As the article points out, this situation seems disconcertingly similar to A Clockwork Orange.
I think many would agree that classical music gives off an aura of alien-ness, of remote aloofness, and is not something that the general public would readily embrace. And, as seen from “Weaponizing Mozart,” this remoteness of classical music ranges from general ignorance to downright hostility – classical music isn’t art, it isn’t entertainment, it’s an annoyance, something that can keep unruly youths from, indeed, graffiti-ing walls!
Though removed from the forefront of popular culture, classical music still has a vibrant and robust community. It is perhaps perplexing, then, to see classical music circle appealing, even pandering to the general public.
Is contemporary relevancy what classical music circles should be striving for? In addition to the article, there are countless examples of classical institutions engaging in uncharacteristic activities. For those of you who’ve seen Shutter Island, I would like to note that quite few pieces on the soundtrack were performed by none other than the Vienna Philharmonic – yes, what is without a doubt one of the elite orchestras in the world has “reduced” itself to playing film scores!
There is a paradox here – on one hand, we have classical music laboring to be more “accessible,” more “relevant” to the scene, while still maintaining this image of an elitist circle that borders on the ritualistic. The most familiar of this, no doubt, would be the no-applause between movements “rule.” An article on this:
It is ritual and ceremony like this that have, in the mind of the general public, firmly fixed classical music as something that is aloof, impractical, and even artificial. In every concert, one would find both aficionados and socialites who treat the music as nothing but background to a social gathering. I found the Stuff White People Like entry “Appearing to enjoy classical music” quite amusing ( http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/09/01/108-appearing-to-enjoy-classical-music/ ) because it seems to illustrate precisely those kind of people.
And it would seem that the industry is struggling to either reconcile these two paths or elitism vs. populism, or whether if there was a way to reconcile the two. I am often interested in season programming of major orchestras, because it shows a divide within the industry. In every season, without fail, you will find a work that either is, or is equivalent to, Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony in terms of mass appeal and accessibility. You also find works by modernist composers that non-enthusiasts, and even some enthusiasts, have never heard of. Chances are, it is an atonal composer. Atonality, born out of Schoenberg’s serialism in the early 20th century, is certainly something very alien to most listeners (a famous example of something that’s “atonal” is John Cage’s 4’33”, which is exactly 4 minutes and 33 seconds worth of silence from the orchestra. Atonality has grown to encompass so much that even no notes can be seen as atonal. An aside, some Cage works were also featured in the Shutter Island soundtrack. Listen for something that sounds very “minimalist.”). A large part of it is an intellectual exercise, and the majority of the time, it makes no effort to appeal nor pander to an uninformed/disinterested audience.
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? Should the NY Philharmonic’s next season be forty week’s worth of Beethoven symphonies, and then the next year, start incorporating orchestral arrangements of pop music, or should it program things that no one has ever heard of to maintain “artistic integrity?” Indeed, while I doubt that a night of Beethoven and Mozart will pack the house like Jay-Z or even Justin Bieber, many still scoff that programming Beethoven and Mozart is a gross injustice. It’s safe to say Kanye West won’t be starring in The Magic Flute for a while, but will it be safe to say that, twenty years from now, the Vienna Philharmonic would still be playing Beethoven, Brahms, and Bruckner, or would they, in between recording sessions, provide a live orchestral backing to Apologize? How should the classical music industry remain culturally relevant without compromising what it is that they were created to do?
---
I’d like to note that this post came out simultaneously more chaotic and more coherent than I had intended. I don’t even know what I’m really going for anymore.
personally, I hate it when my hometown classical music station sells out. But then again, I go to Oberlin Conservatory, so I'm not representative of many people at all
I'm a college student, who grew up in urban areas with high crime rate, and I'm a closeted classical music aficionado. The reason is I never had any education about music, never played an instrument, and never knew anybody my age that liked classical music. Another important reason is that I grew up listening to pop and rap music, and I was never aware of classical music outside of "Amadeus" and Beethoven's Fifth.
Personally, I like it to remain as elitist as it is because I don't particularly like the discussions that are going on the internet about the music itself. Youtube is a classical example, where some people love to write about "I think this interpretation is completely wrong, so and so's interpretation is far superior." They are not elitists, they are just stupid people who think they know everything when they clearly are imbeciles. When I think about elitism, I think about musicians and writers who actually give a damn about they are interpreting. It allows me to keep my thoughts about what I am feeling when I listen to this highly subjective and emotional form of music.
The only idea I like is teaching young kids more about classical music in schools. Kids would be exposed to a very complicated form of music, and hopefully they'll learn to appreciate it a lot more so that they have an open mind about not just music but other aspects of life as well.
Speaking of Shutter Island, I was amused that there was a scene discussing a piece by Mahler... when of course the piece was not by Mahler at all and sounded nothing like a piece by Mahler.
Edit -- apparently, I was completely wrong. x_x As usual, people on the internet like me have no idea what they are talking about.
There is orchestra in every single movie and every single TV show. It's ubiquitous as background music. Even if it's not the classical pieces that are being played, the new compositions can be arrangements of pop music but usually it is not. Classical music isn't that far removed from contemporary culture. It just doesn't stand out in the foreground as the highlight of the show. I would be inclined to believe that those that show disgust for classical music just because it occupies the foreground of their attention have no self-awareness. They just don't have any flashy pictures to accompany the orchestra.
I am also inclined to think that those that hang onto their air of high society above the rest of us are merely living on past glory. While Beethoven, Liszt, Mozart, or Chopin are excellent and appealing experiences, I would love nothing more to discover new star compositions in the modern era. It would be such a new and exciting experience for lovers of classical music, and for such a composer to garner wide critical acclaim, how much more exciting would it be able to share that love with more and more people!
But for that to happen, I think that classical music needs both more attention and more money, and to do that they need to shed of the elitist attitude. Reaching out and servicing the common people is where the money is at today not in serving the snobby nobility of Europe that characterized the 19th century.
I hate how classical music has been turned into something ridiculous though. Muzak is an abomination and the bastardization of amazing compositions in commercials is truly a shame.
I think that you are putting too much effort into this. Everyone likes / dislikes different music. People that think they are some how Intelecually superior to those who do not listen to the music are fools. I think that most classical listeners need to get their heads out of ther ass.
I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say. Any argument that classical musicians and composers are "lowering" themselves in playing for film scores is without much basis. Composers have been writing work for other works for a while now, particularly a lot since the French Impressionist period, and one could say that program music in the form of opera and ballet were the forerunners of soundtrack music, and both opera, ballet, and many others have been a part of Western music for forever.
