Musical Taste and Ideological Predisposition

[Florestan]

Politically, economically and culturally I'm a pragmatic liberal; socially, a moderate conservative.

Just to avoid any misunderstanding: "liberal" above should be taken in its European meaning, not the US one. In strictly European terms, I'm a centrist Christian Democrat. In strictly US terms, I have absolutely no idea whatsoever what I am. To the best of my knowledge, I might fit in a certain section of the Democratic Party as well as in a certain section of the Republican Party. One thing I know for sure, though: I strongly reject both MAGA and woke ideologies. 

[ritter]

So, the takeaway here, dear Florestan, is that holding sensible political views is not incompatible with having dubious musical taste, right? 

[Florestan]

So, the takeaway here, dear Florestan, is that holding sensible political views is not incompatible with having dubious musical taste, right? 

Or the other way around, depending on perspective. 

[Christo]

Politically, economically and culturally I'm a pragmatic liberal; socially, a moderate conservative.

My Top 5 composers are Haydn, Mozart, Rossini, Schubert, Chopin. .

I doubt that the latter statement can be derived from the former or vice-versa.

From now on, I will consider these five composers to be extremely right-wing, nationalist, whatever. Because: no Low-Saxons among them.

[Florestan]

From now on, I will consider these five composers to be extremely right-wing, nationalist, whatever. Because: no Low-Saxons among them.

To paraphrase Saul Bellow: show me the Mozart and the Rossini of the Low Saxons and I'll gladly listen to their music. 

[Christo]

To paraphrase Saul Bellow: show me the Mozart and the Rossini of the Low Saxons and I'll gladly listen to their music. 

You already do, for the better part of the life. Technically, all composers born & bred above the Benrather Linie are Low Saxons, from Telemaqnn to Brahms. I guess you heard of them.

[Florestan]

You already do, for the better part of the life. Technically, all composers born & bred above the Benrather Linie are Low Saxons, from Telemaqnn to Brahms. I guess you heard of them.

Ha ha, I saw it coming.

[Opus131]

I'm a traditionalist meaning for me true art has to be "moral" (so to speak) or it isn't really art.

"Ugly" art is inherently anti-art for me, which means a lot of contemporary works are inferior to the "classics".

Art that elevates an individual to more noble or higher states of being or consciousness is what true art is for me. The more deviated or repugnant an art work the more odius it becomes to me, and the less it seems like art in the higher sense of the word (in a purely technical sense all art is art but not all art is GREAT art).

I don't know if this has anything to do with politics per-se though. Politics are kinda all over the place and i don't see there bieng any particular meaning in the kind of ideals that fall under the various political labels. Like, what do economic policies have to do with art anyway. Whether one is for capitalism or socialism has more to do with what one believes is beneficial for the material well being of individuals residing in a society i don't see how notions of beauty or greatness enter into it.

At best, art can be philosophical, and politics do often reflect some kind of philosophical idea but its mostly secondary and politics just seems to be more about practical concerns rather than abstract ideals, or at least they ought to be. In fact, politics that become world views or carry some philosophical ideal seem to be no longer politics. A conservative is supposed to be someone who wishes to "converve" a particular status quo or social organization but if one looks at a lot of conservative policies they often happen to be quite modern or radical in nature. Capitalism is a product of modernity and the modern form of it is a consequence of the industrial revolution, and bears little affinity to the kind of social order religious societies have established in the past. Yet religion and capitalism both falls into this category of "conservative" which to me seems kinda of arbitrary. As Orthodox Christian is bound prefer theocracy over a system ruled by an economic oligarchy, and which is supposed to be conservative then?

As a traditionalist i also happen to be an ambientalist. I believe nature is sacred and a kind of theophany. Yet, all ambientalist political movements are supposed to be of the "left" so what polticis am i supposed to have?

As for the question raised by the OP of this thread, this contrast between "message" and artistic merit, i would say the two have to go toghether. Without the right "message" art becomes ugly and deviated, and without the artistic "merit" the message is violated and falsified. Most ancient Christian art was didactic in nature, but what it sought to teach was the MEANING of theology, a way to convey the essence to unread people. The artistic merit of such art was not incidental but NECESSARY or the entire point of it was lost entirely.

And religious art is not the only example. The subjects of a work by a Thomas Kinkade are of a kind that ought to be beautiful by their very nature and yet his rapresentation end up falsifying them. The lack of "merit" in his works desprive the subjects he rapresents of their meaning or essence. Compare that to a traditional Japanese landscape, which may appear to be crude and primitive by comparison and yet it conveys this "mystery" which is not shown but is left "unspoken" for fear that a more explicit depiction would violate it.

