Comparing Composers

[PaulR]

Thank you, I would love to close my mind to all the rubbish of the world, the task is daunting, but it would be a noble achievement.

News for you, it's not rubbish because you do not like the works.  It's fine for you to not like, even hate, the works by said composers, but to put a blanket statement saying it's "rubbish" is not a noble achievement.  You can hate something, and that thing still be good, or even great.

[Saul]

I don't need to connect the dots. I know a piece of rubbish when I see one. I don't consider splashing colors onto a piece of paper art, but then again my opinion of visual art is completely different than my opinion of music. Music is it's own language. There are a lot of different ways to express this language. I think a composer like Berg and Bartok did a beautiful job of expressing this language.

What's the word 'classical' mean?

CLASSICAL IS NOT THE SAME AS MODERN.

Call these modernist's music modern music, but its not classical.

You want to call them great modern composers? I guess that would be ok. But they are not Great CLASSICAL composers, that's my point.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

Let me explain to you why Stravinsky is not a Great composer.

His and the other composers' mistake and miscalculation was based on the wrong assumption that their unique creativity and originality can't be produced if they wrote their music within the traditional Baroque and Classical forms and styles. They began to venture to completely adventurous harmonies and forms  thinking that this will boost their originality. Well there was no boost, what happen was that they created banal music which some people decided to call it 'art' and attach to it all their intellectual weight to support this almost delusional fantasy like 'consensus' much like the modernists of visual arts when they began throwing and spilling buckets of paint on empty canvases believing in their petty minds that this is 'art'.

To me Greatness in composition , is when you produce amazingly beautiful music that touches the soul without breaking the rules, sticking to the rules and finding your own distinctive style within the classical rules of music, is what makes a great composer.

Now, if you go the extreme, you will have pop music lovers laugh at classical music, expressing complete love for junkies such as Britney Spears and Pink, in fact you would have millions of people who hate classical music and consider it inferior to any other genre of music.

I say, down with their 'opinions' numbers don't matter here. Even of the whole world will believe that Mozart was not a Great composer, I would be the only one still believing that he indeed was.

Therefore this is where 'popular opinion', influence to other modern composers, and Greatness meet up head to head. 

Popular opinion by those who don't know enough about classical music is pointless and doesn't effect the reality .  Influence on other modern composers to continue to compose in 'error' is plainly a shame and a misdirection of real authentic classical music. And Greatness is not a matter of just personal opinion and personal enjoyment, it must be evaluated on the quality of the compositions, their technical aspects, their innovation, their adherence to the rules of music, the forms, the styles and the harmonies, and last but not least, the orderly intelligent and logical construction of the music from beginning to end.

Music is like Poetry, just like in Poetry you can't expect to throw in words in a banality and then decide that its great. No it must have intelligence behind it, and if this intelligence was constructed with order and logic, then and only then it can be called great. Music is a serious thing, otherwise you can just open up the window and listen to the birds sing and the wind whisper and the trees move, this is also 'music' but its not human made art.

Ok, this has gone on long enough. This post of yours is just flat-out utter bullshit. Leaving aside the fact it's so poorly written that it's virtually impossible to follow any logical thread, it's also just purely and simply fraught with generalities, misconceptions, innuendo, stereotypes, prejudice, haughtiness, and just plain stupidity (yes, stupidity).

You're attempting to map your own prejudices onto the entire history of classical music and it simply won't fly.

To answer every single erroneous concoction in this post would take up days worth of time so I won't even try. However, this entire strawman of a post can be brought tumbling down with a loud SPLAT with one simple counter-argument:

Somehow to Saul only the baroque and classical forms hold court as the "true mainstays of musical genius". Somehow every musical evolution AFTER these two forms distorts and devalues "true genius" and should be looked upon as a sort of classical music cancer.

Bunk.

Bunk for one simple reason: who's to say that BAROQUE ITSELF isn't the ONE true path to classical music genius? Who's to say that classical forms isn't the very BEGINNING of the cancer that would ultimately kill musical genius?

I mean, what's so bad about baroque forms that there had to be any musical evolution at all??!?? WHY KILL PERFECTION??

The very fact that classical forms evolved and sprouted everywhere means IPSO FACTO that musical (artistic) genius ENJOYS spreading its wings and NOT conforming ad infinitum to antiquated forms. The classical era ITSELF is guilty of ushering in a completely new musical aesthetic and DISPENSING WITH THE OLD!!!!! Case closed!!! Baroque forms got left in the dust with new and exciting musical forms providing the proverbial blank canvas upon which composers could have a field day and explore.

Exploration is a GOOD thing!! 'Else baroque forms would still hold court to this day and we'd be stuck in a never ending loop of Vivaldi clones. YIKES!!!!!!!!!

