eusebius," other than to say I was correct in what I stated.

Now actually Sid and JdP are starting to raise "interesting issues . . . ." 

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on February 18, 2011, 03:26:23 AM
BTW, i thought this might be pertinent here:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704364004576132671193830818.html

QuoteTo test out a correlation between intelligence and preferring the nonvocal classics, researchers drew on the 1993 edition of the General Social Survey, conducted by the National Opinion Research Center. The 1,600 participants were asked to rate their enjoyment of 18 musical genres on a 1-to-5 scale. Half also took a vocabulary test, converted to an IQ score.

After statistically correcting for socioeconomic factors, the researchers found that higher IQ did, indeed, predict a preference for instrumental over vocal music. The researcher's "instrumental" genres were classical, big band and easy listening. Those who liked classical music a lot had an average IQ of 107; those who hated it scored 93.

Ok, but what were the "vocal" genres? I strongly suspect they were not opera, cantatas or lieder.  ;D

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on February 17, 2011, 11:57:57 PM
It is already inaccessible to most people by its very nature. By elevating it to its rightful standard we are merely being honest. Tricking the every day person into thinking classical music can be as easily understood and enjoyed as the latest popular fad is an admission to their inadequacy, which like i said is extremely insulting.

Why is classical music inaccessible? I've missed that somewhere.

The reason I think it is totally accessable is due to other forms of entertainment. In most movies, people here some sort of classical piece. People don't leave the Shawshank Redemption saying I liked that movie, but the scene with that foreign singing sure was strange. 2001 is a film classic enjoyed by millions. Even better, kids love Tom and Jerry, and classical music is spread throughout that series. The one where they fight during the playing of Liszt's Hunagrian Rhapsody is a classic (and very popular). Much classical music is easily understood and was meant to be played at home or in the salon.  And music from the romantic period is often very impressionistic and doesn't necessarily require additional study. I would have no problems saying that about Tchaikovsky's 5th or Beethoven's 6th as examples.

I don't think the reason it is less popular is because it is more difficult (at least I believe it plays a minor role). I think it is because it is considered uncool (and for reasons like this) or rather, other music is cooler.

If I understand JdP correctly --- and I think I do --- he argues that, if classical music is thought and spoken of as just one "genre" among others, having nothing special about it, nor being in any way superior to others, then one might indeed retort: "Then what's the point in taking the time-consuming pain of listening and studying it, if the pleasure I derive from Lady Gaga is just the same as I would from Ich habe genug? Why do I need to sit quiet through two hours of one guy playing some quiet and effeminate piano music, when it's the same as a raw, energetic and sexually-ridden Rammstein concert?"

I think he does have a point.

Quote from: mc ukrneal on February 18, 2011, 04:53:52 AM
Much classical music is easily understood and was meant to be played at home or in the salon.

A point well-made. But this requires some conditions that in the contemporary society are rarely met:

1. there is at least one classical music instrument in the home;
2. at least one member of the family has took the interest and pain to study it at a profficient enough level as to be able to play a score;
3. there are family members or friends who met (1) and (2) and are interested in music-making;
4. they have time to spare.

Now, I wonder: what's the percentage of homes across Western world that meet the above criteria?

Quote from: Eusebius on February 18, 2011, 05:21:21 AM
If I understand JdP correctly --- and I think I do --- he argues that, if classical music is thought and spoken of as just one "genre" among others, having nothing special about it, nor being in any way superior to others, then one might indeed retort: "Then what's the point in taking the time-consuming pain of listening and studying it, if the pleasure I derive from Lady Gaga is just the same as I would from Ich habe genug? Why do I need to sit quiet through two hours of one guy playing some quiet and effeminate piano music, when it's the same as a raw, energetic and sexually-ridden Rammstein concert?"

I think he does have a point.

I would argue that indeed there is no difference and that there is no reason to sit through two hours except you might enjoy it (and that may mean different things to different people). But most classical music does not require two hours to enjoy it. So the point of doing it is the same as other music - it enriches your life in some way.

Quote from: Eusebius on February 18, 2011, 05:21:21 AM
A point well-made. But this requires some conditions that in the contemporary society are rarely met:

1. there is at least one classical music instrument in the home;
2. at least one member of the family has took the interest and pain to study it at a profficient enough level as to be able to play a score;
3. there are family members or friends who met (1) and (2) and are interested in music-making;
4. they have time to spare.

Now, I wonder: what's the percentage of homes across Western world that meet the above criteria?

I'm not sure why there is this standard for classical music and not for other music. What you say could equally apply to jazz, rock, pop, etc. The point I was trying to make (perhaps not clearly) is that much classical music was intended for a mass audience. True, the people who then had to play it had to know an instrument and all that, but again, the same is true if you want to play other forms of music.

Quote from: mc ukrneal on February 18, 2011, 05:34:41 AM
The point I was trying to make (perhaps not clearly) is that much classical music was intended for a mass audience.

Now you've lost me completely. Some examples might help me understand you better.

Quote from: Eusebius on February 18, 2011, 05:43:26 AM
Now you've lost me completely. Some examples might help me understand you better.

I'm thinking of 19th century songs and/or piano music in particular. There were numerous amateurs for whom music was written to play at parties or other gatherings and the like. Perhaps Field, Thalberg (variations), perhaps Satie. Liszt and Paganini were virtuosos of course (and quite difficult at times), but had some music that might fit. Songs should be easier to come up with examples, but none are popping into my head.

Quote from: mc ukrneal on February 18, 2011, 05:54:55 AM
I'm thinking of 19th century songs and/or piano music in particular. There were numerous amateurs for whom music was written to play at parties or other gatherings and the like. Perhaps Field, Thalberg (variations), perhaps Satie. Liszt and Paganini were virtuosos of course (and quite difficult at times), but had some music that might fit. Songs should be easier to come up with examples, but none are popping into my head.

I see now, thanks. Yes indeed --- but that's exactly my point: back then, it was "mass" music, because the number of people who were knowledgeable and educated enough to take an interest in it and play it at home was far more larger than it is today. The contemporary "mass" shrunk to a tiny minority.

I do agree that much classical music is enjoyable and fun, but the fun and enjoyment come at the price of the effort invested in listening, studying and / or performing it, things that involve not only one's feelings but also one's intellect --- a far cry from the instant gratification offered by most pop music. And I think it is precisely this effort that puts many of the younger generations off classical music. I want it all and I want it now it's the exact opposite of classical music's spirit. (Be it said from a big Freddy Mercury fan.)

Jazz: yes, this is as close to classical music as it gets and perhaps it is no surprise that kids and youngsters are just afraid of the one as they are of the other.

So I would say yes, there is some kind of "elitism" inherent in classical music: if one is not willing to do the slightest effort, both sentimental and intellectual, to cope with it on its own terms rather than one's own terms, then one would better spend one's time on other pursuits.

One last remark: I'm willing to bet that there is much more scorn and disdain for classical music in pop music fans circles than the other way around.

Quote from: Eusebius on February 18, 2011, 06:15:03 AMAnd I think it is precisely this effort that puts many of the younger generations off classical music. I want it all and I want it now it's the exact opposite of classical music's spirit. (Be it said from a big Freddy Mercury fan.)