So like i said, for me true art is both message and merit. It has to be both take away one or the other and the value of the art is defiled. Again as a Christian i'm supposed to agree with the "message" of a lot of contemporary Christian media but to me it's like the example of Thomas Kinkade. The lack of merit in this media defiles the message. Take all of those "Christian" movies that are just sentimental slop, and contrast any of that with this scene which to me is one of the most profound rapresentations of what it truly means to maintain the flame and light of faith in the desert that is earthly existence:

[AnotherSpin]

I'm a traditionalist meaning for me true art has to be "moral" (so to speak) or it isn't really art.

"Ugly" art is inherently anti-art for me, which means a lot of contemporary works are inferior to the "classics".

Art that elevates an individual to more noble or higher states of being or consciousness is what true art is for me. The more deviated or repugnant an art work the more odius it becomes to me, and the less it seems like art in the higher sense of the word (in a purely technical sense all art is art but not all art is GREAT art).

I don't know if this has anything to do with politics per-se though. Politics are kinda all over the place and i don't see there bieng any particular meaning in the kind of ideals that fall under the various political labels. Like, what do economic policies have to do with art anyway. Whether one is for capitalism or socialism has more to do with what one believes is beneficial for the material well being of individuals residing in a society i don't see how notions of beauty or greatness enter into it.

At best, art can be philosophical, and politics do often reflect some kind of philosophical idea but its mostly secondary and politics just seems to be more about practical concerns rather than abstract ideals, or at least they ought to be. In fact, politics that become world views or carry some philosophical ideal seem to be no longer politics. A conservative is supposed to be someone who wishes to "converve" a particular status quo or social organization but if one looks at a lot of conservative policies they often happen to be quite modern or radical in nature. Capitalism is a product of modernity and the modern form of it is a consequence of the industrial revolution, and bears little affinity to the kind of social order religious societies have established in the past. Yet religion and capitalism both falls into this category of "conservative" which to me seems kinda of arbitrary. As Orthodox Christian is bound prefer theocracy over a system ruled by an economic oligarchy, and which is supposed to be conservative then?

As a traditionalist i also happen to be an ambientalist. I believe nature is sacred and a kind of theophany. Yet, all ambientalist political movements are supposed to be of the "left" so what polticis am i supposed to have?

As for the question raised by the OP of this thread, this contrast between "message" and artistic merit, i would say the two have to go toghether. Without the right "message" art becomes ugly and deviated, and without the artistic "merit" the message is violated and falsified. Most ancient Christian art was didactic in nature, but what it sought to teach was the MEANING of theology, a way to convey the essence to unread people. The artistic merit of such art was not incidental but NECESSARY or the entire point of it was lost entirely.

And religious art is not the only example. The subjects of a work by a Thomas Kinkade are of a kind that ought to be beautiful by their very nature and yet his rapresentation end up falsifying them. The lack of "merit" in his works desprive the subjects he rapresents of their meaning or essence. Compare that to a traditional Japanese landscape, which may appear to be crude and primitive by comparison and yet it conveys this "mystery" which is not shown but is left "unspoken" for fear that a more explicit depiction would violate it.

So like i said, for me true art is both message and merit. It has to be both take away one or the other and the value of the art is defiled. Again as a Christian i'm supposed to agree with the "message" of a lot of contemporary Christian media but to me it's like the example of Thomas Kinkade. The lack of merit in this media defiles the message. Take all of those "Christian" movies that are just sentimental slop, and contrast any of that with this scene which to me is one of the most profound rapresentations of what it truly means to maintain the flame and light of faith in the desert that is earthly existence:

Since the collapse of the traditional world and the rise of the liberty, equality, fraternity, music has undergone a long decline, a gradual erosion of its sacred and hierarchical meaning, replaced by the logic of profit and the illusion of universal accessibility. The old order, for all its apparent rigidity, sustained a stable vertical structure of significance in which art served God, monarchy, and metaphysics. The composer was not a producer but a mediator between heaven and earth.

With the destruction of this order and the triumph of those who controlled the flow of money, art became "free," which in practice meant abandoned to the whims of the market. The revolutionary slogan, once a cry for justice, in the realm of culture brought about the leveling of taste, the standardization of perception, and the loss of depth. Equality of access did not bring equality of understanding, and fraternity without hierarchy dissolved into chaos.

Music, deprived of its sacred patronage, fell under the control of industry, where value is measured not by truth but by sales. Thus came the simplification of form, the disappearance of polyphony, the dominance of rhythm over melody, and emotional manipulation in place of spiritual experience. Capitalism, inheriting the revolutionary ideals, carried them to their logical extreme: liberty turned into the freedom to consume, equality into sameness in banality, and fraternity into a marketing slogan. Art, having lost its vertical axis, became horizontal, flat, noisy, and distorted. Ugly, like all that rests upon money instead of the soul.

[Florestan]

What a sad and morose life must one have, seeing/seeking around them only ugliness and evil, incessantly lamenting the good old days...