So the question is simple: if evolution is the great bugaboo in classical music, WHY WOULD MUSIC HAVE EVOLVED AT ALL FROM BAROQUE TO CLASSICAL FORMS??!??!??!??

The answer to this is just as simple: true genius isn't about to be straight-jacketed into antiquated and constricting forms when there's so much to be created in NEW forms. The proof is in the pudding: classical forms EVOLVED out of the old baroque forms and the rest is musical history. Thank heavens true genius isn't held to the fallacies of the Sauls of the world.
 

[Saul]

News for you, it's not rubbish because you do not like the works.  It's fine for you to not like, even hate, the works by said composers, but to put a blanket statement saying it's "rubbish" is not a noble achievement.  You can hate something, and that thing still be good, or even great.

I was talking in general terms and not only the rubbish that is found in music...

[PaulR]

I was talking in general terms and not only the rubbish that is found in music...

You've called the music of Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Mahler (and several others) completely worthless.  My point still stands.

[Saul]

Ok, this has gone on long enough. This post of yours is just flat-out utter bullshit. Leaving aside the fact it's so poorly written that it's virtually impossible to follow any logical thread, it's also just purely and simply fraught with generalities, misconceptions, innuendo, stereotypes, prejudice, haughtiness, and just plain stupidity (yes, stupidity).

You're attempting to map your own prejudices onto the entire history of classical music and it simply won't fly.

To answer every single erroneous concoction in this post would take up days worth of time so I won't even try. However, this entire strawman of a post can be brought tumbling down with a loud SPLAT with one simple counter-argument:

Somehow to Saul only the baroque and classical forms hold court as the "true mainstays of musical genius". Somehow every musical evolution AFTER these two forms distorts and devalues "true genius" and should be looked upon as a sort of classical music cancer.

Bunk.

Bunk for one simple reason: who's to say that BAROQUE ITSELF isn't the ONE true path to classical music genius? Who's to say that classical forms isn't the very BEGINNING of the cancer that would ultimately kill musical genius?

I mean, what's so bad about baroque forms that there had to be any musical evolution at all??!?? WHY KILL PERFECTION??

The very fact that classical forms evolved and sprouted everywhere means IPSO FACTO that musical (artistic) genius ENJOYS spreading its wings and NOT conforming ad infinitum to antiquated forms. The classical era ITSELF is guilty of ushering in a completely new musical aesthetic and DISPENSING WITH THE OLD!!!!! Case closed!!! Baroque forms got left in the dust with new and exciting musical forms providing the proverbial blank canvas upon which composers could have a field day and explore.

Exploration is a GOOD thing!! 'Else baroque forms would still hold court to this day and we'd be stuck in a never ending loop of Vivaldi clones. YIKES!!!!!!!!!

So the question is simple: if evolution is the great bugaboo in classical music, WHY WOULD MUSIC HAVE EVOLVED AT ALL FROM BAROQUE TO CLASSICAL FORMS??!??!??!??

The answer to this is just as simple: true genius isn't about to be straight-jacketed into antiquated and constricting forms when there's so much to be created in NEW forms. The proof is in the pudding: classical forms EVOLVED out of the old baroque forms and the rest is musical history. Thank heavens true genius isn't held to the fallacies of the Sauls of the world.

You were able to squeeze a good number of vituperations in one single article, and that takes talent, and I do acknowledge your talent in this, well done.

But to your other statements that deal with music, I couldn't even let myself read it completely because the gravity of its blunder was just too thick even for me to handle.

But even that is ok, you're still entitled to make erroneous statements that make no sense.

[Mirror Image]

What's the word 'classical' mean?

Please read this and prepare to be enlightened:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20th-century_classical_music

[PaulR]

What's the word 'classical' mean?

CLASSICAL IS NOT THE SAME AS MODERN.

Call these modernist's music modern music, but its not classical.

You want to call them great modern composers? I guess that would be ok. But they are not Great CLASSICAL composers, that's my point.

Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Berg are all great classical composers in the Twentieth Century era.  How can you justify not calling them classical composers?  Because they didn't use the same "tools" and methods in creating music as Beethoven or Mozart? 

[Saul]

Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Berg are all great classical composers in the Twentieth Century era.  How can you justify not calling them classical composers?  Because they didn't use the same "tools" and methods in creating music as Beethoven or Mozart?

Why would you call a composer that 'breaks the rules' of classical music, a classical composer?
Maybe I'm missing somethin here...?

[Luke]

Ok, this has gone on long enough. ........

[lots of well made points]

....So the question is simple: if evolution is the great bugaboo in classical music, WHY WOULD MUSIC HAVE EVOLVED AT ALL FROM BAROQUE TO CLASSICAL FORMS??!??!??!??

