|
On March 13 2010 22:26 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2010 21:38 phosphorylation wrote:On March 13 2010 20:20 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 13 2010 19:55 phosphorylation wrote:On March 13 2010 19:39 Silvanel wrote:
Anyone who claims that one form of art is better than the other is just plainly wrong. They are all equal. Most academics i know dont listen to any kind of music, a few listens fo Jazz, hell when i started counting, it turned out there are more metal fans than classical among them. so a story written by a 6 year old cannot be judged inferior art than shakespearean literature? On an aesthetic level, no. Or yes, but it will be extremely hard to justify it. Aesthetic problems are an incredibly hard nut to crack, and I doubt we have the space to even make a outline of the problem of tastes and artistic judgement. That's hardcore philosophy in its most complicated form. The most complete answer is to be found in Critic of the Judgement from Immanuel Kant, although I don't like his approach. Art is to be related with his transcandantal moral, to summarize. A simpler approach is the one of David Hume, which considers that some people are experts, are "true critiques", which needs both objectivity and science. That's not very satisfactory neither. You can also refer to someone like Alain Badiou who consider that the novelty (in fact of the process of artistic Truth which is always revolutionary) gives its value to an artwork. You also have Heidegger who studied the problem, and I won't even try to make a resumee. etc, etc, etc... It is obvious that Shakespeare has more artistic value than your 6 years old, or that Beethoven is plai better than Britney Spears. But to find out why and how to justify it, that's years and years of work for the greatest philosophers, and years of studying for you to understand them. There is this sentence from Adorno: "It is self-evident that nothing concerning art is self-evident" i like how you cite philosophers to seem hard core and proceed to label them as not satisfactory and very funny how you mention adorno (i fucking love that jew) coz he would be in profound agreement with me he spent much of his life thinking about why certain art is wortwhile while others are not you are grossly simplifying the meaning of his quote and seemingly not comprehending it on the argument itself, you first say this: "Anyone who claims that one form of art is better than the other is just plainly wrong" and proceed to give in, saying " It is obvious that Shakespeare has more artistic value than your 6 years old, or that Beethoven is plai better than Britney Spears. But to find out why and how to justify it, that's years and years of work for the greatest philosophers, and years of studying for you to understand them." ruh roh Did you read what I have written? If yes, read again. I say that it is possible to judge an artwork, but that it is very difficult. Let's assume you just misread. Then I say that aesthetic theories are so complicated that anything written here would be too sumarized. Why the fuck do you reproach me to be grossly simpifying when I said a sentence earlier that it would be the case. Doesn't make any sense. Then I said that I didn't like Kantian moral, not that it was not good. David Hume is interesting, but the theory of the true critique is just obsolete in philosophy. And then you say that you like this jew, but if you can't understand a sentence of a basic post on a video game website, I don't see how you could understand a single sentence Adorno has written. And again, how on the fucking earth could what I quoted from Adorno could be misunderstood. There is nothing evident about aesthetic, that all what this sentence says. That's not the fucking kabal. I never wrote that "Anyone who claims that one form of art is better than the other is just plainly wrong" anywhere. You didn't take time to make the difference between the previous poost and mine. What I say is that there is evidence that Beethoven is better than BS, but that it is years and years to be able to justify it. Which is the pooint of departure of most philosophers that wrote on aesthetic: why something evident is so hard to justify. Fucking learn to read, instead of making yourself ridiculous and ruining threads like that. Jesus...
