Your Top 10 Favorite Composers

[Florestan]

The great thing about art is that it transcends, and leaves behind, the artists' original intentions, and can claim meanings, in the eyes/ears of its audience, which the artist did not imagine.

Perhaps Imagine would have been a better choice than Helter Skelter? 

EDIT:And also, the great thing about discussion boards is, anyone can answer your question.  0:)

Sure. And you know very well that I believe in absolutely free speech. 

[Ken B]

Perhaps Imagine would have been a better choice than Helter Skelter? 

Imagine there's no pointlessly repetitive debate on the same issues over and over on every damn GMG thread
You can do it if you try

[Madiel]

I really like this idea!!

I'm still not sure that I do...

[Florestan]

You can do it if you try

You have no idea how many times I´ve said that to myself. 

[Brian]

Perhaps Imagine would have been a better choice than Helter Skelter? 

No, because Paul McCartney didn't write it.

I'm still not sure that I do...

If there's one thing GMG specializes in, it's the ongoing comparison of apples, oranges, and a whole lot of other comestibles besides.

[Karl Henning]

My dear Karl, I am (more than) a little surprised that you misunderstood my position completely.

Well, that's why we chat. Or one reason, anyway.

[Florestan]

No, because Paul McCartney didn't write it.

Imagine he did...

[Todd]

No, because Paul McCartney didn't write it.

Yep.

[Florestan]

Well, that's why we chat. Or one reason, anyway.

[Todd]

(6.) As to Todd´s post, you asked for his opinion on an equivalent, without specifying what would satisfy you as equivalence.

Nothing would or will.  Some people just want to harrumph from on high about plebeian pop music.

[Madiel]

If there's one thing GMG specializes in, it's the ongoing comparison of apples, oranges, and a whole lot of other comestibles besides.

My concern is that I'm moving out of the fruit group entirely.

[Jo498]

I doubt you know enough about heavy metal to make a proper assessment of it in comparison to 1800-1830 in classical music. Which is the whole point. Whereas I know that I don't know nearly enough about heavy metal to discuss it at the same level of detail that my nephew can (my nephew being quite musical), you just dismiss the very idea that it could be possibly as interesting as an intimate discussion about what was going on in Europe during a particular generation.
[...]
Statements like something being "too obviously wrong" are merely a way of avoiding a discussion you don't have something more to say in.

No. There can be no discussion, if only "experts" who have listened to 500 heavy (or doom/black/silly/...) metal albums and can name all the subdivisions are entitled to an opinion. And the mere existence of experts does not show anything. My cousin was an expert on Pokemon when he was seven or so.

I do not have to read more than a few pages of a superhero comic (and I certainly do not have to read 100s of them) to know that this genre will not be comparable to Russian novels in the second half of the 19th century or Greek tragedies or whatever. Even the best superhero comic that might rise far above the typical trash is extremely limited by the very genre.

But more importantly, throwing huge numbers around and claiming that one had listen to a considerably fraction of that music, like you and Todd seem to do, obviously proves too much. Noone of us can listen to 5000 albums per year (4900 of which we might not care for), not to mention the further 500,000 recordings by some garage band on myspace (or what this is called today). Or to hundreds of symphonies by Haydn's contemporaries.
We ALL rely on certain mechanisms filtering out worthwhile candidates from what is out there. And such mechanisms usually do not need hundreds of years to work. I claim no expertise but my brother is reasonably well versed and very interested in the last 4 decades or so of popular music and I am sure that he would have no problem to name what was the most important music of the 1990s and that most of those bands or songs were recognized as important in their day; so we do not have do wait even 20 years.

You apparently find some of these mechanisms unreliable and say that "popular" popular music gives a wrong or skewed impression. (Maybe not the mechanisms that lead from myspace to a buyable album but those from an album to a chart position.) And you seem to generally agree that a lot of what's in the charts is rather bad or forgettable.
So you should at least to some extent agree with my original point that the dominant popular culture does not help people developing their taste because otherwise the most popular stuff would be better or at least not so much of the bad stuff would be so popular. (Note that this "closing of the musical mind" was actually my point further above, not the absolute quality of some choice popular music.)

Nevertheless, I am also wary of the claim that there is some totally different "unpopular" pop music with lots of hidden gems.  I never was really into any popular music but I listened to some of the stuff that was supposed to be "better", e.g. Radiohead or REM or whatever back in the mid/late 1990s (when I was more sociable...). This stuff might be better, but it is/was both quite popular and not totally different at all. It usually follows very clearly the typical song patterns etc. (and at least in clubs or concerts it is almost always played so loudly that I can hardly bear it). Stuff called "alternative" or "underground" still sells half a million albums I guess and additional merchandise.

It is also hardly plausible that most would denigrate popular music to "look down on the plebs". First of all, you seem to do something very similar yourself if you claim that what is in the popular charts is usually bad. Secondly, if in a forum dedicated to classical music denigrators of pop are clearly in the minority it seems obvious that there is no social capital at all to be gained by such a position. So why not try the idea that this is really our honest opinion...