Classical music has also always had a close distance with local popular music with both sides influencing one another. It has only been a very recent development where Western Classical, or more appropriately the professional musical intelligentsia, has become rather distant from the people. I can't find the interview with Steve Reich where he expands upon this right now, but it really isn't hard to find examples of the people's music giving a distinct influence upon compositions (particularly Russian composers, the jazz influence upon some of Ravel's latter compositions and Nikolai Kapustin, etc.), and composers having influence upon the people (you can hear Steve Reich's influence quite a bit in Tortoise's music for example).
I dunno. I don't even know what you're trying to say with all this.
I’d like to note that this post came out simultaneously more chaotic and more coherent than I had intended. I don’t even know what I’m really going for anymore.
yea it shows lol
I thought the first article was pretty funny though
I would have loved to have been "punished" at detention by being "forced" to listen to classic music lol
i got into classical music as a kid because of piano and bugs bunny (the old school ones that always had classical music playing). but who still listens to this anymore? lol
Though I won't go so far as to say that classical music is dead, I will argue that its true fans are so far alienated from the rest of the populace that it no longer even matters. I think there are genuinely few people who appreciate classical in it's raw form nowadays and the rest, like you posted, simply appear to like it. It's like classic rock to most people, it serves as a foundation and is appreciated primarily as a relic of the past.
Additionally, I think the accessibility of musical instruments, computers, synthesizers and other digital media has basically gotten rid of the traditional classical style. Anybody with an ounce of talent can make a cool beat and those who are genuinely good at music often opt for obscure, ambient, electronic music rather than venturing into older, classical-style music.
What I love about classical music is its expressiveness, technical mastery, and fluidity. I'll pick (and have) a Rachmaninov program over a Jay-Z concert any day of the week. Less and less people are able to appreciate classical music in this sense. I think that it will inevitably become more of a history subject rather than a category of music that people enjoy. It will be like looking at a picture of Newton in a physics textbook. Sad.
On March 11 2010 08:40 koreasilver wrote: I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say. Any argument that classical musicians and composers are "lowering" themselves in playing for film scores is without much basis. Composers have been writing work for other works for a while now, particularly a lot since the French Impressionist period, and one could say that program music in the form of opera and ballet were the forerunners of soundtrack music, and both opera, ballet, and many others have been a part of Western music for forever.
Classical music has also always had a close distance with local popular music with both sides influencing one another. It has only been a very recent development where Western Classical, or more appropriately the professional musical intelligentsia, has become rather distant from the people. I can't find the interview with Steve Reich where he expands upon this right now, but it really isn't hard to find examples of the people's music giving a distinct influence upon compositions (particularly Russian composers, the jazz influence upon some of Ravel's latter compositions and Nikolai Kapustin, etc.), and composers having influence upon the people (you can hear Steve Reich's influence quite a bit in Tortoise's music for example).
I dunno. I don't even know what you're trying to say with all this.
Where do we draw the line? Classical orchestras have traditionally performed art music, and adhered to its standards, but art music is finding itself distanced from the general public. Should orchestras work to appeal to the masses or to plow on as they have before? "People's music" is not the same as popular music, and the idea that Beethoven and Mozart were the "pop music" of their day is simply not true.
On March 11 2010 08:42 Poly325 wrote: i got into classical music as a kid because of piano and bugs bunny (the old school ones that always had classical music playing). but who still listens to this anymore? lol
MANY MANY MANY PEOPLE AND TONS OF CLASSICAL MUSICIANS AND THE COMPOSERS THAT ARE STILL EXTREMELY RELEVANT TO NOT ONLY CLASSICAL MUSIC BUT ALSO THE MUSIC OF THE GENERAL POPULATION EVERYWHERE.
On March 11 2010 08:40 koreasilver wrote: I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say. Any argument that classical musicians and composers are "lowering" themselves in playing for film scores is without much basis. Composers have been writing work for other works for a while now, particularly a lot since the French Impressionist period, and one could say that program music in the form of opera and ballet were the forerunners of soundtrack music, and both opera, ballet, and many others have been a part of Western music for forever.
Classical music has also always had a close distance with local popular music with both sides influencing one another. It has only been a very recent development where Western Classical, or more appropriately the professional musical intelligentsia, has become rather distant from the people. I can't find the interview with Steve Reich where he expands upon this right now, but it really isn't hard to find examples of the people's music giving a distinct influence upon compositions (particularly Russian composers, the jazz influence upon some of Ravel's latter compositions and Nikolai Kapustin, etc.), and composers having influence upon the people (you can hear Steve Reich's influence quite a bit in Tortoise's music for example).
I dunno. I don't even know what you're trying to say with all this.
tortoise are pimps, should i check out steve reich?
On March 11 2010 08:29 triangle wrote: Speaking of Shutter Island, I was amused that there was a scene discussing a piece by Mahler... when of course the piece was not by Mahler at all and sounded nothing like a piece by Mahler.
uh, it is by mahler.. and it also sounds like mahler..
On March 11 2010 08:40 koreasilver wrote: I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say. Any argument that classical musicians and composers are "lowering" themselves in playing for film scores is without much basis. Composers have been writing work for other works for a while now, particularly a lot since the French Impressionist period, and one could say that program music in the form of opera and ballet were the forerunners of soundtrack music, and both opera, ballet, and many others have been a part of Western music for forever.
Classical music has also always had a close distance with local popular music with both sides influencing one another. It has only been a very recent development where Western Classical, or more appropriately the professional musical intelligentsia, has become rather distant from the people. I can't find the interview with Steve Reich where he expands upon this right now, but it really isn't hard to find examples of the people's music giving a distinct influence upon compositions (particularly Russian composers, the jazz influence upon some of Ravel's latter compositions and Nikolai Kapustin, etc.), and composers having influence upon the people (you can hear Steve Reich's influence quite a bit in Tortoise's music for example).
I dunno. I don't even know what you're trying to say with all this.
Where do we draw the line? Classical orchestras have traditionally performed art music, and adhered to its standards, but art music is finding itself distanced from the general public. Should orchestras work to appeal to the masses or to plow on as they have before? "People's music" is not the same as popular music, and the idea that Beethoven and Mozart were the "pop music" of their day is simply not true.
I'm with koreasilver on this. I don't see how playing for a movie score is degrading in anyway. Seems almost like a step up from where it used to be. Classical composers and orchestras were basically the king's bitches..