damn mofo chill out
i now see that it was someone else who wrote that
since i assumed that you wrote it, then proceed to seemingly contradict yourself, i thought it was pretty ridiculous
and you have to admit your post was quite disorganized and disarray
but yes, this is my bad
|
On March 13 2010 22:36 phosphorylation wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2010 22:26 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 13 2010 21:38 phosphorylation wrote:On March 13 2010 20:20 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 13 2010 19:55 phosphorylation wrote:On March 13 2010 19:39 Silvanel wrote:
Anyone who claims that one form of art is better than the other is just plainly wrong. They are all equal. Most academics i know dont listen to any kind of music, a few listens fo Jazz, hell when i started counting, it turned out there are more metal fans than classical among them. so a story written by a 6 year old cannot be judged inferior art than shakespearean literature? On an aesthetic level, no. Or yes, but it will be extremely hard to justify it. Aesthetic problems are an incredibly hard nut to crack, and I doubt we have the space to even make a outline of the problem of tastes and artistic judgement. That's hardcore philosophy in its most complicated form. The most complete answer is to be found in Critic of the Judgement from Immanuel Kant, although I don't like his approach. Art is to be related with his transcandantal moral, to summarize. A simpler approach is the one of David Hume, which considers that some people are experts, are "true critiques", which needs both objectivity and science. That's not very satisfactory neither. You can also refer to someone like Alain Badiou who consider that the novelty (in fact of the process of artistic Truth which is always revolutionary) gives its value to an artwork. You also have Heidegger who studied the problem, and I won't even try to make a resumee. etc, etc, etc... It is obvious that Shakespeare has more artistic value than your 6 years old, or that Beethoven is plai better than Britney Spears. But to find out why and how to justify it, that's years and years of work for the greatest philosophers, and years of studying for you to understand them. There is this sentence from Adorno: "It is self-evident that nothing concerning art is self-evident" i like how you cite philosophers to seem hard core and proceed to label them as not satisfactory and very funny how you mention adorno (i fucking love that jew) coz he would be in profound agreement with me he spent much of his life thinking about why certain art is wortwhile while others are not you are grossly simplifying the meaning of his quote and seemingly not comprehending it on the argument itself, you first say this: "Anyone who claims that one form of art is better than the other is just plainly wrong" and proceed to give in, saying " It is obvious that Shakespeare has more artistic value than your 6 years old, or that Beethoven is plai better than Britney Spears. But to find out why and how to justify it, that's years and years of work for the greatest philosophers, and years of studying for you to understand them." ruh roh Did you read what I have written? If yes, read again. I say that it is possible to judge an artwork, but that it is very difficult. Let's assume you just misread. Then I say that aesthetic theories are so complicated that anything written here would be too sumarized. Why the fuck do you reproach me to be grossly simpifying when I said a sentence earlier that it would be the case. Doesn't make any sense. Then I said that I didn't like Kantian moral, not that it was not good. David Hume is interesting, but the theory of the true critique is just obsolete in philosophy. And then you say that you like this jew, but if you can't understand a sentence of a basic post on a video game website, I don't see how you could understand a single sentence Adorno has written. And again, how on the fucking earth could what I quoted from Adorno could be misunderstood. There is nothing evident about aesthetic, that all what this sentence says. That's not the fucking kabal. I never wrote that "Anyone who claims that one form of art is better than the other is just plainly wrong" anywhere. You didn't take time to make the difference between the previous poost and mine. What I say is that there is evidence that Beethoven is better than BS, but that it is years and years to be able to justify it. Which is the pooint of departure of most philosophers that wrote on aesthetic: why something evident is so hard to justify. Fucking learn to read, instead of making yourself ridiculous and ruining threads like that. Jesus... damn mofo chill out i now see that it was someone else who wrote that since i assumed that you wrote it, then proceed to seemingly contradict yourself, i thought it was pretty ridiculous and you have to admit your post was quite disorganized and disarray but yes, this is my bad
It's not about one sentence or one point, you made non-sense about all what I had written.
My post was very well organized, you just didn't take time to read it at all, and you didn't take time to read what it was answering to.