I would argue for relevance. Back then, in Europe, along with (not-yet-classical) music, the well-to-do were also required to learn Latin, a couple of branches of maths, and other things if they wanted to make a living and to be accepted within their social circle. Also back then, what many of them played were being produced during their time (much like the pop and other genres of today). And what was being produced for amateurs was not really a compendium of fugal techniques like The Art of the Fugue, which requires many hours of study to decipher, or Chopin's Etudes, which were probably not for the faint of heart. These were rather simple pieces, trying the amateur only slightly. If anything, the current generation should be chastised for not listening to or playing Boulez, Carter and Pendericki, rather than any name from the Canon.

Quote from: Opus106 on February 18, 2011, 06:41:20 AM
If anything, the current generation should be chastised for not listening to or playing Boulez, Carter and Pendericki, rather than any name from the Canon.

I beg to differ. Many names from the Canon, as well as many others not from the Canon, wrote music back then targeting precisely the cultivated dilettanti, of which there were plenty. Hardly the case of Boulez, Carter and Penderecki, whose music requires professional interpreters.

Quote from: Eusebius on February 18, 2011, 06:47:44 AM
I beg to differ. Many names from the Canon, as well as many others not from the Canon, wrote music back then targeting precisely the cultivated dilettanti, of which there were plenty. Hardly the case of Boulez, Carter and Penderecki, whose music requires professional interpreters.

Okay, I agree that the last line was a bit over the top.

Well I think you all make good points, but my earlier post was obviously OT so I won't continue to fuel the fire. I was basically reacting negatively to James' earlier post where he suggested that people who like Beethoven over J.S. Bach should "know better." This I consider elitist rubbish to the extreme. If I said this kind of thing in real life to people I know who like classical music they'd think I'm a turkey. & they'd basically be right. It's kind of like saying there's something wrong in you liking apples over bananas. Absurd...

Quote from: Sid on February 18, 2011, 03:51:10 PM
Well I think you all make good points, but my earlier post was obviously OT so I won't continue to fuel the fire. I was basically reacting negatively to James' earlier post where he suggested that people who like Beethoven over J.S. Bach should "know better." This I consider elitist rubbish to the extreme. If I said this kind of thing in real life to people I know who like classical music they'd think I'm a turkey. & they'd basically be right. It's kind of like saying there's something wrong in you liking apples over bananas. Absurd...

That's right. Either elitist rubbish or acting retarded, I think...

Quote from: mc ukrneal on February 18, 2011, 04:53:52 AM
Why is classical music inaccessible? I've missed that somewhere.

The reason I think it is totally accessable is due to other forms of entertainment. In most movies, people here some sort of classical piece. People don't leave the Shawshank Redemption saying I liked that movie, but the scene with that foreign singing sure was strange. 2001 is a film classic enjoyed by millions. Even better, kids love Tom and Jerry, and classical music is spread throughout that series. The one where they fight during the playing of Liszt's Hunagrian Rhapsody is a classic (and very popular). Much classical music is easily understood and was meant to be played at home or in the salon.  And music from the romantic period is often very impressionistic and doesn't necessarily require additional study. I would have no problems saying that about Tchaikovsky's 5th or Beethoven's 6th as examples.

I don't think the reason it is less popular is because it is more difficult (at least I believe it plays a minor role). I think it is because it is considered uncool (and for reasons like this) or rather, other music is cooler.

This is a disingenuous argument. The point is not to have people listening to classical music, whether its the Art of Fugue or Beethoven's Fur Elise (as if there is no difference between the two), but to preserve the integrity of the art, to maintain and propagate those traits that make it great in the first place. Its irrelevant whether Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsody is as popular as the latest hit by Lady Gaga. That's completely and utterly besides the point. At this point you are just playing with semantics here, because there's classical, and then there's classical.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on February 19, 2011, 01:03:53 AM
This is a disingenuous argument. The point is not to have people listening to classical music, whether its the Art of Fugue or Beethoven's Fur Elise (as if there is no difference between the two), but to preserve the integrity of the art, to maintain and propagate those traits that make it great in the first place. Its irrelevant whether Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsody is as popular as the latest hit by Lady Gaga. That's completely and utterly besides the point. At this point you are just playing with semantics here, because there's classical, and then there's classical.

Well, I couldn't disagree more with anything you have written in this thread. There is just classical and it is accessable to anyone who wants to listen.

Quote from: mc ukrneal on February 18, 2011, 05:34:41 AM
I would argue that indeed there is no difference and that there is no reason to sit through two hours except you might enjoy it.

Hence, why nobody bothers listening to classical music. If it isn't really greater, there is nothing to justify the effort. I might enjoy it, sure, but if there are lot of other things that i can enjoy in equal manner with a fraction of the effort, so why bother? The problem, like i said, is not to have people listening to classical in the greatest possible numbers, even if it means most of them are just listening to some catchy tune with no real artistic value (but hey, its classical!). The point is to preserve this art form. The object is not to entertain people, but to protect something that is objectively of greater value then all the 50 cents or Lady Gagas in the world, who's value to posterity is precisely zero.

And of course, besides all that, you are just wrong, plain and simple. Classical music is in fact at once greater, more complex and more profound then most forms of popular music. That is why it demands greater effort from the listener.

Quote from: mc ukrneal on February 18, 2011, 05:34:41 AM
But most classical music does not require two hours to enjoy it.

The one that matters does.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on February 19, 2011, 01:13:55 AM


The one that matters does.

Utter nonsense. Just lsiten to a Beethoven Sonata

Quote from: mc ukrneal on February 19, 2011, 01:13:20 AM
There is just classical and it is accessable to anyone who wants to listen.

No. There is only great art and its only accessible to those who want to put the proper effort into it. If you delude the art form in order to appeal to undeveloped tastes it loses all of its meaning. We might as well forget that Beethoven and Bach even existed because it makes no difference at this point. Your type of thinking is an hindrance to cultural development.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on February 19, 2011, 01:13:55 AM
Classical music is in fact at once greater, more complex and more profound then most forms of popular music. That is why it demands greater effort from the listener.

It can be, but it doesn;t have to be. This is a personal decision in many cases. Depends on more than just education of the listener.

Quote from: mc ukrneal on February 19, 2011, 01:15:59 AM
Utter nonsense. Just lsiten to a Beethoven Sonata

Or better yet, play it in front of somebody who has no understanding of musical development as well as no appreciation for deeper forms of expression and see what happens.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on February 19, 2011, 01:16:40 AM
No. There is only great art and its only accessible to those who want to put the proper effort into it. If you delude the art form in order to appeal to undeveloped tastes it loses all of its meaning.

No. I am really at a loss for words that you would actually write this.

Quote from: mc ukrneal on February 19, 2011, 01:18:29 AM
It can be, but it doesn;t have to be.

Yes it does. Either wise there is no point to it. It seems like we are running in circles here. Besides, what is so terrible about people improving and developing themselves in order to appreciate higher forms of art? Why is this so unacceptable to you? You actually prefer that people remain ignorant? That they never strive to improve themselves, to elevate their consciousness to greater things?

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on February 19, 2011, 01:21:33 AM
Besides, what is so terrible about people improving and developing themselves in order to appreciate higher forms of art? What is this so unacceptable to you?

The problem is your charaterization of music as a 'higher form of art'. We simply won't agree on this.

Quote from: mc ukrneal on February 19, 2011, 01:25:12 AM
The problem is your charaterization of music as a 'higher form of art'. We simply won't agree on this.

But its the truth. Beethoven is in fact greater then Lady Gaga. You'd have to be insane to even argue this point.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on February 19, 2011, 01:26:51 AM
But its the truth.

Perhaps it's your truth.

Quote from: mc ukrneal on February 19, 2011, 01:28:47 AM
Perhaps it's your truth.

