|
Baa?21244 Posts
On March 15 2010 08:25 HeartOfTofu wrote:
Certainly I am always going back to listen to Stravinsky as well as other composers on an occasion just to see if maybe my tastes have changed since the last time (I can't really avoid it either way because my friend keeps trying to get me to like it...). Maybe one day it will grow on me, but that day has yet to come and I don't feel like it's something I really need to force on myself. I figure there's a whole world of music and other art out there I can enjoy so I just go with the flow as I evolve whether it be my favorite foods of the day or favorite tunes. That's always been the great thing about anything artistic to me... it's the fact that there's something for everyone regardless of our tastes.
Of course I would certainly encourage people to explore different types of music, food, painting, etc. because it all helps you grow and learn about yourself one way or another. At the same time, I don't think anyone should feel obligated to enjoy a certain artist or work just because others feel that they are great. I really wish people would feel more free to be honest enough to say things like, "I really just don't get it." or "I don't like it." because I feel it would lead to better discussion and also honesty, I feel, can only be beneficial to the evolution of artists and their work. I find it unfortunate that many people are too scared to simply admit that the opera they just watched bored the crap out of them for fear that they will be stoned or written off as a person with no taste. It's even more unfortunate when the people that will criticize that person are also full of people who didn't actually enjoy the opera themselves, but feel they need to maintain some sort of image by joining along with the critics.
Obviously every one of my examples so far involved a scenario where all parties have at least sampled the artistic work in question and the one scenario I avoided here is the one where someone will absolutely refuse to listen to Nirvana even once because he thinks Taylor Swift is amazing so there is no point in listening to anything or anyone else. If this person then states that it is his opinion that Taylor Swift is better than Nirvana, I would probably argue that his opinion is not a real opinion at all simply because I don't believe that you can form a real opinion without being informed. That's like being of the opinion that lemons are too salty without ever having tasted a lemon before or saying a rose is greener than a watermelon without ever having seen a rose. As far as I'm concerned, that isn't an opinion, it's nonsense and ignorance being masked as an opinion and such "opinions" are not what I am talking about when I talk about opinions.
When you remove nonsense like this, then I think it's pretty safe to say that all opinions are indeed, equal at the very least in the sense that they all hold true in the only place where any opinion matters-in the mind of the person who holds it.
I basically agree with all of the points raised here, think this issue comes up a lot when I talk with people about music.
I have to ask though, where do you draw the line between a good and a "fake" opinion? Let's say I adore Beethoven and abhor Bach - how much Bach do I have to have sampled before I can say that "I think Beethoven's better than Bach?" Ideally, everyone would know and comprehend -everything- about anything before they can say that, but practically, where do I draw a line? Can I listen to one piece by Bach and say he's inferior? That seems quite absurd. But do we draw an arbitrary boundary?
|
I figure an opinion can really only be about something you know, which is why I made the additional note earlier that it was the Stravinsky pieces that I've heard that I've not liked. I've not heard everything Stravinsky has ever composed or Bach or Beethoven. There could very well be compositions by Stravinsky that I would love, but I've just not heard them yet. I will admit that my statement that I hate Stravinsky was a little too "all-encompassing", but at the time I really was saying it just to illustrate that it's really fine to like or dislike whatever you want.
That being said, I think we can all agree that artists and composers alike often tend to have a distinct style that defines them. Of course this style evolves over the various periods of their lives, but eventually after sampling enough of their work, you can begin to recognize these trends and form an opinion not only about the individual works, but their musical style as a whole during a given period. This is, of course, a problem when it comes to discussion because we speak with our own understanding of what we're talking about but that doesn't necessarily mean that it is what the other party is thinking about as the subject of the conversation, which requires us to really be much more specific than we often are.
One example would be two people talking about Mozart and having different opinions, but later in the conversation discovering that one person has experience primarily with Mozart's earlier works while the other is only experienced in the later works. Even though they're talking about the same composer, they're really not on the same subject at all since Mozart's earlier works and later works are different. This conversation could have gone on for hours escalating to debate or argument before they realize that they're not even talking about the same thing.