The big irony is that they do all that while fully enjoying the safety, comfort and freedom that the modern world made possible. Not to mention that they have at their disposal the artworks of those good old days, one click away --- and this was also made possible by the modern world.

[AnotherSpin]

[Florestan]

He excludes himself from "the people", of course. He's an elite human being, far and above the retarded multitudes and therefore he has the right and the duty to dictate to "the people " what they should think and do and how they should behave, because he knows what's best for them and they don't.

And thus we come to the core of the so-called "traditionalism": the haunting fear that someone, somewhere might think and behave differently than oneself and the bitter regret that there's no more a supreme authority to dictate and enforce the correct thinking and behavior, which incidentally are exactly those that one espouses.

[Florestan]

As Orthodox Christian is bound prefer theocracy over a system ruled by an economic oligarchy, and which is supposed to be conservative then?

Excuse me? I'm an Orthodox Christian and I would have none of it. But if you prefer living in a theocracy, there's Iran and Saudi Arabia. I volunteer to pay the price of your one-way ticket to Teheran or Riyadh.

As a traditionalist i also happen to be an ambientalist. I believe nature is sacred and a kind of theophany.

This belief directly contradicts Orthodox Christianity.

[Todd]

Remember, Osho/Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh/Chandra Mohan Jain was a terrorist.  His words have as much merit and value as those of Osama bin Laden.  It is true that some people follow the words of these "men".

[Mandryka]

Since the collapse of the traditional world  <snip>  music has undergone a long decline, a gradual erosion of its sacred <snip>  meaning, 

This is what Wagner tried to remedy with the Gesamtkunstwerk.

[AnotherSpin]

Remember, Osho/Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh/Chandra Mohan Jain was a terrorist.  His words have as much merit and value as those of Osama bin Laden.  It is true that some people follow the words of these "men".

I heard about this chap who lived a couple of thousand years ago, and by today's standards, he'd surely be branded a terrorist. And for merely having a bit of a chat, they went and nailed him to a post.

[AnotherSpin]

This is what Wagner tried to remedy with the Gesamtkunstwerk.

Bringing up Wagner seems more than fair to me. He was one of the few, and there are even fewer of them about these days.

[Jo498]

It depends what one means with "theocracy". Western Christendom was never a theocracy in the narrow sense. In fact, compared to today's total bureaucratic states most medieval times were pretty close to anarchy with only loosely enforced local order.

The bible has some of the best "anti-state" messages, e.g the warnings the prophet Samuel gives the people of Israel when they insist that they also want a king like the surrounding peoples. But it has also St. Paul admonishing Christians to obey earthly powers (at least in general and if not directly against the faith) and this was at a time when a certain Nero was Emperor in Rome... So I doubt one can derive from mere Christianity that the current shysters and bean counters are the worst and most antichristian government one could have (although I share the impression that they must be close, discounting the likes of Nero)...

Like all liberations the splitting of the unity of faith, culture, art (that was the norm not only in European christendom but in most cultures in history) in early modernity and the liberation of the arts made great things possible that were rare or nonexistent before but it also liberated us towards all kinds of bad things.
As we live at the time we live there is very little we can do about such things that seem to have been changed irreversibly 250, probably already 500 years ago.

[Florestan]

The first European to lament "the collapse of the traditional world" was Hesiod, around 700 BC.

In 1324, Pope John XXII issued the bull Docta Sanctorum Patrum, in which he inveighed against polyphony in no uncertain terms. The paragraph is worth quoting in full:

But some disciples of a new school, while they apply themselves to measuring time, they attempt to invent their own melodies with new notes instead of choosing to sing the ancient ones, ecclesiastical canticles are sung in semibreves and minims, are riddled with grace notes. For they sunder the melodies with hockets, loosen them with descants, trample them sometimes with three-part polyphonies and motets in the vernacular to such a degree that, now and then, they despise the fundamentals of the Antiphonary and the Gradual, ignore the foundation upon which they are building, disregard the modes, which they do not reckon, but which rather they confuse, when, owing to the multitude of these very notes, the modest ascents and the moderate descents of plainchant, by which the modes themselves are distinguished from one another, are obfuscated. For they run, and they rest not; they fill their ears with impertinence, and they relieve them not; they imitate with gestures that which they have mustered, by which gestures devotion that is to be desired is contemned, and lasciviousness that is to be shunned is made manifest. Boethius himself certainly has not spoken in vain: A lascivious mind takes pleasure in the more lascivious modes or is often softened and moved upon hearing them.

[Todd]

I heard about this chap who lived a couple of thousand years ago, and by today's standards, he'd surely be branded a terrorist. And for merely having a bit of a chat, they went and nailed him to a post.

There is no record of the person you refer to engaging in bioterrorism.  Osho engaged in bioterrorism in The Dalles, Oregon.  751 people were poisoned.  That is a documented fact.  Osho was a terrorist.