Truth is absolute, more so when the comparison is so easy. If i had said Beethoven was greater then Chopin, i would expected a pretty strong objection. But Lady Gaga? Please.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on February 19, 2011, 01:33:36 AM
Truth is absolute, more so when the comparison is so easy. If i had said Beethoven was greater then Chopin, i would expected a pretty strong objection. But Lady Gaga? Please.

No - truth is also relative. In any case, I never mentioned Lady Gaga and I don't know why you have brought her up. She is irrelevent to the discussion.

Anyway, I'm off to lunch...

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on February 19, 2011, 01:26:51 AM
Beethoven is in fact greater then Lady Gaga. You'd have to be insane to even argue this point.

Are millions of Lady Gaga fans insane or perhaps just misled by marketing forces?

It's possible to learn to appreciate "the higher arts" but that doesn't mean we have to forget the "lower arts". I can enjoy J. S. Bach's Fugues as well as simple pop songs. Hardcore/breakbeat music  from the golden era 1991-1992 always makes me feel extremely good. If that is not relevant then what is?

Quote from: mc ukrneal on February 19, 2011, 01:39:06 AM
No - truth is also relative.

Wrong. Truth is absolute and universal.

Quote from: mc ukrneal on February 19, 2011, 01:39:06 AM
In any case, I never mentioned Lady Gaga and I don't know why you have brought her up. She is irrelevent to the discussion.

She is very relevant, since we were discussing the undeveloped tastes of the masses vis a vis great classical art.

Quote from: 71 dB on February 19, 2011, 02:05:33 AM
Are millions of Lady Gaga fans insane or perhaps just misled by marketing forces?

They are the product of a society that recognizes no values nor standards.

Quote from: 71 dB on February 19, 2011, 02:05:33 AM
Hardcore/breakbeat music  from the golden era 1991-1992 always makes me feel extremely good.

Your taste in popular music is truly abysmal.

At any rate, you know what else feels good? Drugs, junk food and pornography. Doesn't mean any of those things are good for us. "Feels good" has never been a good measure for value.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on February 19, 2011, 02:22:56 AM
Your taste in popular music is truly abysmal.

I must be a product of a society that recognizes no values nor standards...

It's not my problem if you don't get the values of Dance Conspiracy's Dub War, Liquid's Sweet Harmony, SL2's DJ's Take Control, The Prodigy's Weather Experience or Isotonik's Different Strokes.

This music isn't even "popular" music. It is underground dance music, made to make cultural statements with ambition rather than money.

The popular music I like is the kind of music that tries to be ambitious while having some commercial appeal. For example the Danish rock band Kashmir.

You are eager to judge people. I hope your own life is in perfect order.

Quote from: mc ukrneal on February 18, 2011, 05:34:41 AM
But most classical music does not require two hours to enjoy it.

A typical concert, whether chamber or symphonic, lasts about two hours.

Quote from: Eusebius on February 19, 2011, 07:25:14 AM
A typical concert, whether chamber or symphonic, lasts about two hours.

And a Mahler marathon lasts for over half a day -- I think you are missing Neal's point. There are many levels at which "art" music can be enjoyed and appreciated. If one wants to delve deep into technicalities of structure, even a short prelude for solo piano may take longer to be analysed than sitting at a concert would. But if like many of us who do not know how to read music, let alone have an academic understanding of it, one can still listen to a few of Chopin's nocturnes, lasting hardly thirty minutes, and still come out of it having experienced something wonderful (or not).

Quote from: Opus106 on February 19, 2011, 09:23:50 AM
And a Mahler marathon lasts for over half a day -- I think you are missing Neal's point. There are many levels at which "art" music can be enjoyed and appreciated. If one wants to delve deep into technicalities of structure, even a short prelude for solo piano may take longer to be analysed than sitting at a concert would. But if like many of us who do not know how to read music, let alone have an academic understanding of it, one can still listen to a few of Chopin's nocturnes, lasting hardly thirty minutes, and still come out of it having experienced something wonderful (or not).

Of course, but --- no offense meant --- it's you who miss my point. Take a Rammstein or Lady Gaga fan at random --- what are the chances that s/he'll have the will and patience to listen to a Beethoven sonata or Chopin nocturne?

More generally: turn your TV on MTV for half an hour --- and then please let me know: on what specific levels does it compare to a half-an-hour long classical music recital?

Quote from: Eusebius on February 19, 2011, 09:31:58 AM
Take a Rammstein or Lady Gaga fan at random --- what are the chances that s/he'll have the will and patience to listen to a Beethoven sonata or Chopin nocturne?

Definitely non-zero. 0:) And I'd be more interested in actually performing an experiment than pluck a number out of thin air. Of course, after selecting the person at random, I would also need to take care of extraneous factors like not "embarrassing" them in front of peers and such.

Quote
More generally: turn your TV on MTV for half an hour --- and then please let me know: on what specific levels does it compare to a half-an-hour long classical music recital?

Now, that depends on the person who is actually watching/listening to it.

Quote from: Opus106 on February 19, 2011, 09:42:41 AM
Definitely non-zero. 0:) And I'd be more interested in actually performing an experiment than pluck a number out of thin air.

I'm also very interested in this kind of experiment. How could we make it come true?  :) ???

(BTW, non-zero might mean 40%... but also 0.0075%).  ;D :P

Quote
Of course, after selecting the person at random, I would also need to take care of extraneous factors like not "embarrassing" them in front of peers and such.

Are you implying that it is embarrasing in front of peers for a Lady Gaga / Rammstein fan to listen to Beethoven and Chopin as well?  ???

Quote
Now, that depends on the person who is actually watching/listening to it.

I was asking you, a specific flesh-and-blood person called Navneeth.

Quote from: Eusebius on February 19, 2011, 09:53:21 AM
(BTW, non-zero might mean 40%... but also 0.0075%).  ;D :P

But non-zero is non-zero. I'd be happy with just one "convert".

QuoteAre you implying that it is embarrasing in front of peers for a Lady Gaga / Rammstein fan to listen to Beethoven and Chopin as well?  ???

I'm suggesting that the person might react differently (intentionally) if asked to 'rate' a classical piece in front of their peers. [Oh, that's some lame piece of <expletive>, dude.]

Quote
I was asking you, a specific flesh-and-blood person called Navneeth.

Me? I would of course choose classical concert over MTV. But that's just me.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on February 19, 2011, 01:26:51 AM
But its the truth. Beethoven is in fact greater then Lady Gaga. You'd have to be insane to even argue this point.

Although I agree, you have to keep in mind that they are trying to do completely different things with their music. Beethoven is greater at writing Beethoven music and Lady Gaga is better at writing stupid music.

"Greatness" and "Greater" are terms that are so vague that I don't think they should be used. Beethoven plays a much more advanced game, and it takes waaaaaaaaaaaaaay more skill and musical knowledge to write his music than does Lady Gaga. But, of course, she's not trying to be Beethoven, either.


Btw, who did you vote for?  :P

I don't support diluting musical high art to attract the masses; I do support exposure to classical music in the schools.

In "mixed" company I take a live and let live attitude, seeing no point in discussing or debating the virtues of classical music vs. pop, rock, country, rap etc.  Within myself, I have no doubt that classical music surpasses other musical forms.

Beethoven is greater than Lady GaGa. Though Beethoven never won a Grammy in his day.

Quote from: Greg on February 19, 2011, 10:19:49 AM
"Greatness" and "Greater" are terms that are so vague that I don't think they should be used. Beethoven plays a much more advanced game, and it takes waaaaaaaaaaaaaay more skill and musical knowledge to write his music than does Lady Gaga.