On March 11 2010 08:40 koreasilver wrote: I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say. Any argument that classical musicians and composers are "lowering" themselves in playing for film scores is without much basis. Composers have been writing work for other works for a while now, particularly a lot since the French Impressionist period, and one could say that program music in the form of opera and ballet were the forerunners of soundtrack music, and both opera, ballet, and many others have been a part of Western music for forever.
Classical music has also always had a close distance with local popular music with both sides influencing one another. It has only been a very recent development where Western Classical, or more appropriately the professional musical intelligentsia, has become rather distant from the people. I can't find the interview with Steve Reich where he expands upon this right now, but it really isn't hard to find examples of the people's music giving a distinct influence upon compositions (particularly Russian composers, the jazz influence upon some of Ravel's latter compositions and Nikolai Kapustin, etc.), and composers having influence upon the people (you can hear Steve Reich's influence quite a bit in Tortoise's music for example).
I dunno. I don't even know what you're trying to say with all this.
Where do we draw the line? Classical orchestras have traditionally performed art music, and adhered to its standards, but art music is finding itself distanced from the general public. Should orchestras work to appeal to the masses or to plow on as they have before? "People's music" is not the same as popular music, and the idea that Beethoven and Mozart were the "pop music" of their day is simply not true.
Art music is definitely not finding itself distanced from the general public. Firstly, we should put a line between people that actually listen to music as more than just a simple arbitrary pleasure, but as an intellectual work. You can't expect everyone to like music the way that aficionados do, and obviously these people that just hear music aren't going to have a deep interest in music. If we take away these people, then it's pretty clear that "art music" is still extremely vibrant. It's just that composers that have been trained classically aren't the only ones that are taking music seriously with fully intended deepness anymore.
Pop music is a part of the "people's music", and trying to completely decry pop music is just trite rhetoric from an elitist. And Mozart was pretty much a "pop star" at his time. Mozart was not disconnected to the population, and at those times the better classical musicians and composers were very well known and quite popular, and this still continues albeit to a lesser level.
Steve Reich —From an Interview with Jakob Buhre All musicians in the past, starting with the middle ages were interested in popular music. (...) Béla Bartók's music is made entirely of sources from Hungarian folk music. And Igor Stravinsky, although he lied about it, used all kinds of Russian sources for his early ballets. Kurt Weill's great masterpiece Dreigroschenoper is using the cabaret-style of the Weimar Republic and that's why it is such a masterpiece. Only artificial division between popular an classical music happened unfortunately through the blindness of Arnold Schoenberg and his followers to create an artificial wall, which never existed before him. In my generation we tore the wall down and now we are back to the normal situation, for example if Brian Eno or David Bowie come to me, and if popular musicians remix my music like The Orb or DJ Spooky it is a good thing. This is a natural normal regular historical way.
On March 11 2010 08:29 triangle wrote: Speaking of Shutter Island, I was amused that there was a scene discussing a piece by Mahler... when of course the piece was not by Mahler at all and sounded nothing like a piece by Mahler.
uh, it is by mahler.. and it also sounds like mahler..
It's Mahler's only chamber piece, and was composed when he was young. Not really characteristic Mahler...
On March 11 2010 08:56 Xenocide_Knight wrote: I'm with koreasilver on this. I don't see how playing for a movie score is degrading in anyway. Seems almost like a step up from where it used to be. Classical composers and orchestras were basically the king's bitches..
I don't personally denounce or support it, but there are quite a few people who are appalled by the very notion. It is this sentiment, and the opposing sentiment that you and koreasilver pose, that I am interested in. Should classical musicians continue to do this to draw in more people, even if it means alienating their earlier "supporters?"
It's not about what they should do or what they should not do.
Orchestras are businesses that sell products in order to make a profit. If customers stop attending their concerts then orchestras will try to change their repertoire. If that doesn't work then they will close. As far as I can tell many long standing orchestras are doing well. There's no reason to believe that they will die out soon.
On March 11 2010 08:40 koreasilver wrote: I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say. Any argument that classical musicians and composers are "lowering" themselves in playing for film scores is without much basis. Composers have been writing work for other works for a while now, particularly a lot since the French Impressionist period, and one could say that program music in the form of opera and ballet were the forerunners of soundtrack music, and both opera, ballet, and many others have been a part of Western music for forever.
Classical music has also always had a close distance with local popular music with both sides influencing one another. It has only been a very recent development where Western Classical, or more appropriately the professional musical intelligentsia, has become rather distant from the people. I can't find the interview with Steve Reich where he expands upon this right now, but it really isn't hard to find examples of the people's music giving a distinct influence upon compositions (particularly Russian composers, the jazz influence upon some of Ravel's latter compositions and Nikolai Kapustin, etc.), and composers having influence upon the people (you can hear Steve Reich's influence quite a bit in Tortoise's music for example).
I dunno. I don't even know what you're trying to say with all this.
tortoise are pimps, should i check out steve reich?
If you like Tortoise, then yes, most definitely. You'll hear some pretty blatant Steve Reich influences in some of the tracks from TNT.
On March 11 2010 08:59 koreasilver wrote: Art music is definitely not finding itself distanced from the general public. Firstly, we should put a line between people that actually listen to music as more than just a simple arbitrary pleasure, but as an intellectual work. You can't expect everyone to like music the way that aficionados do, and obviously these people that just hear music aren't going to have a deep interest in music. If we take away these people, then it's pretty clear that "art music" is still extremely vibrant. It's just that composers that have been trained classically aren't the only ones that are taking music seriously with fully intended deepness anymore.
Pop music is a part of the "people's music", and trying to completely decry pop music is just trite rhetoric from an elitist. And Mozart was pretty much a "pop star" at his time. Mozart was not disconnected to the population, and at those times the better classical musicians and composers were very well known and quite popular, and this still continues albeit to a lesser level.
Steve Reich —From an Interview with Jakob Buhre All musicians in the past, starting with the middle ages were interested in popular music. (...) Béla Bartók's music is made entirely of sources from Hungarian folk music. And Igor Stravinsky, although he lied about it, used all kinds of Russian sources for his early ballets. Kurt Weill's great masterpiece Dreigroschenoper is using the cabaret-style of the Weimar Republic and that's why it is such a masterpiece. Only artificial division between popular an classical music happened unfortunately through the blindness of Arnold Schoenberg and his followers to create an artificial wall, which never existed before him. In my generation we tore the wall down and now we are back to the normal situation, for example if Brian Eno or David Bowie come to me, and if popular musicians remix my music like The Orb or DJ Spooky it is a good thing. This is a natural normal regular historical way.