[Karl Henning]

Nothing would or will.  Some people just want to harrumph from on high about plebeian pop music.

Obviously, if any of us knew as much about music as James, or if we would simply read what he actually writes . . . .

[Florestan]

if in a forum dedicated to classical music denigrators of pop are clearly in the minority it seems obvious that there is no social capital at all to be gained by such a position. So why not try the idea that this is really our honest opinion...

Amen, bruder!

To this, as well as to the rest of your post.

[Ken B]

Amen, bruder!

To this, as well as to the rest of your post.

You persist in not understanding the game. The game is to prove one's worth by denying any such opinion could possibly be honest. The Higher Being sees through you.

[Florestan]

You persist in not understanding the game. The game is to prove one's worth by denying any such opinion could possibly be honest.

All the more reason to appreciate and salute an honest opinion, methinks.

[Todd]

But more importantly, throwing huge numbers around and claiming that one had listen to a considerably fraction of that music, like you and Todd seem to do, obviously proves too much.

Looks like you missed my point.  The self-appointed cultural elites on this board seem to be unfamiliar with current pop music, and don't take the time to listen to any.  You're the one who came up with the magic number of 500; I asked 5, 50, 500, 5000.  If the number of pop albums one listens to is close to, or at, zero, then making a statement about the quality of current pop music is based on prejudice and ignorance, not knowledge.  Now, if you are not predisposed to listen to pop music, that's perfectly fine, but without actually listening, comments on quality are inherently uninformed; one needn't listen to hundreds of new albums a year, but it helps to listen to more than none.

So you should at least to some extent agree with my original point that the dominant popular culture does not help people developing their taste because otherwise the most popular stuff would be better or at least not so much of the bad stuff would be so popular.

What popular stuff is "bad", and how can it be "better"?  What evaluative criteria should be applied when making these determinations?  In addition to seeking out less popular pop music - and not multi-million sellers like Radiohead and REM, but actually less popular pop music - I also listen to truly popular pop music.  In that category, there's some entertaining, catchy, throwaway stuff (Taylor Swift, say), some stuff I can't stand but others love (eg, Adele), and so forth.  I have no expectation that the most popular pop music will display the musical sophistication of Schubert or Webern, and to compare such pop music to those types of composers is preposterous to begin with.  More serious, accomplished stuff - the Beatles, Tom Waits (writing, not singing), Lyle Lovett, Aimee Mann, Liz Phair, among others - can begin to compare to much vaunted art songs.  I can say with absolute honesty that a properly performed version of Long Way Home is superior to some songs I've listened to from even Schubert.  (I've not heard all of Schubert's songs, but only a few hundred.)

Also, I suppose I should inquire as to whether "dominant" popular culture, past, present, or future, is even supposed to be about, or ought to be about, helping people develop their taste.  What does that even mean, and would pop culture be able to do whatever it is you are proposing or hope for?  Ought it not be up to individuals to develop their taste?

Secondly, if in a forum dedicated to classical music denigrators of pop are clearly in the minority it seems obvious that there is no social capital at all to be gained by such a position. So why not try the idea that this is really our honest opinion...

It can be an honest opinion.  But the rhetorical questions posed, and the terms used, are undefined or ambiguous, and in extreme instances devolve into the cliché of the elderly not understanding the music of kids today. 

[Karl Henning]

McCartney's sheepish soft-pedaling notwithstanding, I think "Helter Skelter" is a fine specimen of a pop song.  Doesn't mean that everyone (or anyone else) has to like it.  Without necessarily thinking less of his designedly 'smoother' songs ("When I'm Sixty-Four," "Michelle," "Maxwell's Silver Hammer," e.g.), I especially like that McCartney veered back toward the raw energy more typical of their earlier R&B numbers (covers, or original songs).

Further resolved:  That I've heard all of it is another of the sounds produced by a mind snapping shut   0:)

[Florestan]

I have no expectation that the most popular pop music will display the musical sophistication of Schubert or Webern, and to compare such pop music to those types of composers is preposterous to begin with. 

Finally, something we agree on! (rhetorical device --- we agree on many things, actually...)

But for God´s sake, it is not me, or Jo or James or whoever you think might belong to the "self appointed GMG cultural elite" (whatever this might mean) who makes such comparisons. On the contrary, if anything we reject such comparisons. There is no useful criteria for that. "Classical" music (in its broadest sense) and "pop" music (also in its broadest sense --- and please be aware that, for instance, hardcore Heavy Metal (and its subgenres) fans would strongly and unequivocally reject being lumped together under this umbrella) inhabit different galaxies. Their philosophical, intellectual and aesthetical points of intersection are few and far between.