Indeed, the only objective aspect of comparison is the relative complexity of their respective musics. (Can I say musics? :-\)

Quote from: Opus106 on February 19, 2011, 10:33:44 AM
Indeed, the only objective aspect of comparison is the relative complexity of their respective musics. (Can I say musics? :-\)

Perfectly legitimate word referring to discrete classes of music.   $:)

8)

----------------
Now playing:
Scottish National Orchestra / Neeme Jarvi - Rimsky-Korsakov Orchestral Suite from 'Le Coq d'Or'  pt 3 - Queen of Shemakha's Dance - King Dodon's Dance

Quote from: Greg on February 19, 2011, 10:19:49 AMLady Gaga is better at writing stupid music.

So funnily said I laughed!   :D  :D  :D

Quote from: Gurnatron5500 on February 19, 2011, 10:44:59 AM
Perfectly legitimate word referring to discrete classes of music.   $:)

Thanks. :)

Quote from: Bulldog on February 19, 2011, 10:23:35 AMWithin myself, I have no doubt that classical music surpasses other musical forms.

My father thinks jazz is greater music than classical.

Quote from: Opus106 on February 19, 2011, 10:00:25 AM
I'm suggesting that the person might react differently (intentionally) if asked to 'rate' a classical piece in front of their peers.

This implies that the person is just "another brick in the wall". who either can't / won't think for himself or is afraid of expressing his thoughts if they happen to go against peer pressure.  ;D

Quote
Me? I would of course choose classical concert over MTV. But that's just me.

It's not just you, it's at least me (and JdP) as well, the difference being that I (or he) have no fear proclaiming it out loud: most (and I mean 99%) contemporary pop music is crap, and contrary to ukrneal's* claims, if anything, it impoverishes one's life --- because more often than not it draws one away from the true sources of beauty and truth. Now, of course, if one equates the beauty and truth as expressed by Bach or Beethoven with the vulgarity and bad-taste (on all levels, from the music itself to the visual "story" it tells) which is the trademark of most (and I mean 99%) contemporary pop music, any discussion is useless. To put it mildly, I have never been a fan of cultural relativism.  ;D

* I hasten to add that ukrneal's classical music taste, especially concerning rare opera recordings, is impeccable!  0:)

Quote from: Greg on February 19, 2011, 10:19:49 AM
Btw, who did you vote for?  :P

Beethoven, but this tells all about me, not about Bach.

Quote from: Bulldog on February 19, 2011, 10:23:35 AM
I don't support diluting musical high art to attract the masses; I do support exposure to classical music in the schools.

In "mixed" company I take a live and let live attitude, seeing no point in discussing or debating the virtues of classical music vs. pop, rock, country, rap etc.  Within myself, I have no doubt that classical music surpasses other musical forms.

Me loves Bulldog.  8)

I don't see the point comparing popular music which many would argue isn't that great with classical music that most think is great, I'd compare like with like.

Quote from: Eusebius on February 19, 2011, 10:56:07 AM
This implies that the person is just "another brick in the wall". who either can't / won't think for himself or is afraid of expressing his thoughts if they happen to go against peer pressure.  ;D

It's a fair assumption. Also, their free-thinking abilities (or a lack of it) need not have anything to do with their appreciation, to use the term loosely, of classical music.

Quote
To put it mildly, I have never been a fan of cultural relativism.  ;D

Well, there you go.

Quote from: Opus106 on February 19, 2011, 11:10:37 AM
their free-thinking abilities (or a lack of it) need not have anything to do with their appreciation of classical music.

Agreed. The ability to think is (1) innate; (2a) fostered by a classical education system,; (2b) hindered by a postmodern (i.e, contemporary) educational system; (3) cultivated by one's personal commitment to it.

It is my firm conviction, based on personal experience, that among contemporary (and I mean 99%) pop music fans one encounters more often than not (2b) and the opposite of (3). Of course, (2b) is not their fault and the opposite of (3) is a sad consequence of (2b) --- but this is a completely different discussion.

Quote from: Eusebius on February 19, 2011, 10:56:07 AM
This implies that the person is just "another brick in the wall". who either can't / won't think for himself or is afraid of expressing his thoughts if they happen to go against peer pressure.  ;D

Can't that be the case with classical music as well?

Quote from: 71 dB on February 19, 2011, 10:55:03 AM
My father thinks jazz is greater music than classical.

I'd entertain the question.

Quote from: starrynight on February 19, 2011, 03:07:16 PM
Can't that be the case with classical music as well?

I don't quite get it.  ??? Please be more specific.

Quote from: Eusebius on February 20, 2011, 08:00:17 AM
I don't quite get it.  ??? Please be more specific.

I may be misreading, but my thought when I read that was along the lines "everyone on this forum likes Beethoven, therefore I must like Beethoven even if I think he sucks... :P ". I was taking a totally outrageous situation to be overly dramatic there, of course.... :)

8) 


----------------
Now playing:
Czech PO \ Kletzki - Op 125 Symphony #9 in d 4th mvmt - Presto - Allegro assai - "Ode to Joy"

Quote from: Gurnatron5500 on February 20, 2011, 08:32:27 AM
"everyone on this forum likes Beethoven, therefore I must like Beethoven even if I think he sucks... :P ".

I see. Well, I can't think of any such instance on GMG --- not with Beethoven nor any other composer.

Quote from: Eusebius on February 20, 2011, 08:50:45 AM
I see. Well, I can't think of any such instance on GMG --- not with Beethoven nor any other composer.

My interpretation is similar to Gurn's. Of course, what starrynight said -- and what (s)he said is certainly not restricted to GMG -- perhaps need not apply only to liking one composer over others but also to taking some ideas, like the romantic notions of the genius, greatness etc., too seriously just because a majority does.

Quote from: Opus106 on February 20, 2011, 09:10:57 AM
My interpretation is similar to Gurn's. Of course, what starrynight said -- and what (s)he said is certainly not restricted to GMG -- perhaps need not apply only to liking one composer over others but also to taking some ideas, like the romantic notions of the genius, greatness etc., too seriously just because a majority does.

Yes, I agree this can happen --- especially with newcomers. But I think that, as the listening and study develops and deepens, this kind of peer pressure is likely to fade away. I might be wrong, though.

Quote from: Eusebius on February 19, 2011, 10:56:07 AM
It's not just you, it's at least me (and JdP) as well, the difference being that I (or he) have no fear proclaiming it out loud: most (and I mean 99%) contemporary pop music is crap, and contrary to ukrneal's* claims, if anything, it impoverishes one's life --- because more often than not it draws one away from the true sources of beauty and truth. Now, of course, if one equates the beauty and truth as expressed by Bach or Beethoven with the vulgarity and bad-taste (on all levels, from the music itself to the visual "story" it tells) which is the trademark of most (and I mean 99%) contemporary pop music, any discussion is useless. To put it mildly, I have never been a fan of cultural relativism.  ;D

* I hasten to add that ukrneal's classical music taste, especially concerning rare opera recordings, is impeccable!  0:)

Nice to know I got 1 out of 2! :)

I wasn't really trying to make claims about non-classical genres, nor was I trying to compare classical genres. But I sense that ship has sailed, and perhaps a good thing, so I'll just let it lie until the subject comes up again - and I think it will.

Quote from: mc ukrneal on February 20, 2011, 09:58:51 AM
I'll just let it lie until the subject comes up again - and I think it will.