Art music is not distanced from the public? What world are you living in? Knowing who Beethoven is does not mean you are familiar with art music; I'm sure many people (in America) can hum or rap a few phrases from Kanye West or sing a few lines from Taylor Swift. These people can probably hum "da da da dum" from the Fifth, but do they know who Messiaen, Ligeti, or Boulez are? Is this:
"familiar" to the general public? The general mass of Beethoven's day were certainly more familiar with his music than today's mass are familiar with contemporary classical music.
And no, Mozart and Beethoven were definitely not pop stars. That is a history misconception popularized in part thanks to films such as Amadeus. Again, the 19th century audience was certainly more familiar as a whole with art music than we are today, but what is thought of today as "classical music" was basically limited to the nobility and the aristocracy - to "high society," if you will. Steve Reich does not, despite what he may think, compose pop music, no more than Schubert or Schumann did.
On March 11 2010 09:00 Simplistik wrote: It's not about what they should do or what they should not do.
Orchestras are businesses that sell products in order to make a profit. If customers stop attending their concerts then orchestras will try to change their repertoire. If that doesn't work then they will close. As far as I can tell many long standing orchestras are doing well. There's no reason to believe that they will die out soon.
Two of America's "Big Five" orchestras are still reeling from recent setbacks. The Philadelphia Orchestra is still in disarray and struggles to sell tickets. Many NY Philharmonic concerts I go to see columns of empty seats. This is precisely why this debate is coming up now, the fact that they aren't doing as well as they would hope is what's driving this schism between appealing to "populism" vs. maintaining "elitism."
When I was in orchestra in middle school we performed 4'33'' once... it is actually tough to sit there with an instrument for so long and not make a sound.
Orchestras have to be funded. There aren't many "shoulds" for what they should do imo, except that if they want to continue to exist they should do things that will generate enough money for them to operate. If they have to do more poppy things to continue I'm sure they will. In our lifetime we'll probably see a fair amount of orchestras fail and a fair amount turn to performing mostly popular stuff like soundtracks and videogame music and pop song arrangements.
Over time genres and styles of music fade away. Western Classical has been around for a long time, I think it is absurd to think it will exist in a widespread fashion for ever and ever. Hell, my favorite composer is von Bingen. You know how hard it is to see her stuff performed?
If you like live classical, or any sort of art music for that matter, live in a big city and support what you like by seeing it when you can.
1. Completely gloss over my explanation that my definition of "general public" does not include those that do not have an real interest in music.
2. Completely misread the quote from Steve Reich. Steve Reich did not ever say that he and other composers wrote pop music. What the fuck are you on about. He only said that the distance between popular music and classical music are artificial, and propagated by misguided elitists such as yourself.
And of course classical music doesn't have as much as a stronghold over music as a whole anymore compared to before. In the Americas the evolution of Jazz was much more of an interest to the people, and at the time Jazz was evolving in far more interesting ways that classical music was. Also, America didn't have any established classical traditions compared to the Europeans that had distinct characteristic differences amongst the established schools, and with the development of audio devices, people's music spread far more easily and gained much more exposure, and it became easier for the common person to purchase instruments, etc. etc. etc. Comparing the day of now back to the days before the industrial revolution and the World Wars is just stupid. And how was Mozart not a "popular star"? He was by far the most well known composer of his time and composers of his time were far more well known in the public than now as you yourself has said. He was the most well known musician in the entirety of Europe and you're trying to say that he was not a pop star?
The comparatively lesser popularity of classical music has more to do with the change of times and the distinct change of the attitude of the musicians themselves than anything to do with "appealing".
Good topic, but I really need to point out that 4'33" is not atonal. Save the term for when the music distinctively does not contain a harmonic center. 4'33" doesn't either, but it doens't contain.. anyhting.
Regarding the topic itself: I feel that rather than anything else, the way people are raised in modern times -- in school and in the house -- have negatively affected their appreciation for the arts. I do not recall, for instance, in 10+ years of American primary education, being engaged meanignfully (if at all) to the fine arts, whether musical or amusical. I was fortunately exposed to music in my household and pursued it individually afterwards. For most others, this distinct "emptiness" is naturally goign to be filled with the stuff on the air and the tube -- that is, popular music and culture of not much artistic merit.
1. Completely gloss over my explanation that my definition of "general public" does not include those that do not have an real interest in music.
2. Completely misread the quote from Steve Reich. Steve Reich did not ever say that he and other composers wrote pop music. What the fuck are you on about. He only said that the distance between popular music and classical music are artificial, and propagated by misguided elitists such as yourself.
And of course classical music doesn't have as much as a stronghold over music as a whole anymore compared to before. In the Americas the evolution of Jazz was much more of an interest to the people, and at the time Jazz was evolving in far more interesting ways that classical music was. Also, America didn't have any established classical traditions compared to the Europeans that had distinct characteristic differences amongst the established schools, and with the development of audio devices, people's music spread far more easily and gained much more exposure, and it became easier for the common person to purchase instruments, etc. etc. etc. Comparing the day of now back to the days before the industrial revolution and the World Wars is just stupid. And how was Mozart not a "popular star"? He was by far the most well known composer of his time and composers of his time were far more well known in the public than now as you yourself has said. He was the most well known musician in the entirety of Europe and you're trying to say that he was not a pop star?
Isn't the general public, by definition, people who don't possessed a specialized or vested interest/knowledge in the subject matter?
And the distinction between art music and popular music is very real. It is not being elitist to say that a heavier emphasis is placed on the form and structure of a piece of art music compared to a pop song. The distinction is not clear cut, but it is definitely not artificial.
Again, you say that there is no difference, while continue to throw around the term "classical music." What do you mean by classical music then? All music? Music composed by a certain set of people? Or what? How do -you- define classical music?
And because they are more well known than they are today doesn't mean that they were "pop stars." The term "pop star" today means someone like, say, Michael Jackson. Beethoven and Mozart certainly did not achieve the fame that Michael Jackson did, and composers celebrated today as timeless masters such as Schubert and Vivaldi died in abject poverty, or lived their life out in relative obscurity.
On March 11 2010 09:21 phosphorylation wrote: Good topic, but I really need to point out that 4'33" is not atonal. Save the term for when the music distinctively does not contain a harmonic center. 4'33" doesn't either, but it doens't contain.. anyhting.