This is why it's important to be specific and also why it's ideal for one to keep himself/herself open-minded and make an effort to experience and understand as much as possible. Also in terms of art, I don't think you could EVER really say that "Artist A is better than Artist B.", but you could say that "I prefer Artist A to Artist B." and the assumption would be that this opinion is based on what you've sampled from the artists in question which can be a lot or little. You can insert Beethoven and Bach or whoever else you want there. Of course the more you know about each artist, the more informed your opinion will ultimately be and the more reasons you will be able to give for that opinion, which is always better in furthering discussion.
To me, the only fake opinions really are opinions that are about something the person knows nothing about. If I've not heard a single jazz piece, then how could I have any real opinion about jazz? If I've heard just a single jazz piece, my opinion would be very limited, but it would at least hold some basis in that single piece that I listened to and I would be sure to let people know that my opinion is formed on such limited experience in order to avoid any misunderstandings.
|
^ Good point, it's really hard to draw the line where someone can say "this composer" is worse than "that composer" and back it up with reasons. I mean, a lot of it is personal taste, isn't it? A lot of pianists will say Chopin is their favourite composer, but does it make Chopin the best composer? Hard to say, but music is cool in a way that almost everyone has personal opinions about it. You can ask a stranger on the street "what do you think about rocket science" and draw blank looks, or ask "what is your favourite genre of music" and get a good conversation out of it.
|
One thing I forgot to mention and something I actually wanted to throw in is actually in regard to the type of discussions we have in regard to art. Simply put, there's a reason there's no end to the Pepsi/Coke argument or the Yankees/Red Sox argument. The reason is that there isn't a real answer and it's really an unproductive argument. Sure, rivalries can be fun, but it stops being an intellectual exercise very quickly and often degrades into a pack of rabid fanboys on each side warring with each other.
This is why I'd actually be very very cautious about saying something like "Beethoven is better than Bach." Nothing good or productive can come from that train of discussion...
|
well then, how about bach vs mozart?
;p
|
I think classical music is about as elitist as fine single malt scotch whiskey. Obviously it's not for everyone all the time, but to say that you would always choose a can of 7up over a glass of Mccallan is ridiculous.
|
On March 16 2010 02:52 Hammersmith wrote:
I think classical music is about as elitist as fine single malt scotch whiskey. Obviously it's not for everyone all the time, but to say that you would always choose a can of 7up over a glass of Mccallan is ridiculous.
Yeah.
Problem is, in this thread as elsewhere, people talk about classical music as if it was a kind of music such as rap or metal.
That's just non-sense.
Putting in the same bag Stravinsky, Ligeti, Bach, Wagner and Monteverdi is as gross as putting in the same bag Miles Davis, Britney Spears, Edit Piaf and Eminem.
What we abusely call classical music is all savant music of the Western civilization since five centuries.
|
On March 16 2010 03:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2010 02:52 Hammersmith wrote:
I think classical music is about as elitist as fine single malt scotch whiskey. Obviously it's not for everyone all the time, but to say that you would always choose a can of 7up over a glass of Mccallan is ridiculous. Yeah. Problem is, in this thread as elsewhere, people talk about classical music as if it was a kind of music such as rap or metal. That's just non-sense. Putting in the same bag Stravinsky, Ligeti, Bach, Wagner and Monteverdi is as gross as putting in the same bag Miles Davis, Britney Spears, Edit Piaf and Eminem. What we abusely call classical music is all savant music of the Western civilization since five centuries.
Or we can just call it music and leave out all those other "genres". Hohoho, elitism at its best :3
|
On March 16 2010 04:13 rabidch wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2010 03:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 16 2010 02:52 Hammersmith wrote:
I think classical music is about as elitist as fine single malt scotch whiskey. Obviously it's not for everyone all the time, but to say that you would always choose a can of 7up over a glass of Mccallan is ridiculous. Yeah. Problem is, in this thread as elsewhere, people talk about classical music as if it was a kind of music such as rap or metal. That's just non-sense. Putting in the same bag Stravinsky, Ligeti, Bach, Wagner and Monteverdi is as gross as putting in the same bag Miles Davis, Britney Spears, Edit Piaf and Eminem. What we abusely call classical music is all savant music of the Western civilization since five centuries. Or we can just call it music and leave out all those other "genres". Hohoho, elitism at its best :3
No. I would just call it savant music (because classical music is a precise moment of history of savant music -1750-1820-) and, then have two other main categories, popular music, and jazz, which is something else. And inside each family you have genres. There is more in common Eminem and the Beatles than bewteen Vivaldi and Stockhausen.
