Is classical music merely self-aggrandizing?

[mahlertitan]

At least Mendelssohn didn't repeat everything over and over, and, as any piano expert will tell you, his songs without words are considered great works. And who said I didn't like Scarlatti? I just said it was probably devoid of spiritual experience, in that it conveys nothing significant other than decoration.

so? does every piece of music have to be full of meaning? why can we just DANCE to J. Strauss II, and why can't we just LISTEN to Mahler?

[Tancata]

And explain to me why spiritual experiences, whatever they are, cannot be achieved during a Scarlatti concert?

[MishaK]

At least Mendelssohn didn't repeat everything over and over, and, as any piano expert will tell you, his songs without words are considered great works. And who said I didn't like Scarlatti? I just said it was probably devoid of spiritual experience, in that it conveys nothing significant other than decoration.

Having played both of them, I don't need any "piano expert" to tell me that, certainly not you. Now, you still haven't told us how exactly you objectively measure spritiual content such that you could support your silly pronouncements.

[PSmith08]

I can attest to a childhood of abuse at the hands of my peers for preferring die Zauberflöte over 99 Luftballons.

Why not listen to both? Or, you can combine 1980s Mitteleuropäische pop (I think I got the adjectival form right) and Mozart with Falco's immortal hymn, "Rock Me, Amadeus."

[Michel]

Having played both of them, I don't need any "piano expert" to tell me that, certainly not you. Now, you still haven't told us how exactly you objectively measure spritiual content such that you could support your silly pronouncements.

I am not the one who even spoke initially of spiritual content, I just referenced it as I know some of Don's favourite composers are obviously dramatic, such as Shostakovich. It was an argument to be used purely against him, as I don't think I can judge what spiritual content is, as I don't even know what it is.

I did, of course, claim that Scarlatti has no spirituality, which may seem like I am staking a claim to knowing what is "spiritual" and what is not, but statement was based purely on the common consensus that, lets say Bruckner is "deeper", ditto Wagner, Schumann and Mahler. I think its beyond debate that the romantics were obviously trying to something deeper than Scarlatti even if I personally cannot see or understand spiritual experience.

Though even having said this, I can admit to feeling something sometimes quite special, a bigger idea, in Bruckner that I do not in something tedious like Scarlatti (though he is still alright), I just wouldn't call it spirtual, as that has some sort of silly religious/quasi idealistic and romantic undertone. And even this feeling, that we probably all have with Bruckner, is at its heart self aggrandizing.

[MishaK]

I don't think I can judge what spiritual content is, as I don't even know what it is.

I think it's time you get out of corporate law and figure out what that is. 

I did, of course, claim that Scarlatti has no spirituality, but that is based purely on the common consensus that, lets say Bruckner is "deeper", ditto Wagner, Schumann and Mahler. I think its beyond debate that the romantics were obviously trying to something deeper than Scarlatti even if I personally cannot see or understand spiritual experience. Though even having said this, I can admit to feeling something sometimes quite special in Bruckner that I do not in something tedious like Scarlatti (though he is still alright), I just wouldn't call it spirtual, as that has some sort of silly religious/quasi idealistic and romantic undertone.

This is even more hilarious than the Mendelssohn-Scarlatti juxtaposition. Now Scarlatti's humorous and benign 2 minute sonatas are "tedious" as compared to Bruckner's "symphonische Riesenschlangen".

[MishaK]

Why not listen to both? Or, you can combine 1980s Mitteleuropäische pop (I think I got the adjectival form right) and Mozart with Falco's immortal hymn, "Rock Me, Amadeus."

Thanks for the suggestion, but I fear it's a little too late to fix my childhood.

[PSmith08]

Thanks for the suggestion, but I fear it's a little too late to fix my childhood.

It's never too late for Falco.

[MishaK]

It's never too late for Falco.

I fear it is. I was forced to sit through a bass-baritone (if you can call it that) Karaoke version of Rock me Amadeus just a few weeks ago.

[knight66]

I think it's time you get out of corporate law and figure out what that is. 

He is going to have to get into it first.

Michel, you have enthusiasms that overtake you and take you over: now the pendulum is making a correction. Most of your questions boil down to....but why, rephrased and dressed up. Your experience is unique, as mine is. The harking on using the phrase 'self aggrandising' is beginning to sound like the Harping on of another about secret aesthetic knowledge. Dig up Eric, he would give you an entertaining run for your money.

Mike

[PSmith08]

This is even more hilarious than the Mendelssohn-Scarlatti juxtaposition. Now Scarlatti's humorous and benign 2 minute sonatas are "tedious" as compared to Bruckner's "symphonische Riesenschlangen".

Helgoland is a laugh-a-minute comedy if ever there was one.