I tired to note that the term "atonality" is broad enough that anything who is non-tonal can be said to fall within that label. Certainly, that's what the word means - non tonal, and 4'33" is not tonal, even if it is just by merit of it not being...anything =P
And for those struggling to define art music vs popular music: read Stockhausen (a very good contemporary composer)'s response to popular music of his time. It's very very interesting and illuminating on the divide between art and popular music -- in approach and essence.
start reading from: "can we talk about the music we sent you? It was very good of you to listen to it. I wonder if you could give some advice to these musicians."
this is something interesting because i would love nothing more than for people today to embrace mahler and brahms and beethoven in the same way they embrace pop hits or musicals (though it probably will not happen, at least not for a long while).
say what you want about leonard bernstein as a conductor, but he was one of the most important figures in american (and "classical") music because of what he did to try to bridge the gap between "mainstream" and "classical" music. his lectures on omnibus and the young people's concerts were broadcast publicly and nation-wide, and, most importantly, when you watched them (even as a casual viewer who knew nothing about classical music) there was no air of the elitism or snobbery that the majority of people typically associate classical music with today. and that, i feel, is the way it should be approached if we ever want to see classical music accepted in our modern culture, if we ever want to see our concert halls fill for orchestras in the same way we see arenas fill for artists like taylor swift and jay-z. i read a quote out of an article a few weeks ago that said something like this about bernstein when he lectured: he spoke as if to say, "i know you don't like this music and i know you don't care about it, but i love this music and i'm going to show you why you should too." and he was incredibly persuasive. unfortunately, after the show ended no one went along to continue his work, and thus we are where we are today.
this also is ignoring the distinction between mainstream music that is just listened to casually for pleasure and classical music where you actually have to engage your brain to fully enjoy it (or to enjoy it at all -- this doesn't pertain exclusively to classical music either). in a lot of ways it's like the difference between reading an issue of maxim and reading dostoyevsky. there's nothing wrong with either, but they serve two completely different purposes, which is similar to the schism you have today between pop music and classical music.
one last thing: it is not on the general public to try to appreciate and embrace something that they don't want to (or don't care for), i.e. classical music; this is simply how society moves (and when you think about it, it's quite darwinian). rather, it is on the dying form to try to show the public that it has the quality to appeal to the masses.
Even by your definition of the general public, we are part of the general public. Just because we are more interested in music than those that aren't doesn't suddenly make us actually knowledgeable compared to those that actually study music. From your OP it doesn't seem like you actually know much about academical musical study. And when it actually comes to talking about people that listen to music, why would I even talk about the people that don't really listen to music. That's like talking about art and saying that art is dying because a bunch of people that don't give a shit about art don't know the difference between cubism and neo-expressionism.
I didn't call you an elitist for saying that there's a difference between intellectual music and pop music. I called you an elitist because you are so ingrained upon this idea that composers and classical musicians should keep a distance from soundtracks (mainstream culture) to keep their integrity. I have never said that there is no difference, once again demonstrating your complete inability to actually read; my entire point throughout this thread is that classical music is not a tradition that is completely removed from popular music, and it has been so for most of Western classical music history.
As one of those with a "passing interest" I would be offended if someone tried to court me with orchestral arrangements of pop music. Or, for that matter, with nothing but Beethoven symphonies. What's the point of exposing people, over and over, precisely to what they are already familiar with?
On March 11 2010 09:30 phosphorylation wrote: And for those struggling to define art music vs popular music: read Stockhausen (a very good contemporary composer)'s response to popular music of his time. It's very very interesting and illuminating on the divide between art and popular music -- in approach and essence.
start reading from: "can we talk about the music we sent you? It was very good of you to listen to it. I wonder if you could give some advice to these musicians."
That was a very interesting interview. It is evident that composers would, of course, have differing opinions on how the pieces should "work," so to speak (just look at the War of the Romantics! Brahms, Schumann, Liszt, Mendelssohn, and Wagner were at each other's throats, and yet they're still all considered canonical masters today!). Though it is probably futile, one cannot help but try to crystal ball 50, 100, 200 years from now to see what music from today survives and are canonized.
Often, there is a call for a stronger nurturing of modern composers, both classical and popular, as opposed to riding on the 19th century masters. Yet history has shown that contemporary success and lasting legacy seem to have a tenuous connection at best. Does this perhaps mean that musicians should simply try to survive as best they can in today's world and let history be the judge of the merit of their work?
On March 11 2010 09:26 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:And the distinction between art music and popular music is very real. It is not being elitist to say that a heavier emphasis is placed on the form and structure of a piece of art music compared to a pop song. The distinction is not clear cut, but it is definitely not artificial.
Again, you say that there is no difference, while continue to throw around the term "classical music." What do you mean by classical music then? All music? Music composed by a certain set of people? Or what? How do -you- define classical music?
Classical music is genre of music like any other. Its defined by the instruments used, composition styles, etc (Im not good at music terminology in english but you get the point maybe).
Or would you say any song with heavy emphasis on the form and structure is classical music? Maybe classical pieces are more intricately composed on average but that doesnt have anything to do with defining the term.
1. Completely gloss over my explanation that my definition of "general public" does not include those that do not have an real interest in music...
It is hard to take your explinations seriously when your previous post consisted of all caps yelling and cursing.
MANY MANY MANY PEOPLE AND TONS OF CLASSICAL MUSICIANS AND THE COMPOSERS THAT ARE STILL EXTREMELY RELEVANT TO NOT ONLY CLASSICAL MUSIC BUT ALSO THE MUSIC OF THE GENERAL POPULATION EVERYWHERE.
What the fuck.
Manner up if you want to be taken seriously. You always post so angrily, it is disconcerting.
MANY MANY MANY PEOPLE AND TONS OF CLASSICAL MUSICIANS AND THE COMPOSERS THAT ARE STILL EXTREMELY RELEVANT TO NOT ONLY CLASSICAL MUSIC BUT ALSO THE MUSIC OF THE GENERAL POPULATION EVERYWHERE.
What the fuck.
Manner up if you want to be taken seriously. You always post so angrily, it is disconcerting.
A previous post to a different poster, really? They weren't connected at all to one another. You're just picking bones here.
After reading that first post of yours I automatically ignored all your other posts based of the impression left by the first one. Maybe that is why your other (presumably better) posts don't get the attention you think they deserve.
Something else that I want to bring up with all these accusations and usage of the word "elitism" is that with regards to classical music, that term does not describe the same thing, depending on who you're talking to.
Now, thusfar, we have generally used it as a case of "general public" vs. the "elitist" circles of classical music. However, even within classical music, without any regard to the general public, there are two split camps who each view the other as being "elitist."