And yes, that pissed me of. Doesn't matter 
|
If one assumes that (as I have accidentally did) that you wrote ""Anyone who claims that one form of art is better than the other is just plainly wrong", and with this knowledge, read what you wrote
yes, it will seem like bunch of ramble -- and yes i admit -- i did not read it all that carefully, because i dismissed it quickly after seeing that you seemingly contradicted yourself
now that i read it again, now knowing you haven't written that, it's pretty clear
let it go already
|
On March 13 2010 15:42 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2010 15:23 Surrealistic wrote:Here's an opinion that throws a spanner in the works - I have dismissed all but one of Beethoven's symphonies. I have listened to recordings by the likes of Kleber, Rattle, Bernstein, Bohm, Klemperer, Marriner, Szell, Furtwanglar (and a few more) and mostly Karajan but only one has truly convinced me. http://www.amazon.com/Beethoven-Symphonie-No-Overture-Egmont/dp/B000056TKCI highly recommend this to anyone, the 9th symphony should be familiar, but this .... O_O Wait, are you saying you only like one of Beethoven's symphonies, or are you saying that Jochum's interpretation is the only conductor who makes you like Beethoven as a whole? While we're on this topic, I highly recommend Frans Bruggen and the Orchestra of the 18th Century's Beethoven (and Schubert) symphony cycle to any and everyone. I'm almost tempted to say that if you only ever listen to one interpretation, go with Bruggen.
No the ninth I linked to was an interpretation from Ferenc Fricsay! And yes, he's the only conductor that makes me like Beethoven's symphonies as a whole.
To the person who mentioned Liebowitz below Sheep's post - I've got his Satie recording of Socrate and it is fabulous. He's a slightly obscure conductor though but has written a lot of his own material is seems - there's a CD labeled Chamber Music, including compositions opused to 87 O_O.
|
On March 13 2010 22:36 SF-Fork wrote:
lol thanks, I'm stupid, I was thinking something in the lines of Bm6 but didn't know how to include the fifth. Thanks!
well to be more precise, it is G Maj 65
|
On March 13 2010 23:11 Surrealistic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2010 15:42 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On March 13 2010 15:23 Surrealistic wrote:Here's an opinion that throws a spanner in the works - I have dismissed all but one of Beethoven's symphonies. I have listened to recordings by the likes of Kleber, Rattle, Bernstein, Bohm, Klemperer, Marriner, Szell, Furtwanglar (and a few more) and mostly Karajan but only one has truly convinced me. http://www.amazon.com/Beethoven-Symphonie-No-Overture-Egmont/dp/B000056TKCI highly recommend this to anyone, the 9th symphony should be familiar, but this .... O_O Wait, are you saying you only like one of Beethoven's symphonies, or are you saying that Jochum's interpretation is the only conductor who makes you like Beethoven as a whole? While we're on this topic, I highly recommend Frans Bruggen and the Orchestra of the 18th Century's Beethoven (and Schubert) symphony cycle to any and everyone. I'm almost tempted to say that if you only ever listen to one interpretation, go with Bruggen. No the ninth I linked to was an interpretation from Ferenc Fricsay! And yes, he's the only conductor that makes me like Beethoven's symphonies as a whole. To the person who mentioned Liebowitz below Sheep's post - I've got his Satie recording of Socrate and it is fabulous. He's a slightly obscure conductor though but has written a lot of his own material is seems - there's a CD labeled Chamber Music, including compositions opused to 87 O_O.
I played number 5 under Gardiner, I swear you, I can't listen to them anymore with anybody else. His version with the Orchestra of the Age of Enlightement is just incredible.
|
There is an irritating element to aesthetic philosophy. When you arm the plain ignorant (and I'm not saying anyone here belongs to such a group) with the philosophical ammunition to start these ridiculous 'subjectivity' arguments, you are giving them an excuse not to learn. They can sit there in stupidity and fight off anyone trying to enlighten them by saying 'opinions are like assholes' etc.
Although aesthetic opinions are always subjective, different opinions have different levels of validity. It's like, in between scientific knowledge about a fact or personal preference for a colour.