There is nothing elitist here.
|
I would imagine the classical in classical music has nothing to do with the classical period; more to do with classical art or classical philosophy. I guess it just means old. I prefer classical to savant, savant reminds me of the phrase idiot savant who just sits in the corner calculating pi.
|
On March 16 2010 04:50 sc4k wrote:
I would imagine the classical in classical music has nothing to do with the classical period; more to do with classical art or classical philosophy. I guess it just means old. I prefer classical to savant, savant reminds me of the phrase idiot savant who just sits in the corner calculating pi.
Nobody write classical philosophy anymore. Why would Ligeti, Stockhausen, Kaja Sayaro or Arvo Part write "classical music" when they are at the avant-garde of the evolution of Western Music, much more than any popular music composer or artist?
|
On March 16 2010 04:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2010 04:13 rabidch wrote:On March 16 2010 03:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 16 2010 02:52 Hammersmith wrote:
I think classical music is about as elitist as fine single malt scotch whiskey. Obviously it's not for everyone all the time, but to say that you would always choose a can of 7up over a glass of Mccallan is ridiculous. Yeah. Problem is, in this thread as elsewhere, people talk about classical music as if it was a kind of music such as rap or metal. That's just non-sense. Putting in the same bag Stravinsky, Ligeti, Bach, Wagner and Monteverdi is as gross as putting in the same bag Miles Davis, Britney Spears, Edit Piaf and Eminem. What we abusely call classical music is all savant music of the Western civilization since five centuries. Or we can just call it music and leave out all those other "genres". Hohoho, elitism at its best :3 No. I would just call it savant music (because classical music is a precise moment of history of savant music -1750-1820-) and, then have two other main categories, popular music, and jazz, which is something else. And inside each family you have genres. There is more in common Eminem and the Beatles than bewteen Vivaldi and Stockhausen. There is nothing elitist here.
somebody lost the point of the post
|
On March 16 2010 05:11 rabidch wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2010 04:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 16 2010 04:13 rabidch wrote:On March 16 2010 03:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 16 2010 02:52 Hammersmith wrote:
I think classical music is about as elitist as fine single malt scotch whiskey. Obviously it's not for everyone all the time, but to say that you would always choose a can of 7up over a glass of Mccallan is ridiculous. Yeah. Problem is, in this thread as elsewhere, people talk about classical music as if it was a kind of music such as rap or metal. That's just non-sense. Putting in the same bag Stravinsky, Ligeti, Bach, Wagner and Monteverdi is as gross as putting in the same bag Miles Davis, Britney Spears, Edit Piaf and Eminem. What we abusely call classical music is all savant music of the Western civilization since five centuries. Or we can just call it music and leave out all those other "genres". Hohoho, elitism at its best :3 No. I would just call it savant music (because classical music is a precise moment of history of savant music -1750-1820-) and, then have two other main categories, popular music, and jazz, which is something else. And inside each family you have genres. There is more in common Eminem and the Beatles than bewteen Vivaldi and Stockhausen. There is nothing elitist here. somebody lost the point of the post
Enlighten me, then. I don't see anything elitist in what I have written until there.
|
On March 16 2010 05:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2010 05:11 rabidch wrote:On March 16 2010 04:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 16 2010 04:13 rabidch wrote:On March 16 2010 03:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 16 2010 02:52 Hammersmith wrote:
I think classical music is about as elitist as fine single malt scotch whiskey. Obviously it's not for everyone all the time, but to say that you would always choose a can of 7up over a glass of Mccallan is ridiculous. Yeah. Problem is, in this thread as elsewhere, people talk about classical music as if it was a kind of music such as rap or metal. That's just non-sense. Putting in the same bag Stravinsky, Ligeti, Bach, Wagner and Monteverdi is as gross as putting in the same bag Miles Davis, Britney Spears, Edit Piaf and Eminem. What we abusely call classical music is all savant music of the Western civilization since five centuries. Or we can just call it music and leave out all those other "genres". Hohoho, elitism at its best :3 No. I would just call it savant music (because classical music is a precise moment of history of savant music -1750-1820-) and, then have two other main categories, popular music, and jazz, which is something else. And inside each family you have genres. There is more in common Eminem and the Beatles than bewteen Vivaldi and Stockhausen. There is nothing elitist here. somebody lost the point of the post Enlighten me, then. I don't see anything elitist in what I have written until there.