First, we have aficionados who enjoy, say, Beethoven and Mozart. The standard. The staple. At odds with them is a faction of modern composers/atonal fans who think that classical music today is heeding too much attention on the old masters, and are at best ignoring contemporary composers, or at worst actively suppressing them. Both sides view the other as elitist - the tonal-fans think that people who are striving for the intellectual exercise of atonality are not enjoying music for music, but simply composing new things just to be unique. Conversely, atonal composers view themselves as the new wave who's being suppressed by the older generation. In this particular debate both sides view the general public (again, koreasilver has a different definition of general public than I do apparently) as ignorant of this.
I attend more Operas than Orchestras, and I am irritated by the ugliness of the aimless "modernization" or post-modernization given to many works. If you want to talk about alienation, there is nothing more alienating than a performance of La Boheme unable to take itself seriously.
If Opera does die (although I have seen no signs of this at the present,) it will be killed by the "elites" and not by the spectators.
On March 11 2010 10:10 Caller wrote: needs more Shostakovitch in this thread
Shostakovich is a master, I love playing his works..
Kinda sad how orchestras are struggling nowadays Santa Monica has this pretty strong music system where they teach every kid about music and rhythm starting from the second grade, and then have them all choose either instrumental or vocal music in the fourth grade. If such a schooling system was widespread, I think it'd be unlikely that classical music would be struggling.
It isn't because of elitism, which exists in all genres of music in some form or another. If you really do love the music you love it, and if really do you hate it you hate it.
The fact that is classical music doesn't have hot new composers whose works are "easily digestible" or rather "catchy" (ranging from your basic movie/ video game music to avantgarde works) and other genres of music have long ago supplanted the title of most popular music. Less exposure to classical music, which to me isn't really catchy, decreases the chance of being interested in it.
On March 12 2010 09:02 Carnivorous Sheep wrote: Something else that I want to bring up with all these accusations and usage of the word "elitism" is that with regards to classical music, that term does not describe the same thing, depending on who you're talking to.
Now, thusfar, we have generally used it as a case of "general public" vs. the "elitist" circles of classical music. However, even within classical music, without any regard to the general public, there are two split camps who each view the other as being "elitist."
First, we have aficionados who enjoy, say, Beethoven and Mozart. The standard. The staple. At odds with them is a faction of modern composers/atonal fans who think that classical music today is heeding too much attention on the old masters, and are at best ignoring contemporary composers, or at worst actively suppressing them. Both sides view the other as elitist - the tonal-fans think that people who are striving for the intellectual exercise of atonality are not enjoying music for music, but simply composing new things just to be unique. Conversely, atonal composers view themselves as the new wave who's being suppressed by the older generation. In this particular debate both sides view the general public (again, koreasilver has a different definition of general public than I do apparently) as ignorant of this.
Almost all contemporary composers dabble in or have dabbled extensively in 12 tone serialism. Even the minimalism counter movement away from 12 tone serialism did not move back to the old status quo, and there really are no contemporary composers that have gone backwards to goddamned Mozart. If you look at all of the truly regarded contemporary composers, they are all composers that have moved forward away from the previous status quo. The very fact that you think atonal composers are the "new wave" of composers just show how much you don't really know what you're talking about. 12 tone serialism was THE status quo amongst composers not long ago and anyone that wanted to make music like Benjamin Britten were looked upon as idiots. Atonality in music is nothing new, and its position as the "counter-culture" has already passed with minimalist composers becoming the counter of the serialists. The thing is, all these minimalist composers all had studied serialism due to the climate of the musical world at the time, and the bounds of "tonality" in music in general has exploded so far that the atonality of the serialists isn't anything new; it's quite standard now.
I can go on and on but there's really no point in going on.
On March 12 2010 09:02 Carnivorous Sheep wrote: Something else that I want to bring up with all these accusations and usage of the word "elitism" is that with regards to classical music, that term does not describe the same thing, depending on who you're talking to.
Now, thusfar, we have generally used it as a case of "general public" vs. the "elitist" circles of classical music. However, even within classical music, without any regard to the general public, there are two split camps who each view the other as being "elitist."
First, we have aficionados who enjoy, say, Beethoven and Mozart. The standard. The staple. At odds with them is a faction of modern composers/atonal fans who think that classical music today is heeding too much attention on the old masters, and are at best ignoring contemporary composers, or at worst actively suppressing them. Both sides view the other as elitist - the tonal-fans think that people who are striving for the intellectual exercise of atonality are not enjoying music for music, but simply composing new things just to be unique. Conversely, atonal composers view themselves as the new wave who's being suppressed by the older generation. In this particular debate both sides view the general public (again, koreasilver has a different definition of general public than I do apparently) as ignorant of this.
Almost all contemporary composers dabble in or have dabbled extensively in 12 tone serialism. Even the minimalism counter movement away from 12 tone serialism did not move back to the old status quo, and there really are no contemporary composers that have gone backwards to goddamned Mozart. If you look at all of the truly regarded contemporary composers, they are all composers that have moved forward away from the previous status quo. The very fact that you think atonal composers are the "new wave" of composers just show how much you don't really know what you're talking about. 12 tone serialism was THE status quo amongst composers not long ago and anyone that wanted to make music like Benjamin Britten were looked upon as idiots. Atonality in music is nothing new, and its position as the "counter-culture" has already passed with minimalist composers becoming the counter of the serialists. The thing is, all these minimalist composers all had studied serialism due to the climate of the musical world at the time, and the bounds of "tonality" in music in general has exploded so far that the atonality of the serialists isn't anything new; it's quite standard now.
I can go on and on but there's really no point in going on.
Serialism, both twelve-tone and not, are predecessors to the modern atonal movement. I see nothing wrong with describe minimalist composers as being atonal, since they're certainly not working from tonal centers. As I touched on before, the term "atonality" is braod enough to include everything that is non-tonal, which is a perfect description of what composers today are doing.
Indeed, I see nothing wrong with describing both Schoenberg and Cage as being part of the countermovement against the same thing - the pre 20th century "establishment." To say that composers today are rebelling against Schoenberg is ridiculous.
Your condescending attitude would probably server you better if you were actually right in your accusations that other people don't know what they're talking about.
On March 12 2010 09:31 ArvickHero wrote: Kinda sad how orchestras are struggling nowadays Santa Monica has this pretty strong music system where they teach every kid about music and rhythm starting from the second grade, and then have them all choose either instrumental or vocal music in the fourth grade. If such a schooling system was widespread, I think it'd be unlikely that classical music would be struggling.