The answer to this is just as simple: true genius isn't about to be straight-jacketed into antiquated and constricting forms when there's so much to be created in NEW forms. The proof is in the pudding: classical forms EVOLVED out of the old baroque forms and the rest is musical history. Thank heavens true genius isn't held to the fallacies of the Sauls of the world.

Very good post. As you say, there are so many holes in Saul's line of thinking, such as it is discernible, that it's hard to know where to start, but you make a very good point. I love how Saul sees eveything from Bach to Brahms as some kind of monolithic mass of sameness, music that followed 'the rules' (whatever they are, haven't had a cogent response on that one yet) without deviation or exploration!

[Saul]

Very good post. As you say, there are so many holes in Saul's line of thinking, such as it is discernible, that it's hard to know where to start, but you make a very good point. I love how Saul sees eveything from Bach to Brahms as some kind of monolithic mass of sameness, music that followed 'the rules' (whatever they are, haven't had a cogent response on that one yet) without deviation or exploration!

Oh.. not the Swiss Cheese Approach!

[Mirror Image]

Why would you call a composer that 'breaks the rules' of classical music, a classical composer?
Maybe I'm missing somethin here...?

I guess you didn't read that article I had suggested you read? Once you read that and understand it, all will be well. 

[Mirror Image]

Very good post. As you say, there are so many holes in Saul's line of thinking, such as it is discernible, that it's hard to know where to start, but you make a very good point. I love how Saul sees eveything from Bach to Brahms as some kind of monolithic mass of sameness, music that followed 'the rules' (whatever they are, haven't had a cogent response on that one yet) without deviation or exploration!

I honestly don't even see how he can get out of the bed in the morning with such a closed-mind.

[Saul]

I guess you didn't read that article I had suggested you read? Once you read that and understand it, all will be well. 

Who cares what they say, I'm sure that you're aware that I am aware that I'm going against popular opinion here...

[PaulR]

Why would you call a composer that 'breaks the rules' of classical music, a classical composer?
Maybe I'm missing somethin here...?

Because rules are not as rigid as you would want to believe.  The use of different harmonies expanded over time, and the sonata form has been altered as time went on.  There isn't a real set of rules.

[Luke]

You were able to squeeze a good number of vituperations in one single article, and that takes talent, and I do acknowledge your talent in this, well done.

But to your other statements that deal with music, I couldn't even let myself read it completely because the gravity of its blunder was just too thick even for me to handle.

But even that is ok, you're still entitled to make erroneous statements that make no sense.

Saul, this is the most shameless post, really. What you mean, but what, ridiculously, you are trying to wrap up as 'you are so wrong that I didn't even read what you wrote',  is 'I have no answer to the point you make'. But really, there is only one central point in that excellent post. Let's make it again: if evolution/revolution in music is such a terrible thing, how come you admire both Baroque and Classical musics, when the latter is such an evolution of the former?

[Saul]

I honestly don't even see how he can get out of the bed in the morning with such a closed-mind.

Why don't you please relax and don't turn it personal...I could also begin attacking you persoanlly, and it wouldnt be nice at all, so please keep it clean.

[Saul]

Saul, this is the most shameless post, really. What you mean, but what, ridiculously, you are trying to wrap up as 'you are so wrong that I didn't even read what you wrote',  is 'I have no answer to the point you make'. But really, there is only one central point in that excellent post. Let's make it again: if evolution/revolution in music is such a terrible thing, how come you admire both Baroque and Classical musics, when the latter is such an evolution of the former?

Because there was no evolution, there was a different approach that didn't reject the foundations of classical music, and looked with the utmost respect and dedication to the ways of the masters. The modernists departed from this, and created their own bible and therefore ceased to be holy (great).

[Dancing Divertimentian]

You were able to squeeze a good number of vituperations in one single article, and that takes talent, and I do acknowledge your talent in this, well done.

But to your other statements that deal with music, I couldn't even let myself read it completely because the gravity of its blunder was just too thick even for me to handle.

But even that is ok, you're still entitled to make erroneous statements that make no sense.

No, the talent is all yours, I assure you. I at least READ your post before responding. The fact you won't (more like can't) read mine means assuredly you're just another in a long line of internet trolls.

You further drive home your ignorance by slinging venom at me instead meeting me head-on. I guess confronting your own fallacies is simply too much for you.

[Saul]

No, the talent is all yours, I assure you. I at least READ your post before responding. The fact you won't (more like can't) read mine means assuredly you're just another in a long line of internet trolls.

You further drive home your ignorance by slinging venom at me instead meeting me head-on. I guess confronting your own fallacies is simply too much for you.

Yes, turn a perfectly beautiful discussion on music that is composed of drastically different opinions into a personal blame game attack.
You know what?

What's the point in beginning anything here that will result in this kind of behavior?

I don't know why I have to agree with you on anything.