He is joking that classical music is the only real music. He did not intend "Hohoho, ... :3" to elicit a serious response.
(Also, minor note on the use of "popular music": Certain styles of jazz were pop music at the time.)
|
On March 16 2010 05:25 Pyrthas wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2010 05:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 16 2010 05:11 rabidch wrote:On March 16 2010 04:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 16 2010 04:13 rabidch wrote:On March 16 2010 03:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 16 2010 02:52 Hammersmith wrote:
I think classical music is about as elitist as fine single malt scotch whiskey. Obviously it's not for everyone all the time, but to say that you would always choose a can of 7up over a glass of Mccallan is ridiculous. Yeah. Problem is, in this thread as elsewhere, people talk about classical music as if it was a kind of music such as rap or metal. That's just non-sense. Putting in the same bag Stravinsky, Ligeti, Bach, Wagner and Monteverdi is as gross as putting in the same bag Miles Davis, Britney Spears, Edit Piaf and Eminem. What we abusely call classical music is all savant music of the Western civilization since five centuries. Or we can just call it music and leave out all those other "genres". Hohoho, elitism at its best :3 No. I would just call it savant music (because classical music is a precise moment of history of savant music -1750-1820-) and, then have two other main categories, popular music, and jazz, which is something else. And inside each family you have genres. There is more in common Eminem and the Beatles than bewteen Vivaldi and Stockhausen. There is nothing elitist here. somebody lost the point of the post Enlighten me, then. I don't see anything elitist in what I have written until there. He is joking that classical music is the only real music. He did not intend "Hohoho, ... :3" to elicit a serious response. (Also, minor note on the use of "popular music": Certain styles of jazz were pop music at the time.)
Oh, ok, I'm just being an idiot. 
Jazz is a pretty strange one, because it brings something completely "new" in Western music (at least at this scale), which is improvisation. It is popular music, but it is also just a different world.
Actually, that explains also why "classical" musician usually respect jazz and jazzmen a lot. There is something that we just don't know, and don't master at all there.
|
On March 16 2010 05:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2010 05:25 Pyrthas wrote:On March 16 2010 05:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 16 2010 05:11 rabidch wrote:On March 16 2010 04:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 16 2010 04:13 rabidch wrote:On March 16 2010 03:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 16 2010 02:52 Hammersmith wrote:
I think classical music is about as elitist as fine single malt scotch whiskey. Obviously it's not for everyone all the time, but to say that you would always choose a can of 7up over a glass of Mccallan is ridiculous. Yeah. Problem is, in this thread as elsewhere, people talk about classical music as if it was a kind of music such as rap or metal. That's just non-sense. Putting in the same bag Stravinsky, Ligeti, Bach, Wagner and Monteverdi is as gross as putting in the same bag Miles Davis, Britney Spears, Edit Piaf and Eminem. What we abusely call classical music is all savant music of the Western civilization since five centuries. Or we can just call it music and leave out all those other "genres". Hohoho, elitism at its best :3 No. I would just call it savant music (because classical music is a precise moment of history of savant music -1750-1820-) and, then have two other main categories, popular music, and jazz, which is something else. And inside each family you have genres. There is more in common Eminem and the Beatles than bewteen Vivaldi and Stockhausen. There is nothing elitist here. somebody lost the point of the post Enlighten me, then. I don't see anything elitist in what I have written until there. He is joking that classical music is the only real music. He did not intend "Hohoho, ... :3" to elicit a serious response. (Also, minor note on the use of "popular music": Certain styles of jazz were pop music at the time.) Oh, ok, I'm just being an idiot. Jazz is a pretty strange one, because it brings something completely "new" in Western music (at least at this scale), which is improvisation. It is popular music, but it is also just a different world. Actually, that explains also why "classical" musician usually respect jazz and jazzmen a lot. There is something that we just don't know, and don't master at all there.
Hey, it's possible I'm being the idiot and misreading him! 
You make a good point about improvisation. Of course it shows up in all sorts of music, but perhaps never as centrally or pervasively as in jazz. (Blues and jam bands are sometimes similar, I suppose.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