Someone who has listened to every possible musical piece ever written, analysed every piece and has understood, profoundly, exactly why those pieces speak to people; will objectively be less ignorant than someone who has only ever listened to Top 40 pop music. This will mean his opinion is clearly more informed, and even if his aesthetic principles are different, he will be certain that his tastes are as clear as they could be; whereas we can all be certain that the latter person mentioned might definitely have a different opinion about music and artists if they had listened to and understood every artist ever.
If they were to have an argument about music, aesthetic philosophy dictates that either person's opinion is equally valid. So, if the latter person were to say 'x Top 40 contemporary is the greatest artist ever to have lived, in my SUBJECTIVE opinion', the former person would definitely have solid recourse to argue- in an attempt to enlighten the latter person. However, this attempt to enlighten would be met by a solid brick wall of 'your opinion is equally valid as mine on a subjective subject'. There's clearly something wrong with that.
So, the point is, the validity of your opinion increases every time you remove some of your ignorance in the field. It's acceptable that you like Monet, but if you have only ever seen Monet paintings it's less valid than if you have examined and deeply understood all painters from 1600 onwards.
|
On March 13 2010 23:20 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2010 23:11 Surrealistic wrote:On March 13 2010 15:42 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On March 13 2010 15:23 Surrealistic wrote:Here's an opinion that throws a spanner in the works - I have dismissed all but one of Beethoven's symphonies. I have listened to recordings by the likes of Kleber, Rattle, Bernstein, Bohm, Klemperer, Marriner, Szell, Furtwanglar (and a few more) and mostly Karajan but only one has truly convinced me. http://www.amazon.com/Beethoven-Symphonie-No-Overture-Egmont/dp/B000056TKCI highly recommend this to anyone, the 9th symphony should be familiar, but this .... O_O Wait, are you saying you only like one of Beethoven's symphonies, or are you saying that Jochum's interpretation is the only conductor who makes you like Beethoven as a whole? While we're on this topic, I highly recommend Frans Bruggen and the Orchestra of the 18th Century's Beethoven (and Schubert) symphony cycle to any and everyone. I'm almost tempted to say that if you only ever listen to one interpretation, go with Bruggen. No the ninth I linked to was an interpretation from Ferenc Fricsay! And yes, he's the only conductor that makes me like Beethoven's symphonies as a whole. To the person who mentioned Liebowitz below Sheep's post - I've got his Satie recording of Socrate and it is fabulous. He's a slightly obscure conductor though but has written a lot of his own material is seems - there's a CD labeled Chamber Music, including compositions opused to 87 O_O. I played number 5 under Gardiner, I swear you, I can't listen to them anymore with anybody else. His version with the Orchestra of the Age of Enlightement is just incredible.
Do you mean the ORR or am I going to have to buy another Beethoven set?
|
On March 13 2010 23:43 sc4k wrote:
There is an irritating element to aesthetic philosophy. When you arm the plain ignorant (and I'm not saying anyone here belongs to such a group) with the philosophical ammunition to start these ridiculous 'subjectivity' arguments, you are giving them an excuse not to learn. They can sit there in stupidity and fight off anyone trying to enlighten them by saying 'opinions are like assholes' etc.
Although aesthetic opinions are always subjective, different opinions have different levels of validity. It's like, in between scientific knowledge about a fact or personal preference for a colour.
Someone who has listened to every possible musical piece ever written, analysed every piece and has understood, profoundly, exactly why those pieces speak to people; will objectively be less ignorant than someone who has only ever listened to Top 40 pop music. This will mean his opinion is clearly more informed, and even if his aesthetic principles are different, he will be certain that his tastes are as clear as they could be; whereas we can all be certain that the latter person mentioned might definitely have a different opinion about music and artists if they had listened to and understood every artist ever.