I agree, the elimination of required music education in primary schooling is certainly contributing to the lack of appreciation for music, both classical and not. It really is unfortunate, I'm sure there are many people who enjoy music today only do so because of exposure at an early age from whatever source. Classical music in America, at least, was doing much better, say, about half a century ago. Someone earlier brought up Leonard Bernstein and his Young People's Concerts and his TV programs - back then, classical music was certainly much more deeply ingrained into the cultural subconscious than it is today.
On March 12 2010 09:02 Carnivorous Sheep wrote: Something else that I want to bring up with all these accusations and usage of the word "elitism" is that with regards to classical music, that term does not describe the same thing, depending on who you're talking to.
Now, thusfar, we have generally used it as a case of "general public" vs. the "elitist" circles of classical music. However, even within classical music, without any regard to the general public, there are two split camps who each view the other as being "elitist."
First, we have aficionados who enjoy, say, Beethoven and Mozart. The standard. The staple. At odds with them is a faction of modern composers/atonal fans who think that classical music today is heeding too much attention on the old masters, and are at best ignoring contemporary composers, or at worst actively suppressing them. Both sides view the other as elitist - the tonal-fans think that people who are striving for the intellectual exercise of atonality are not enjoying music for music, but simply composing new things just to be unique. Conversely, atonal composers view themselves as the new wave who's being suppressed by the older generation. In this particular debate both sides view the general public (again, koreasilver has a different definition of general public than I do apparently) as ignorant of this.
Almost all contemporary composers dabble in or have dabbled extensively in 12 tone serialism. Even the minimalism counter movement away from 12 tone serialism did not move back to the old status quo, and there really are no contemporary composers that have gone backwards to goddamned Mozart. If you look at all of the truly regarded contemporary composers, they are all composers that have moved forward away from the previous status quo. The very fact that you think atonal composers are the "new wave" of composers just show how much you don't really know what you're talking about. 12 tone serialism was THE status quo amongst composers not long ago and anyone that wanted to make music like Benjamin Britten were looked upon as idiots. Atonality in music is nothing new, and its position as the "counter-culture" has already passed with minimalist composers becoming the counter of the serialists. The thing is, all these minimalist composers all had studied serialism due to the climate of the musical world at the time, and the bounds of "tonality" in music in general has exploded so far that the atonality of the serialists isn't anything new; it's quite standard now.
I can go on and on but there's really no point in going on.
Serialism, both twelve-tone and not, are predecessors to the modern atonal movement. I see nothing wrong with describe minimalist composers as being atonal, since they're certainly not working from tonal centers. As I touched on before, the term "atonality" is braod enough to include everything that is non-tonal, which is a perfect description of what composers today are doing.
Indeed, I see nothing wrong with describing both Schoenberg and Cage as being part of the countermovement against the same thing - the pre 20th century "establishment." To say that composers today are rebelling against Schoenberg is ridiculous.
Your condescending attitude would probably server you better if you were actually right in your accusations that other people don't know what they're talking about.
Have you actually ever listened to minimalism? Minimalism was a strong return to consonance, despite these composers still writing on occasion pieces with strong serialist influences (Different Trains, and the first movement of Tabula Rasa for example). Minimalist composers do work with strong tonal centers, and the fact that you are lumping minimalism with "atonal" music just shows that you really have no idea what you are talking about.
And minimalism wasn't a movement away from of Schoenberg? lol what?
Michael Nyman It was made pretty clear to me that if you didn't write serial music you were just a total dummy, and if you wanted to write music like Britten you might as well not breathe. I sat down and tried to write a twelve-tone piece and it just came out horrible and mangled and it had nothing to do with who I was as a composer. So I went into voluntary exile.
Steve Reich When I was writing twelve-tone music ... the only way I could deal with it was not to transpose the row or invert the row or retrograde the row but to repeat the row over and over again, so I could sneak some harmony in there... The experience of writing twelve-tone music was an important and valuable one for me in that it showed me what I had to do - which was to stop writing it.
Minimalists in America in the mid-1960s had to fight against the expected serial style of composition like Stockhausen, and In Britain, composers who were to become minimalists were largely under the influence of Cageian musical philosophies, having passed through a phase of serialism, and consequently you do see that the early works of some minimalists had strong serialist influences. Almost all of the late-20th-century minimalist composers have reported feeling restricted by the accepted musical practices of their various situations. Steve Reich did write serial music when he was a student, but he inclined towards stronger tonality. For god's sake, Steve Reich explicitly even says here that he had to stop writing 12-tone serialism. If that isn't a direct statement of rebellion against Schoenberg then I don't know what is, and if you yourself can't hear the distancing from Schoenberg in the music of Terry Riley, Steve Reich, and some of Philip Glass' early works, then you are just beyond help.
And I have never said that all contemporary composers are rebelling against Schoenberg either. I just said that the minimalists did. Your idea that atonal music is "suppressed" by the opponents of Schoenberg is just absurd as the influence of Schoenberg is literally everywhere, and only an area of composers moved to minimalism. The whole idea of atonal vs old classical that you presented is nonexistent.
popular classics e.g. well known crowd pleasers like Tchaik Piano concerto etc. -> staple of most concerts to support basic funding of orch (hard to believe as it may seem, the musicians get paid real money..)
avant-garde / rarer pieces -> conductor/guest conductor/soloists opportune decisions, collaboration with composers, experimentation, music director's decision etc.
pop/movie music -> $ and contracting & publicity to a large scale audience that does not necessarily have the necessary background knowledge or training to understand the history and complexity of "classical" music (which results in boredom and otherwise neglect from the general public towards it)
As for elitism, its something like comparing amateur sc players to korean progamers - part of the pride involved is having such a profession that requires dedication of a large fraction of your life into said practical vocation.
On March 12 2010 09:02 Carnivorous Sheep wrote: Something else that I want to bring up with all these accusations and usage of the word "elitism" is that with regards to classical music, that term does not describe the same thing, depending on who you're talking to.
Now, thusfar, we have generally used it as a case of "general public" vs. the "elitist" circles of classical music. However, even within classical music, without any regard to the general public, there are two split camps who each view the other as being "elitist."
First, we have aficionados who enjoy, say, Beethoven and Mozart. The standard. The staple. At odds with them is a faction of modern composers/atonal fans who think that classical music today is heeding too much attention on the old masters, and are at best ignoring contemporary composers, or at worst actively suppressing them. Both sides view the other as elitist - the tonal-fans think that people who are striving for the intellectual exercise of atonality are not enjoying music for music, but simply composing new things just to be unique. Conversely, atonal composers view themselves as the new wave who's being suppressed by the older generation. In this particular debate both sides view the general public (again, koreasilver has a different definition of general public than I do apparently) as ignorant of this.
goddamned Mozart.