Can we be sure, that you don´t tell lies?

Quote from: aulos on February 20, 2011, 11:01:34 AM
Can we be sure, that you don´t tell lies?

Is this a grammar correction? The expression I am referring to (but playing with) is 'to let sleeping dogs lie' - otherwise, not sure what you mean.

Quote from: mc ukrneal on February 20, 2011, 11:13:05 AM
Is this a grammar correction? The expression I am referring to (but playing with) is 'to let sleeping dogs lie' - otherwise, not sure what you mean.

It is not a correction. I do not know the expression you refer to. To tell the truth, I just felt uncertain whether you meant "lie" or "lie" .

Quote from: Opus106 on February 19, 2011, 09:23:50 AM
And a Mahler marathon lasts for over half a day -- I think you are missing Neal's point. There are many levels at which "art" music can be enjoyed and appreciated. If one wants to delve deep into technicalities of structure, even a short prelude for solo piano may take longer to be analysed than sitting at a concert would. But if like many of us who do not know how to read music, let alone have an academic understanding of it, one can still listen to a few of Chopin's nocturnes, lasting hardly thirty minutes, and still come out of it having experienced something wonderful (or not).

You don't seem to understand Neal's point. He's not arguing over which type of approach one should adopt when listening to music, he is arguing that the average person can enjoy classical music just as much as the real connoisseur, even if we are talking about simple pieces like Beethoven's Für Elise. His argument is quite disingenuous because he is trying to pretend, with false nonchalance, that there is no difference between any given classical composition. A person of average taste can easily be made to appreciate some of the simpler and more approachable classical compositions, but that's entirely besides the point. It doesn't mean that they are actually making any concrete step into appreciating classical music. There is no growth, no individual development, and thus, no real progress.

Quote from: Greg on February 19, 2011, 10:19:49 AM
Although I agree, you have to keep in mind that they are trying to do completely different things with their music. Beethoven is greater at writing Beethoven music and Lady Gaga is better at writing stupid music.

Except that Beethoven's music is greater then Lady Gaga's music. The fact something was meant to be lesser/inferior does no mean it automatically means it is of equal value to something that aimed higher from the outset. If i draw a stick figure on an chalk board i'm not going to pretend it is of equal value and importance to a Rembrandt merely because it was meant to be a stick figure on a chalk board.

It always astonishes me that anyone thinks there is anything new to be said in this argument.  Yes, Bach's "Well Tempered Klavier" is superior to Paper Lace's "The Night Chicago Died."  Shall we move on?

Quote from: Il Barone Scarpia on February 20, 2011, 02:13:16 PM
It always astonishes me that anyone thinks there is anything new to be said in this argument.  Yes, Bach's "Well Tempered Klavier" is superior to Paper Lace's "The Night Chicago Died."  Shall we move on?

That part of the discussion won't be over until every person here swears a blood oath that they buy into it. Because they don't, not in their heart of hearts. Perhaps they don't want to admit to themselves, and especially in public, that they are unintentional elitists because they actually prefer a superior music, and this shatters the egalitarian dream that they are being taught in school these days. I don't know, perhaps my POV is on the harsh side, but I have been trying to reconcile for years why people insist that they are just like everyone else (except for the music they like, oh, and they actually read, stuff like that) why be embarrassed just for liking different music? 

8)

----------------
Now playing:
Costantino Mastroprimiano - Clementi Op 25 #5 Sonata in f# 1st mvmt - Piu tosto allegro con espressione

Quote from: Gurnatron5500 on February 20, 2011, 02:32:57 PM
That part of the discussion won't be over until every person here swears a blood oath that they buy into it. Because they don't, not in their heart of hearts. Perhaps they don't want to admit to themselves, and especially in public, that they are unintentional elitists because they actually prefer a superior music, and this shatters the egalitarian dream that they are being taught in school these days. I don't know, perhaps my POV is on the harsh side, but I have been trying to reconcile for years why people insist that they are just like everyone else (except for the music they like, oh, and they actually read, stuff like that) why be embarrassed just for liking different music? 

8)

[deleted]

There, I almost got drawn into it.   ;D

Quote from: Il Barone Scarpia on February 20, 2011, 02:38:30 PM
[deleted]

There, I almost got drawn into it.   ;D

:D  Yup, near as dammit!  In any case, it can't be settled one way or the other. I have sat in on virtually every argument disguised as a debate that has happened here since 2003 (it's my job, not that I care about outcomes), and I would be hard-pressed to recall one that actually settled anything, or won anyone from one side to another. I am pretty sure that this is the 27th iteration of this particular one... ::)

8)

----------------
Now playing:
Costantino Mastroprimiano - Clementi Op 25 #5 Sonata in f# 3rd mvmt - Presto

There is always peer pressure definitely, doesn't have to be the whole work of a composer, may just be a particular work.  Certainly people new to composers will look first at what is the generally considered best work of a composer, or most famous work.  So among symphonies they will look at Vaughan William's 5th or Shostakovich's 5th for example, though I haven't felt they are the best symphony of either myself.

People always tend to quote the Beethoven example to show this idea is wrong as well, ie he is great and has a big reputation too.  But there are obviously better examples, more specific and less clear cut within classical music, just as there are within other types of music.  And of course it's easy to just fall back on the general traditional opinion on something when faced with the huge amount of music out there. 

Quote from: starrynight on February 20, 2011, 02:47:49 PM
There is always peer pressure definitely, doesn't have to be the whole work of a composer, may just be a particular work.  Certainly people new to composers will look first at what is the generally considered best work of a composer, or most famous work.  So among symphonies they will look at Vaughan William's 5th or Shostakovich's 5th for example, though I haven't felt they are the best symphony of either myself.

People always tend to quote the Beethoven example to show this idea is wrong as well, ie he is great and has a big reputation too.  But there are obviously better examples, more specific and less clear cut within classical music, just as there are within other types of music.

Surely so. And for another example, Dvorak 9, even though I consider the 7th to be his best work. Examples and suggestions seem to choose the 'obvious' ones because being popularly acclaimed makes them a safe choice. So, that is peer pressure on the recommender which is far more subtle than on the potential listener.

I chose Beethoven for my example simply because there are people on this forum, and IIRC, in this very thread, who have stated that they felt forced to either capitulate to Beethoven or else not mention him at all; this due to peer pressure. My personal belief vis-a-vis Beethoven in particular is that I can't imagine a scenario wherein anyone had to ever twist my arm to enjoy listening to him, so I can't relate to being in that position. :-\

8)

----------------
Now playing:
Costantino Mastroprimiano - Clementi Op 25 #6 Sonata in D 2nd mvmt - Un poco andante

Quote from: Gurnatron5500 on February 20, 2011, 08:32:27 AM
. . . "everyone on this forum likes Beethoven, therefore I must like Beethoven even if I think he sucks... :P " . . . .

Well, and didn't Poju say as much? ; )

Quote from: Eusebius on February 20, 2011, 09:20:32 AM
...But I think that, as the listening and study develops and deepens, this kind of peer pressure is likely to fade away...

That assumes that listening and study will deepen--an unwarranted assumption in my experience. :o

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on February 20, 2011, 12:15:23 PM
You don't seem to understand Neal's point. He's not arguing over which type of approach one should adopt when listening to music, he is arguing that the average person can enjoy classical music just as much as the real connoisseur, even if we are talking about simple pieces like Beethoven's Für Elise. His argument is quite disingenuous because he is trying to pretend, with false nonchalance, that there is no difference between any given classical composition...