If they were to have an argument about music, aesthetic philosophy dictates that either person's opinion is equally valid. So, if the latter person were to say 'x Top 40 contemporary is the greatest artist ever to have lived, in my SUBJECTIVE opinion', the former person would definitely have solid recourse to argue- in an attempt to enlighten the latter person. However, this attempt to enlighten would be met by a solid brick wall of 'your opinion is equally valid as mine on a subjective subject'. There's clearly something wrong with that.
So, the point is, the validity of your opinion increases every time you remove some of your ignorance in the field. It's acceptable that you like Monet, but if you have only ever seen Monet paintings it's less valid than if you have examined and deeply understood all painters from 1600 onwards.
That's David Hume's point of view, the theory of the true critique.
I guess it's a good point of departure.
|
On March 13 2010 23:49 Spinfusor wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2010 23:20 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 13 2010 23:11 Surrealistic wrote:On March 13 2010 15:42 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On March 13 2010 15:23 Surrealistic wrote:Here's an opinion that throws a spanner in the works - I have dismissed all but one of Beethoven's symphonies. I have listened to recordings by the likes of Kleber, Rattle, Bernstein, Bohm, Klemperer, Marriner, Szell, Furtwanglar (and a few more) and mostly Karajan but only one has truly convinced me. http://www.amazon.com/Beethoven-Symphonie-No-Overture-Egmont/dp/B000056TKCI highly recommend this to anyone, the 9th symphony should be familiar, but this .... O_O Wait, are you saying you only like one of Beethoven's symphonies, or are you saying that Jochum's interpretation is the only conductor who makes you like Beethoven as a whole? While we're on this topic, I highly recommend Frans Bruggen and the Orchestra of the 18th Century's Beethoven (and Schubert) symphony cycle to any and everyone. I'm almost tempted to say that if you only ever listen to one interpretation, go with Bruggen. No the ninth I linked to was an interpretation from Ferenc Fricsay! And yes, he's the only conductor that makes me like Beethoven's symphonies as a whole. To the person who mentioned Liebowitz below Sheep's post - I've got his Satie recording of Socrate and it is fabulous. He's a slightly obscure conductor though but has written a lot of his own material is seems - there's a CD labeled Chamber Music, including compositions opused to 87 O_O. I played number 5 under Gardiner, I swear you, I can't listen to them anymore with anybody else. His version with the Orchestra of the Age of Enlightement is just incredible. Do you mean the ORR or am I going to have to buy another Beethoven set?
Sorry my bad, it's obviously ORR.
|
On March 13 2010 23:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2010 23:43 sc4k wrote:
There is an irritating element to aesthetic philosophy. When you arm the plain ignorant (and I'm not saying anyone here belongs to such a group) with the philosophical ammunition to start these ridiculous 'subjectivity' arguments, you are giving them an excuse not to learn. They can sit there in stupidity and fight off anyone trying to enlighten them by saying 'opinions are like assholes' etc.
Although aesthetic opinions are always subjective, different opinions have different levels of validity. It's like, in between scientific knowledge about a fact or personal preference for a colour.
Someone who has listened to every possible musical piece ever written, analysed every piece and has understood, profoundly, exactly why those pieces speak to people; will objectively be less ignorant than someone who has only ever listened to Top 40 pop music. This will mean his opinion is clearly more informed, and even if his aesthetic principles are different, he will be certain that his tastes are as clear as they could be; whereas we can all be certain that the latter person mentioned might definitely have a different opinion about music and artists if they had listened to and understood every artist ever.
If they were to have an argument about music, aesthetic philosophy dictates that either person's opinion is equally valid. So, if the latter person were to say 'x Top 40 contemporary is the greatest artist ever to have lived, in my SUBJECTIVE opinion', the former person would definitely have solid recourse to argue- in an attempt to enlighten the latter person. However, this attempt to enlighten would be met by a solid brick wall of 'your opinion is equally valid as mine on a subjective subject'. There's clearly something wrong with that.