I fear it is. I was forced to sit through a bass-baritone (if you can call it that) Karaoke version of Rock me Amadeus just a few weeks ago.

Perhaps you're right. I never, though, saw "Rock Me, Amadeus" as a great karaoke song. Not like Bowie's "Diamond Dogs." 

[PSmith08]

The harking on using the phrase 'self aggrandising' is beginning to sound like the Harping on of another about secret aesthetic knowledge. Dig up Eric, he would give you an entertaining run for your money.

I think, as I've said elsewhere here, you have to say his name three times in a mirror in a darkened bathroom while burning sophisticated scented candles and listening to The Greatest Opera of all Time, Now and Always, per omnia saecula saeculorum, Amen.

[knight66]

I think, as I've said elsewhere here, you have to say his name three times in a mirror in a darkened bathroom while burning sophisticated scented candles and listening to The Greatest Opera of all Time, Now and Always, per omnia saecula saeculorum, Amen.

That is akin to providing bomb-making directions on an Internet site and may have some of the same consequences. Do you think he can appear in more than one place at the same time if several people incant simeltaniously?

Mike

[PSmith08]

That is akin to providing bomb-making directions on an Internet site and may have some of the same consequences. Do you think he can appear in more than one place at the same time if several people incant simeltaniously?

Mike

Oh, no. He will only appear in one place. 

Though, to those meddling in the duskier arts, I would advise caution. Some doors, once opened, are difficult to close. Unless you really like "sophistication."

[Topaz]

No one picked up on this but I consider the most significant statement that Michel has made in defence of his views is this:

Do you not realize that the whole concept of spiritual experience is self-aggrandizement? Have you read Feuerbach? Ie, the idea of spirituality, of god, etc is an idea born out of our own ego? Your comment seems to prove my point - you are deluded when you hear your exalted music that you're experiencing something "deeper", and you're pompous to suggest its superior to Metallica.

Watching this discussion from the beginning, it struck me that this guy has not simply been peddling some private view of  classical music appreciation which he has thought up for himself, but has been trotting out a version of some possibly well-established philosophical viewpoint to which he has evidently become attracted, either recently or possibly of more long-standing duration.

I couldn't be sure exactly what it was, and I've been scanning my philosophy books for clues.  It was clearly materialistic in tone and I guessed Hegel.  At last he spelled it out: it's largely inspired by the philosophy of Feuerbach, who was a disciple of Hegel.   Feuerbach's main work was The Essence of Christianity (1841).  This was quite revolutionary at the time because it tried to comprehend religion from a human point of view. Feurebach believed that the mainspring of religion is man's desire to clarify his own essence, and saw "God" as the purified essence of man himself, i.e. "God" is nothing more than the ideal of man's capabilities and aspirations.

This anti-religion view was quite popular in certain sections of the philosophy profession, and elsewhere, the mid-nineteeth century.  For example, Marx and Engels picked up on some of it to develop their materialistic philosophy.  Feurebach, however, was quite soon forgotten, but has more recently made a bit of come-back among certain sections of the philosophical intelligentsia.  A central theme is the claim that "self-aggrandisement" motivates much of human behaviour, a view that has certain other philosophical antecedents.

Thus, more or less regardless of what any of you say on a purely musical plane, you won't shift this guy's views.  This is evident from the confidence of many of his replies. The only way to tackle them is by counter-philosophical arguments, and I'm not going to bother, as it's not worth it.  I will only say that I think his views, and those of Feurebach, are badly misconceived.

[karlhenning]

And who said I didn't like Scarlatti? I just said it was probably devoid of spiritual experience, in that it conveys nothing significant other than decoration.

Well, that doesn't really sound like admiration for Scarlatti.

But, seriously (though note direly), you're making two broad assertions which are open to question:

1.  Who says that the only significance that Scarlatti's music contains, is decoration?  I don't believe that for an instant.

2.  Even if that were the case, why should such music necessarily be devoid of spiritual experience?

[Scriptavolant]

  It was clearly materialistic in tone and I guessed Hegel. 

Good guess, I could not think of a philosopher which is less materialistic than Hegel.

[karlhenning]

I fear it is. I was forced to sit through a bass-baritone (if you can call it that) Karaoke version of Rock me Amadeus just a few weeks ago.

While I must disclaim any actual responsibility, I am so sorry for you.

[karlhenning]

And explain to me why spiritual experiences, whatever they are, cannot be achieved during a Scarlatti concert?

Should have known someone else would get there first.

[karlhenning]

so? does every piece of music have to be full of meaning? why can we just DANCE to J. Strauss II, and why can't we just LISTEN to Mahler?

Or, what is the nature of "musical meaning"?