Is he?  I don't quite see that, but if he is, he's exactly right--as long as we understand the difference between enjoyment and understanding.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on February 20, 2011, 12:21:01 PM
...If i draw a stick figure on an chalk board i'm not going to pretend it is of equal value and importance to a Rembrandt merely because it was meant to be a stick figure on a chalk board.

But even a Strauss waltz is no stick figure! :)

Quote from: Gurnatron5500 on February 20, 2011, 02:32:57 PM
That part of the discussion won't be over until every person here swears a blood oath that they buy into it. Because they don't, not in their heart of hearts. Perhaps they don't want to admit to themselves, and especially in public, that they are unintentional elitists because they actually prefer a superior music, and this shatters the egalitarian dream that they are being taught in school these days. I don't know, perhaps my POV is on the harsh side, but I have been trying to reconcile for years why people insist that they are just like everyone else (except for the music they like, oh, and they actually read, stuff like that) why be embarrassed just for liking different music?

Conversely, why should a classical music fan or even a classical musician be ashamed for liking Lady Gaga or Eminem or whoever wins a Grammy this year?  Can we not like them for different reasons?  Of course I admit the superior complexity, musicality and spirituality of the B minor Mass or the Ninth Symphony, but I can also enjoy Eminem's clever and passionate rhyming.  (I confess that I've never actually listened to Lady Gaga sing, though. ;D)

I think it's pointless comparing a popular music song and a large scale classical piece, they have completely different functions.  Compare like with like, surely that's the best way to evaluate things.

Quote from: starrynight on February 20, 2011, 03:23:18 PM
I think it's pointless comparing a popular music song and a large scale classical piece, they have completely different functions.  Compare like with like, surely that's the best way to evaluate things.

Yep. 8)

So, what do you propose for a classical equivalent to a Lady GaGa song, and why?

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on February 20, 2011, 03:41:19 PM
So, what do you propose for a classical equivalent to a Lady GaGa song, and why?

Offenbach's Orpheus in the Underworld--for the Can-Can. :D

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on February 20, 2011, 12:15:23 PM
[ukrneal] is arguing that the average person can enjoy classical music just as much as the real connoisseur

Well, I don't see anything wrong with the above. I know people with little formal education or without much interest in classical musical history and theory whio nevertheless enjoy classical music (Grieg's PC or Berlioz's Symphonie fantastique, to be precise).

Quote from: jochanaan on February 20, 2011, 03:14:55 PM
he?  I don't quite see that, but if he is, he's exactly right--as long as we understand the difference between enjoyment and understanding.

Exactly. Enjoying classical music (or any other art, for that matter) requires two things, IMO: sensibility to beauty and exposure / education. Now, while the former is innate in people except pathological cases, the latter is sadly missing in the early formative years of our children. Whether the cause is a wrong educational philosophy or lack of funding (or most likely a deadly combination of thw two), the result is the same: a lamentable closure of the souls and minds of kids.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on February 20, 2011, 12:15:23 PM
[/i], even if we are talking about simple pieces like Beethoven's Für Elise.

Simple pieces like that are an excellent way of introducing classical music to kids. After all, a journey of  a thousand miles begin with one step. Let's not forget that Beethoven late SQs are a tough nut to crack even for certain connoisseurs, which can hardly be accused of taking classical music lightly.

I think Beethoven's heart and mind is to be found in all their essentials both in op. 132 and in this marvel of a disc:

[asin]B0000041MM[/asin]

Quote
His argument is quite disingenuous because he is trying to pretend, with false nonchalance, that there is no difference between any given classical composition. A person of average taste can easily be made to appreciate some of the simpler and more approachable classical compositions, but that's entirely besides the point. It doesn't mean that they are actually making any concrete step into appreciating classical music. There is no growth, no individual development, and thus, no real progress.

I cannot disagree more. Enjoying simpler and lighter classical compositions is a big step forward and a prerequisite for the next ones. One cannot appreciate, or take a deep interest in, that which one does not enjoy --- this is an iron law and you don't escape it. Think of all the things you are interested in and name one that you don't enjoy. Conversely, name one thing you enjoy yet you are not interested in.

The surest sign of appreciating classical music is listening to it.

Quote from: Greg on February 13, 2011, 06:29:21 PM
And also, make sure to vote in terms of "greatness" (whatever that means), and not personal taste. But if they happen to be the same, cool.

As Mahler with you, I've noticed Greg :-).

Henk,
your enemy

Quote from: Eusebius on February 21, 2011, 01:25:22 AM
Well, I don't see anything wrong with the above. I know people with little formal education or without much interest in classical musical history and theory whio nevertheless enjoy classical music (Grieg's PC or Berlioz's Symphonie fantastique, to be precise).

Exactly. Enjoying classical music (or any other art, for that matter) requires two things, IMO: sensibility to beauty and exposure / education. Now, while the former is innate in people except pathological cases, the latter is sadly missing in the early formative years of our children. Whether the cause is a wrong educational philosophy or lack of funding (or most likely a deadly combination of thw two), the result is the same: a lamentable closure of the souls and minds of kids.

Simple pieces like that are an excellent way of introducing classical music to kids. After all, a journey of  a thousand miles begin with one step. Let's not forget that Beethoven late SQs are a tough nut to crack even for certain connoisseurs, which can hardly be accused of taking classical music lightly.

I am fine with all this too.

Quote from: Eusebius on February 21, 2011, 01:25:22 AM
I cannot disagree more. Enjoying simpler and lighter classical compositions is a big step forward and a prerequisite for the next ones. One cannot appreciate, or take a deep interest in, that which one does not enjoy --- this is an iron law and you don't escape it. Think of all the things you are interested in and name one that you don't enjoy. Conversely, name one thing you enjoy yet you are not interested in.

The surest sign of appreciating classical music is listening to it.

And surely the last is the most important!

I do think we can appreciate things we don't ourselves enjoy, but I guess it depends on what you mean by appreciate here.

Quote from: mc ukrneal on February 21, 2011, 02:58:37 AM
I do think we can appreciate things we don't ourselves enjoy, but I guess it depends on what you mean by appreciate here.

"Appreciate" yes, but not "be interested in", which is the term I used. For instance, I appreciate the formal logic and  the mathematical structuring of Xennakis' music as the work of a superior intelligence --- yet I have no interest in listening the music for more than a few seconds.  :)

Quote from: Eusebius on February 21, 2011, 03:46:01 AM
"Appreciate" yes, but not "be interested in", which is the term I used. For instance, I appreciate the formal logic and  the mathematical structuring of Xennakis' music as the work of a superior intelligence --- yet I have no interest in listening the music for more than a few seconds.  :)

I do like a story that ends happily ever after! :)

Quote from: mc ukrneal on February 21, 2011, 02:58:37 AM
I am fine with all this too.
And surely the last is the most important!

I do think we can appreciate things we don't ourselves enjoy, but I guess it depends on what you mean by appreciate here.

If you appreciate something (as MUSIC not just as a piece of history) I would say that means that you enjoy something to an extent, but maybe you just enjoy other things more.  We all have preferences / specialities, that's natural.

Quote from: mc ukrneal on February 21, 2011, 03:48:55 AM
I do like a story that ends happily ever after! :)

What do you mean?  ???

Quote from: Eusebius on February 21, 2011, 05:01:22 AM
What do you mean?  ???