So, the point is, the validity of your opinion increases every time you remove some of your ignorance in the field. It's acceptable that you like Monet, but if you have only ever seen Monet paintings it's less valid than if you have examined and deeply understood all painters from 1600 onwards. That's David Hume's point of view, the theory of the true critique. I guess it's a good point of departure.
Are there any books in particular where I can read about Hume's opinion on the matter? I'm heading to the uni library soon, might as well pick one up
|
On March 13 2010 23:20 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2010 23:11 Surrealistic wrote:On March 13 2010 15:42 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On March 13 2010 15:23 Surrealistic wrote:Here's an opinion that throws a spanner in the works - I have dismissed all but one of Beethoven's symphonies. I have listened to recordings by the likes of Kleber, Rattle, Bernstein, Bohm, Klemperer, Marriner, Szell, Furtwanglar (and a few more) and mostly Karajan but only one has truly convinced me. http://www.amazon.com/Beethoven-Symphonie-No-Overture-Egmont/dp/B000056TKCI highly recommend this to anyone, the 9th symphony should be familiar, but this .... O_O Wait, are you saying you only like one of Beethoven's symphonies, or are you saying that Jochum's interpretation is the only conductor who makes you like Beethoven as a whole? While we're on this topic, I highly recommend Frans Bruggen and the Orchestra of the 18th Century's Beethoven (and Schubert) symphony cycle to any and everyone. I'm almost tempted to say that if you only ever listen to one interpretation, go with Bruggen. No the ninth I linked to was an interpretation from Ferenc Fricsay! And yes, he's the only conductor that makes me like Beethoven's symphonies as a whole. To the person who mentioned Liebowitz below Sheep's post - I've got his Satie recording of Socrate and it is fabulous. He's a slightly obscure conductor though but has written a lot of his own material is seems - there's a CD labeled Chamber Music, including compositions opused to 87 O_O. I played number 5 under Gardiner, I swear you, I can't listen to them anymore with anybody else. His version with the Orchestra of the Age of Enlightement is just incredible.
lol.. I'd never thought I'd agree with you about anything. But the Gardiner Beethoven symphonies with the Orchestra of the Age of Enlightement box is the best present I ever got <3
|
On March 13 2010 23:58 sc4k wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2010 23:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 13 2010 23:43 sc4k wrote:
There is an irritating element to aesthetic philosophy. When you arm the plain ignorant (and I'm not saying anyone here belongs to such a group) with the philosophical ammunition to start these ridiculous 'subjectivity' arguments, you are giving them an excuse not to learn. They can sit there in stupidity and fight off anyone trying to enlighten them by saying 'opinions are like assholes' etc.
Although aesthetic opinions are always subjective, different opinions have different levels of validity. It's like, in between scientific knowledge about a fact or personal preference for a colour.
Someone who has listened to every possible musical piece ever written, analysed every piece and has understood, profoundly, exactly why those pieces speak to people; will objectively be less ignorant than someone who has only ever listened to Top 40 pop music. This will mean his opinion is clearly more informed, and even if his aesthetic principles are different, he will be certain that his tastes are as clear as they could be; whereas we can all be certain that the latter person mentioned might definitely have a different opinion about music and artists if they had listened to and understood every artist ever.
If they were to have an argument about music, aesthetic philosophy dictates that either person's opinion is equally valid. So, if the latter person were to say 'x Top 40 contemporary is the greatest artist ever to have lived, in my SUBJECTIVE opinion', the former person would definitely have solid recourse to argue- in an attempt to enlighten the latter person. However, this attempt to enlighten would be met by a solid brick wall of 'your opinion is equally valid as mine on a subjective subject'. There's clearly something wrong with that.