Indeed the only (relatively) meaningful comparison that can be made is with the Lieder / Artsong genre. I say relatively because off the top of my head I can name no Lieder composer who did not tackle any other genre, while off the top of my head I can name no "pop" artist other than Frank Zappa who extended his interest and abilities beyond songwriting, concept albums notwithstanding. Heck, Carl Loewe wrote several piano sonatas and string quartets, a symphony and a piano concerto; Hugo Wolf composed a finished opera and two string quartets. With, and within, these qualifications, I agree that there are many "pop" songs who are of the highest musical quality; I agree that there are "pop"composers who can be considered as masterful in their art as Schubert. I name five such people in no particular order: Eric Clapton, Ray Charles, Sting, Mark Knopfler and Willie Nelson.

Trouble arises when some people try to extend this legitimate area of comparison and to put, for instance, Beethoven and Tori Amos on the same list. It is only then that we ask --- in vain --- to be presented with at least a modicum of evidence beyond the obviously incontrovertible and unfalsifiable "I like them both the same" that musically, philosophically, intellectually and aesthetically they can be compared and that the comparison yields none better than the other.

The most annoying thing in all is the following: we of the "self appointed GMG cultural elite" defend, promote and mainly listen to a type of music which spans more than 1,000 years, is divided in countless truly defined and definable genres and subgenres, is scored for tens of different instruments and voice types, its vocals are sung in at least ten modern languages and two dead ones, requires years, if not whole decades, of strenuous and dedicated effort from the musicians in order to properly master their instrument and play it properly both as solo and in ensembles, and also requires from its afficionados a patient, gratification-delaying, continuous cultivation and development of their taste while guaranteeing to them an ever-increasing widening of their cultural horizon ---- and for unabashedly acknowledging and relishing all that, we are  labeled snob, closeminded and elitist. But if a "pop" fan shows himself, as all too oftenly they do, (gladly and sneeringly) ignorant of all that, stubbornly unwilling to extend his musical horizon beyond his favorite band(s) / singer(s) and only too eager to dismiss the music we cherish as elitist stuff fit only for snobs --- then we are to keep silent for fear not to appear or being misconstrued as snob and elitist, or even are to have feelings of guilt for not being in tune with the people, or even are to internalize that we really are snob and elitist and must do penance for our sins. It is this double standard that I find repulsive and against which I will raise my feeble voice whenever the occasion presents.

Dixi et salvavi animam meam.

[Madiel]

No. There can be no discussion, if only "experts" who have listened to 500 heavy (or doom/black/silly/...) metal albums and can name all the subdivisions are entitled to an opinion. And the mere existence of experts does not show anything. My cousin was an expert on Pokemon when he was seven or so.

I do not have to read more than a few pages of a superhero comic (and I certainly do not have to read 100s of them) to know that this genre will not be comparable to Russian novels in the second half of the 19th century or Greek tragedies or whatever. Even the best superhero comic that might rise far above the typical trash is extremely limited by the very genre.

But more importantly, throwing huge numbers around and claiming that one had listen to a considerably fraction of that music, like you and Todd seem to do, obviously proves too much. Noone of us can listen to 5000 albums per year (4900 of which we might not care for), not to mention the further 500,000 recordings by some garage band on myspace (or what this is called today). Or to hundreds of symphonies by Haydn's contemporaries.
We ALL rely on certain mechanisms filtering out worthwhile candidates from what is out there. And such mechanisms usually do not need hundreds of years to work. I claim no expertise but my brother is reasonably well versed and very interested in the last 4 decades or so of popular music and I am sure that he would have no problem to name what was the most important music of the 1990s and that most of those bands or songs were recognized as important in their day; so we do not have do wait even 20 years.

You apparently find some of these mechanisms unreliable and say that "popular" popular music gives a wrong or skewed impression. (Maybe not the mechanisms that lead from myspace to a buyable album but those from an album to a chart position.) And you seem to generally agree that a lot of what's in the charts is rather bad or forgettable.
So you should at least to some extent agree with my original point that the dominant popular culture does not help people developing their taste because otherwise the most popular stuff would be better or at least not so much of the bad stuff would be so popular. (Note that this "closing of the musical mind" was actually my point further above, not the absolute quality of some choice popular music.)

Nevertheless, I am also wary of the claim that there is some totally different "unpopular" pop music with lots of hidden gems.  I never was really into any popular music but I listened to some of the stuff that was supposed to be "better", e.g. Radiohead or REM or whatever back in the mid/late 1990s (when I was more sociable...). This stuff might be better, but it is/was both quite popular and not totally different at all. It usually follows very clearly the typical song patterns etc. (and at least in clubs or concerts it is almost always played so loudly that I can hardly bear it). Stuff called "alternative" or "underground" still sells half a million albums I guess and additional merchandise.

It is also hardly plausible that most would denigrate popular music to "look down on the plebs". First of all, you seem to do something very similar yourself if you claim that what is in the popular charts is usually bad. Secondly, if in a forum dedicated to classical music denigrators of pop are clearly in the minority it seems obvious that there is no social capital at all to be gained by such a position. So why not try the idea that this is really our honest opinion...

I never suggested it wasn't your honest opinion. But it was at one point a highly dismissive opinion.

The rest of this I'm just not going to bother with any more. There is too much to unpick and it's not worth the time.