We are agreed (sorry  - I was kinda round about in that).   ;D

Quote from: mc ukrneal on February 21, 2011, 05:02:51 AM
We are agreed (sorry  - I was kinda round about in that).   ;D

Aaaah, yes I see now... well, no surprise that two elitists Opera Rara fans are in agreement.  :P :) 0:)

Quote from: Eusebius on February 21, 2011, 05:09:33 AM
Aaaah, yes I see now... well, no surprise that two elitists Opera Rara fans are in agreement.  :P :) 0:)

hah! You got me there...

Quote from: mc ukrneal on February 21, 2011, 02:58:37 AM
And surely the last is the most important!

No its not. The preservation of this great art is what is really important. Its absolutely irrelevant who's enjoying what and where, if we are talking about stupid crap like The Three Tenors. You are making the same semantic fallacy as before.

Quote from: Eusebius on February 21, 2011, 03:46:01 AM
For instance, I appreciate the formal logic and  the mathematical structuring of Xennakis' music as the work of a superior intelligence

Superior autism maybe. Intelligence doesn't necessarily have anything to do with it, lest we are to imply Xenakis music is somehow more "intelligent" then Bach's, merely because it requires are greater amount of aspergers to appreciate.

Quote from: Eusebius on February 21, 2011, 01:25:22 AM
I cannot disagree more. Enjoying simpler and lighter classical compositions is a big step forward and a prerequisite for the next ones.

I don't see how. After all, everybody knows pieces like the Air in G for strings, or Pachelbel's Canon. Those pieces are as popular as they ever were. Yet, interest towards classical music is at its lowest ebb.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on February 21, 2011, 05:42:45 AM
The preservation of this great art is what is really important.

It is important, but the goal of its preservation should not be that it be locked in an ivory tower out of the degrading touch of the "ignorant masses"--- but that it be known, studied and enjoyed by anyone who has such an interest. And the interest can only be aroused by exposure and education. It is here that the situation is truly dramatic and the perspectives are bleak.

Quote
Its absolutely irrelevant who's enjoying what and where, if we are talking about stupid crap like The Three Tenors.

I don't know ukrneal's stance about that, but IMO the day when a critical mass of our kids and youngsters will enjoy The Three Tenors more than the MTV pop crap will mark a real progress.

Do you have any data about how many people, upon hearing TTT, decided (or not) that kind of music is worth exploring more deeply? That would be interesting to discuss.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on February 21, 2011, 05:50:12 AM
I don't see how. After all, everybody knows pieces like the Air in G for strings, or Pachelbel's Canon. Those pieces are as popular as they ever were. Yet, interest towards classical music is at its lowest ebb.

I don't know about interest (though judging by the sheer amount of classical music available in all forms and shapes online, maybe it's not that low --- after all, there is an established and thriving market), but certainly exposure / education is -- and I mean exposure and education in its due time: early formative years.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on February 21, 2011, 05:42:45 AM
No its not. The preservation of this great art is what is really important. Its absolutely irrelevant who's enjoying what and where, if we are talking about stupid crap like The Three Tenors. You are making the same semantic fallacy as before.

If you don't enjoy something, you will never pursue it further. Enjoyment or fulfillment is critical for the music to live and breathe.

Quote from: Henk on February 21, 2011, 02:01:19 AM
As Mahler with you, I've noticed Greg :-).

Henk,
your enemy

:D

  I can't bring myself to vote one way or the other on this one! Bach is an authority on music, his work is astoundingly exact.  I would say he is one of the greatest PERFECTIONISTS in all of music.  If you want to learn, learn from Bach.  And Beethoven, well I can not think of a greater REVOLUTIONARY (Wagner comes close) than Beethoven.  What a remarkable visionary, hear Beethoven and marvel at the depth, the emotion and boldness!  If you want to dare, dare like Beethoven. 

marvin's vote: I CALL A DRAW!

Quote from: Eusebius on February 21, 2011, 06:04:37 AM
It is important, but the goal of its preservation should not be that it be locked in an ivory tower out of the degrading touch of the "ignorant masses"--- but that it be known, studied and enjoyed by anyone who has such an interest. And the interest can only be aroused by exposure and education.

Agreed but there is nothing to be gained by diluting the art in order to appeal to undeveloped tastes. The fact of the matter is that the only way the average listener can be made to appreciate classical music is if they pour the effort and willingness to learn and understand what's it really about. Today however the very idea that there are things in this world that need knowledge and personal development in order to be appreciated is completely unknown to most. It is not the people who are at fault really, or at least no more then they ever were, its our culture that has changed, for the worst.

Quote from: Eusebius on February 21, 2011, 06:04:37 AM
I don't know ukrneal's stance about that, but IMO the day when a critical mass of our kids and youngsters will enjoy The Three Tenors more than the MTV pop crap will mark a real progress.

I see no difference really, except that The Three Tenors might be comparatively less vulgar, which is another argument altogether.

Quote from: Eusebius on February 21, 2011, 06:04:37 AM
Do you have any data about how many people, upon hearing TTT, decided (or not) that kind of music is worth exploring more deeply? That would be interesting to discuss.

Well, i can only rely on my own individual impression through out the years. Many times i've have met people who have listed popular classical pieces like the ones i mentioned above among their favored "songs", but you could tell they didn't understand a whole lot about classical music in general. Through out the years, i had a lot more success converting people who were already interested in forms of music of a certain degree of sophistication (such as Jazz, or progressive Rock), people whom would have found The Three Tenors as uninteresting as we do. I went thought the same process myself. I could never manage to hack through classical music, though i did make a few sporadic attempts. Then one day i became enamored with a group called King Crimson, which i listened to assiduously for more then two years. One day i was reading an interview with the main guitar player, who mentioned Bartok and late Beethoven among his main influences. My curiosity in classical music was rekindled, and this time i had a much easier time delving into the main repertory thanks to my experience with this band, who's music was far more complex then anything i had experienced until then. Personally, unless people are made aware that there things in music which require a certain amount of effort and growth to understand, no progress will ever be made. Most of the people who argue that classical music is stuffy and boring do not even know that there many other things to music then what their limited experience taught them. Their impression is one which is often based upon mere ignorance rather then individual taste (or lack of there of). They say they don't like classical music, but in actuality they don't really know it. For all intended purpose they might fall in love with it, if they knew what it really was.

Quote from: Eusebius on February 21, 2011, 06:04:37 AM
and I mean exposure and education in its due time: early formative years.

I was 22 when i first started to listen to classical music in a serious manner, and i had very little musical education up to that point, besides my two years of training with King Crimson. Thus, i don't think its ever too late. All you need is the right type of exposure, not just any type of exposure, which may not be sufficient.

(http://www.joblo.com/posters/images/full/1992-beethoven-poster2.jpg)

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on February 21, 2011, 05:42:45 AM
No its not. The preservation of this great art is what is really important. Its absolutely irrelevant who's enjoying what and where . . . .

Orthogonal, really. People enjoying the art, is an important part of what drives its preservation.

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on February 21, 2011, 07:33:33 AM
Orthogonal, really. People enjoying the art, is an important part of what drives its preservation.

Good point, Karl. :D

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on February 21, 2011, 06:59:49 AM
Agreed but there is nothing to be gained by diluting the art in order to appeal to undeveloped tastes.

Well, I'll agree that this is an ignoble and unworthy path. I'll agree that more is to be gained, by better methods.

But it is unwisdom to assert that "there is nothing to be gained"; good comes even out of bad, all the time. It is part of what makes good greater than bad.