So, the point is, the validity of your opinion increases every time you remove some of your ignorance in the field. It's acceptable that you like Monet, but if you have only ever seen Monet paintings it's less valid than if you have examined and deeply understood all painters from 1600 onwards. That's David Hume's point of view, the theory of the true critique. I guess it's a good point of departure. Are there any books in particular where I can read about Hume's opinion on the matter? I'm heading to the uni library soon, might as well pick one up
Start with his essay from 1757 "On the Standart of Taste", which is very famous, and quite frustrating imo. You'll find it here.
Otherwise, Kant can be your good friend, Critique of the Judgment. It's much harder and about two hundred times longer.
Another admirable text on the subject is the Origin of the Artwork, from Martin Heidegger. Some pretty amazing stuff there.
|
On March 14 2010 00:00 Elroi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2010 23:20 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 13 2010 23:11 Surrealistic wrote:On March 13 2010 15:42 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On March 13 2010 15:23 Surrealistic wrote:Here's an opinion that throws a spanner in the works - I have dismissed all but one of Beethoven's symphonies. I have listened to recordings by the likes of Kleber, Rattle, Bernstein, Bohm, Klemperer, Marriner, Szell, Furtwanglar (and a few more) and mostly Karajan but only one has truly convinced me. http://www.amazon.com/Beethoven-Symphonie-No-Overture-Egmont/dp/B000056TKCI highly recommend this to anyone, the 9th symphony should be familiar, but this .... O_O Wait, are you saying you only like one of Beethoven's symphonies, or are you saying that Jochum's interpretation is the only conductor who makes you like Beethoven as a whole? While we're on this topic, I highly recommend Frans Bruggen and the Orchestra of the 18th Century's Beethoven (and Schubert) symphony cycle to any and everyone. I'm almost tempted to say that if you only ever listen to one interpretation, go with Bruggen. No the ninth I linked to was an interpretation from Ferenc Fricsay! And yes, he's the only conductor that makes me like Beethoven's symphonies as a whole. To the person who mentioned Liebowitz below Sheep's post - I've got his Satie recording of Socrate and it is fabulous. He's a slightly obscure conductor though but has written a lot of his own material is seems - there's a CD labeled Chamber Music, including compositions opused to 87 O_O. I played number 5 under Gardiner, I swear you, I can't listen to them anymore with anybody else. His version with the Orchestra of the Age of Enlightement is just incredible. lol.. I'd never thought I'd agree with you about anything. But the Gardiner Beethoven symphonies with the Orchestra of the Age of Enlightement box is the best present I ever got <3
You see, it's never completely desperate
|
I just got back from a concert playing Beethoven's 9th symphony. And first thing I see on TL is this thread. Funny
|
At the very least me and C Sheep only argued about the state of music and the evolution of music, which has some rights and wrongs, instead of degenerating into personal opinions about the aesthetics of music, which really does not have any absolute rights or wrongs at all. Its akin to a religious argument.
And people that say that more "intelligent" people are more drawn to "intelligent" music fall into a huge logical fallacy, especially because they so often label rap as "less intelligent" music, which kinda just shows that they are another of the trite wannabe musical gurus. Your music taste does not reflect your intelligence; it only reflects how you look at music and how devoted you are to music. This applies to all areas of art.
|
On March 14 2010 02:47 koreasilver wrote:
At the very least me and C Sheep only argued about the state of music and the evolution of music, which has some rights and wrongs, instead of degenerating into personal opinions about the aesthetics of music, which really does not have rights or wrongs at all. Its akin to a religious argument
The thread changed direction towards larger aesthetic discussion. Is it bad? And actually it didn't degenerate into personnal opinions, we were talking about Hume and Kant. If you have better references... Plus aesthetic is not religious unless you call philosophy a religion, and can be in a precise system extremely rigorous, and have "right or wrongs", as you say.
On March 14 2010 02:47 koreasilver wrote:
And people that say that more "intelligent" people are more drawn to "intelligent" music fall into a huge logical fallacy, especially because they so often label rap as "less intelligent" music, which kinda just shows that they are another of the trite wannabe musical gurus. Your music taste does not reflect your intelligence; it only reflects how you look at music and devoted you are to music. This applies to all areas of art.
lolwut who said something like that?