Quote from: Henk on February 21, 2011, 07:38:17 AM
Good point, Karl. :D

Thanks, Henk (and good to see you back, BTW). On reading further, I see that Neal got there first, but I do not mind.

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on February 21, 2011, 07:41:47 AM
Thanks, Henk (and good to see you back, BTW). On reading further, I see that Neal got there first, but I do not mind.

Different takes on the same thing, so still additive! :)

But is was really mn dave's poster that gave me the biggest chuckle. Very cleverly done (and on subject)...

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on February 21, 2011, 06:59:49 AM
Agreed but there is nothing to be gained by diluting the art in order to appeal to undeveloped tastes.

Agreed, that's one of my main point: let's develop taste, by exposure and education!

Quote
The fact of the matter is that the only way the average listener can be made to appreciate classical music is if they pour the effort and willingness to learn and understand what's it really about.

Agreed again, but I don't see why fun and enjoyment should play no part in the process. Now, of course, I'm not talking about instant gratification --- but, for instance, of all the fun and enjoyment that comes from music-making among friends or family members, an activity whose importance, not only artistic, but also social, could hardly be overrated and which, unfortunately, seem to have all but disappeared in our world.

To keep the balance between a "stiff necked" approach and a "diluted" approach is not easy task, for sure --- but there is so much music out there which meets both criteria of being profound and enjoyable and which can serve as an excellent starting point.

Quote
Today however the very idea that there are things in this world that need knowledge and personal development in order to be appreciated is completely unknown to most.

A third agreement.

Quote
It is not the people who are at fault really, or at least no more then they ever were, its our culture that has changed, for the worst.

And a fourth...

Quote
I see no difference really, except that The Three Tenors might be comparatively less vulgar, which is another argument altogether.

You're being much too harsh on them. Let's not forget they are (in Pavarotti's case, were) not buffoons, but classicaly trained artists in their own right, whose contribution to the advancement of their art cannot be overlooked and who offered us some excellent performances and recordings.

Maybe opera is a genre that doesn't have much appeal to you, I don't know --- but I doubt you'll find many serious opera lovers who would consider Domingo, Carreras and Pavarotti as just "comparatively less vulgar" than Iggy Pop or would dismiss them altogether for their "pop" concerts and discs.

After all, their greatest merit with respect to the issue at hand is exactly that: they showed that an unbuttoned, relaxed and fun approach -- without compromising in the slightest the artistic sincerity and integrity --- can be succesful and that people can be attracted to this kind of music who normally would not care about it. Now, of course, whether someone was convinced by them to deepen his interest in classical music past The Three Tenors series, I don't know, though I suspect some "conversions" might have taken place. But the very fact that instead of going to crap-ish pop concerts people flocked to hear opera arias, overtures or folkloric tunes is a very positive one.

Quote
Well, i can only rely on my own individual impression through out the years. Many times i've have met people who have listed popular classical pieces like the ones i mentioned above among their favored "songs", but you could tell they didn't understand a whole lot about classical music in general.

That's true, but as you conceded yourself, it's not their fault, and a lofty approach is guaranteed to fail with them.

Quote
Through out the years, i had a lot more success converting people who were already interested in forms of music of a certain degree of sophistication (such as Jazz, or progressive Rock), people whom would have found The Three Tenors as uninteresting as we do.

Who are this "we" in the last line? Please count me out.  :)

Quote
  I went thought the same process myself. I could never manage to hack through classical music, though i did make a few sporadic attempts. Then one day i became enamored with a group called King Crimson, which i listened to assiduously for more then two years. One day i was reading an interview with the main guitar player, who mentioned Bartok and late Beethoven among his main influences. My curiosity in classical music was rekindled, and this time i had a much easier time delving into the main repertory thanks to my experience with this band, who's music was far more complex then anything i had experienced until then.

Well, for you the trigger was King Crimson. What if for others was Pavarotti singing "Nessun dorma"? Does it seem that unplausible to you?

Quote
Personally, unless people are made aware that there things in music which require a certain amount of effort and growth to understand, no progress will ever be made. Most of the people who argue that classical music is stuffy and boring do not even know that there many other things to music then what their limited experience taught them. Their impression is one which is often based upon mere ignorance rather then individual taste (or lack of there of). They say they don't like classical music, but in actuality they don't really know it. For all intended purpose they might fall in love with it, if they knew what it really was.

Well, exactly. I come again and again to the single most important issue: exposure / education.

Quote
I was 22 when i first started to listen to classical music in a serious manner, and i had very little musical education up to that point, besides my two years of training with King Crimson. Thus, i don't think its ever too late. All you need is the right type of exposure, not just any type of exposure, which may not be sufficient.

No, it's never too late, you are right, but chances are bigger when the start is early. As for the right type of exposure, I don't think there is one single way to do it. What works for me might not work for you and viceversa.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on February 21, 2011, 06:59:49 AMThen one day i became enamored with a group called King Crimson, which i listened to assiduously for more then two years. One day i was reading an interview with the main guitar player, who mentioned Bartok and late Beethoven among his main influences. My curiosity in classical music was rekindled, and this time i had a much easier time delving into the main repertory thanks to my experience with this band, who's music was far more complex then anything i had experienced until then.

For me it was the other way around. I found Classical music in 1996 and King Crimson 12 years later, in 2008. Before year 2001 I considered all rock music repulsive noise for simpletons because gems like King Crimson are so carefully kept hidden from public. In 2001 I found soft rock bands Kashmir and Lowgold. I understood that good and interesting rock music exists. We just have to dig it up. Took 7 years for me to find King Crimson!  :o

We are swamped with so much information nowadays that it isn't easy to find much of the good stuff, it can take a bit of dedication and time to find some things.

Quote from: Eusebius on February 19, 2011, 09:31:58 AM
Take a Rammstein or Lady Gaga fan at random --- what are the chances that s/he'll have the will and patience to listen to a Beethoven sonata or Chopin nocturne?

Just saw this comment on YouTube, for a video* of Bach's two-violin concerto (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JG8KkWhsiY): "I normally don't listen to 18 minute songs but I just couldn't turn it off". No idea if the person was a Rammstein or LG fan. Nor do I know if the person listens to "songs" 17m59s or 18m01s long. ;D ;)



*Concertmaster doubles as soloist?!

Quote from: Opus106 on February 23, 2011, 09:59:37 AM
Just saw this comment on YouTube, for a video* of Bach's two-violin concerto (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JG8KkWhsiY): "I normally don't listen to 18 minute songs but I just couldn't turn it off". No idea if the person was a Rammstein or LG fan. Nor do I know if the person listens to "songs" 17m59s or 18m01s long. ;D ;)

Maybe the comment author was reporting a computer malfunction?  :P

Quote from: Opus106 on February 23, 2011, 09:59:37 AM
...*Concertmaster doubles as soloist?!

Yes, that happens a lot, and has throughout "our" music's history. 8)

Quote from: PaulSC on February 23, 2011, 01:48:16 PM
Maybe the comment author was reporting a computer malfunction?  :P

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Quote from: Opus106 on February 23, 2011, 09:59:37 AM
Just saw this comment on YouTube, for a video* of Bach's two-violin concerto (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JG8KkWhsiY): "I normally don't listen to 18 minute songs but I just couldn't turn it off". No idea if the person was a Rammstein or LG fan. Nor do I know if the person listens to "songs" 17m59s or 18m01s long. ;D ;)

Another comment: "18 minutes yes.. but it seems split in three parts, or songs even."

Awww... makes me want to hug these people and then give them the Intro to Classical lecture. ;D