Though, the idea that music cannot be judged is flawed imho, although probably not in terms of "intelligence". That's what we were discussing.
|
It was a couple threads back. I literally facepalmed when I read it last night. There were a few posts on it.
And music can definitely be judged, and some music is definitely superior to others in an academic sense. Most definitely. But just because someone likes music created by the musical intelligentsia doesn't mean that they are more intelligent than someone that just listens to the classic rock radio or something. It only shows that they like music at a deeper level and probably enjoy music as a whole more if their love for such music is genuine, not just a pretentious farce.
|
Maybe classical music is elistit, but what about other musics?
Maybe classical music players are elistit too but again, what about a rock star (there are a few out there who think they are above every one just because they made several great song)?
I dont really understand the OP here, especially about the classical music lowering itself by playing for films or whatever.
Yann tiersen wrote the music for Amelie Poulain (which i hate), one could consider some of his compositions as classical music and he is often on tours. Is he lowering himself? I dont really think so.
Some years ago, the national orchestra of Lille (one of the biggest city in france) came to play in a town near where i'm from. The place was not perfectly suited for them, yet they even brought a worldclass first clarinet to play. Given that the town is poor and people here often uneducated one could think that nobody would come yet the room was full and the orchestra got an ovation. At this time did they lowered themself by allowing people who might not have known whose piece were played to enjoy the music?
I'll add to that part that several classical music players i know do like playin music from films or adaptation (the best example i have for that is a friend of mine who spend a lot of time to find the music sheet of a piece played in an harry potter. The piece played when a bird fly between the towers in poudlar, in one of the first film. Cant find it now :s . It was a very fast piece and he spend hours of training before playing it properly )
About
Without a doubt, classical music aficionados form a fringe portion of the population that remains nonetheless significant.And bordering these aficionados are those with a passing interest, and bordering them would be the public who can perhaps name the Turkish March or the Ode to Joy. Would the industry be “selling out,” so to speak, by courting these casual listeners?
It already does. André Rieu pops up immediatly in my mind for that. He is a violonist that play arrengements for the casual listener. And it works out pretty well, i mean, his concerts are full and he can live out of it. More than most musician can pretend to do with their music.
How should the classical music industry remain culturally relevant without compromising what it is that they were created to do?
And what were they created to do? Entertain. The betrayal would be to forget that and to become some kind of ritual. I'm glad musicians don't stick to the old pieces because this is why classical music is a music and will continue to be: musicians in classical music are like in every other music, before trying to be "revelant" or to make money, they want to have fun, they want their public to enjoy their play and they want to play together.
On elitism: what the fuck is that affirmation? where i've grown, people are poor yet there are a lot of orchestra in the region. Roughly 3000 inhabitants in my village and and orchestra of 30 persons, they play during the village's events which are as elitist as any event in a smell village lost in the middle of the fields. When a instrument break they've got to ask the mayor for fund to replace it, and never with a good quality one. Hell, even to buy new partitions they have to make choices because they have not enough money to but everything they want forcing them to make deals with other village to borrow their sheets.
Ok so that's a pretty long post i wrote here, longer that what i'm used to write. Since i'm quite pissed it surely is filled with mistakes, i'll edit it later.
My point is classical music is elitist only because some people yell wherever they go that it is.
|
On March 14 2010 03:05 koreasilver wrote:
It was a couple threads back. I literally facepalmed when I read it last night. There were a few posts on it.
And music can definitely be judged, and some music is definitely superior to others in an academic sense. Most definitely. But just because someone likes music created by the musical intelligentsia doesn't mean that they are more intelligent than someone that just listens to the classic rock radio or something. It only shows that they like music at a deeper level and probably enjoy music as a whole more if their love for such music is genuine, not just a pretentious farce.
Well, then we absolutely agree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