I'm sorry, what? Out the window go the last shreds of your credibility in this matter.
Carnivorous Sheep hit the nail on the head with a succinctly delivered framing of the issue, and you're just being needlessly confrontational and petty. And you called Mozart 'goddamned'. Have you been smoking crack?
I hope you realise that modernist atonalism and serialism, whilst extremely entertaining and original, is possibly the most devoid of emotion music can be. It is purely conceptually driven, rather than emotionally driven. The passion of a Beethoven symphony will never, EVER be irrelevant. Neither will a Mozart or a Purcell or a Handel or a Mendelssohn or a Rachmaninov etcetc.
Most classical aficionados I meet will gladly take the old, tonal, beautiful music over the conceptually ravishing but realistically brutally ugly new music any day. In fact the only people I regularly meet who honestly prefer the newer musical styles are usually fall under two categories:
- actual instrumentalists who have been overexposed to certain composers, and are bored, wanting something that pushes sonic boundaries purely for a sense of freshness and novelty
I hope you realize that I wasn't saying anything against Mozart or any older composers, and that I find it amusing in how you really didn't add anything to the actual conversation. If we're going to go into our personal tastes in music then I generally do dislike serialism and I would much rather listen to impressionist or minimalist composers. Except we weren't discussing our personal opinions on how we like or dislike serialism or any form of music.
Well I'm not exactly an expert on serialism and minimalism, or anything post 1920-ish, but I'd like to say that the area of "classical" music that I enjoy listening to ends at about 1900. Sure, I've tried, practiced, and played atonal music on the piano, and some of them were fun to play - but not enjoyable. Hope you get the difference... it's fun because it's, for most part, more challenging, and it really sounds funky. Heh. Playing something technical and tonal, say, the famous La Campanella for example, was more enjoyable for its artistic value.
So I've always stayed away from atonality as much as I can... I haven't yet met a music-elitist who's a major proponent of atonality and serialism, but I'd imagine it's quite difficult "hanging out" with that person if the views are so conflicting.
On March 12 2010 14:29 OpticalShot wrote: Well I'm not exactly an expert on serialism and minimalism, or anything post 1920-ish, but I'd like to say that the area of "classical" music that I enjoy listening to ends at about 1900. Sure, I've tried, practiced, and played atonal music on the piano, and some of them were fun to play - but not enjoyable. Hope you get the difference... it's fun because it's, for most part, more challenging, and it really sounds funky. Heh. Playing something technical and tonal, say, the famous La Campanella for example, was more enjoyable for its artistic value.
So I've always stayed away from atonality as much as I can... I haven't yet met a music-elitist who's a major proponent of atonality and serialism, but I'd imagine it's quite difficult "hanging out" with that person if the views are so conflicting.
Serialism/12 tone was influencial at the time but "stopping" at 1900 leaves out a good deal of already highly regarded composers some of whom whose works could be considered atonal but on the whole are not such as Bartok, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Stravinsky, and others Debussy, Ravel, Rachmaninoff (and more), are you sure your tastes stop at 1900?...
On March 11 2010 08:33 JohnColtrane wrote: "(a famous example of something that’s “atonal” is John Cage’s 4’33”, which is exactly 4 minutes and 33 seconds worth of silence from the orchestra."
sounds fantastic
Just like Telepopmusik's song titled "15 minutes". Previous song ends with the words "And now let's just relax for the next 15 minutes" -> 15 minutes song which is just 15 minutes of silence.
On March 11 2010 08:33 JohnColtrane wrote: "(a famous example of something that’s “atonal” is John Cage’s 4’33”, which is exactly 4 minutes and 33 seconds worth of silence from the orchestra."
sounds fantastic
Just like Telepopmusik's song titled "15 minutes". Previous song ends with the words "And now let's just relax for the next 15 minutes" -> 15 minutes song which is just 15 minutes of silence.
As you can see, you can buy 15 minutes of silence for $2.99! Awesome!
The difference is that John Cage's work is supposed to be done live (so you can hear the shut up stifled audience (well still not exactly good use of money IMO)) and Telepopmusik made a recording of silence.
On March 11 2010 08:33 JohnColtrane wrote: "(a famous example of something that’s “atonal” is John Cage’s 4’33”, which is exactly 4 minutes and 33 seconds worth of silence from the orchestra."
sounds fantastic
Just like Telepopmusik's song titled "15 minutes". Previous song ends with the words "And now let's just relax for the next 15 minutes" -> 15 minutes song which is just 15 minutes of silence.
On March 11 2010 08:33 JohnColtrane wrote: "(a famous example of something that’s “atonal” is John Cage’s 4’33”, which is exactly 4 minutes and 33 seconds worth of silence from the orchestra."
sounds fantastic
Just like Telepopmusik's song titled "15 minutes". Previous song ends with the words "And now let's just relax for the next 15 minutes" -> 15 minutes song which is just 15 minutes of silence.
As you can see, you can buy 15 minutes of silence for $2.99! Awesome!
The difference is that John Cage's work is supposed to be done live (so you can hear the shut up stifled audience (well still not exactly good use of money IMO)) and Telepopmusik made a recording of silence.
I agree. The difference is that JC is to be listened live while Telepopmusik is something you should listen alone at home for best effect.
A classical discussion about aesthetics. If You look carefully You will notice that problems touched exists in all areas of art (music,painting,sculpture, poetry and so on...). The modern search for new forms of expression (like atonal music for example), attempts to define the borderlines of art- when something stops being and art and became a product, trying to formulate theory that would explain art, past,present and future)-its all in vain. And it exists in all forms of artistic activity. Its noting new, people where trying to do that for many years now, and they all failed. There is (and most likely will never by) a theory that would solve those fundamental aesthetical problems. Every known theory has its flaws (it either possess some internal inconsistency or it is not including many forms of human activity that we would like to call art).
Conclusion? Your disscusion is pointless gentlemans (i am afraid). There is no possible way to say that some form of artistic expression is more artistic (or bettter) without making yourself look like idiot. Its either art or its not. 0 or 1. You cant say that classical music is "deeper", "better", (and so on...) without falling into contradictions, as, like i said before there is no coherent aesthetical theory that would back Your words up.
Well maybe i am oversimplyfing but its really like in this latin proverb "De gustibus non est disputandum". As much as i would like to call (lets say) Britney Spears fans stupid, and feel superioir to them I know its not really intellectualy correct. And its hurts as hell.
Ps. The article from fist post is realy stupid, a waste of time if You ask me. PS2. The way topic author posts is realy confusing so please excuse me if am totaly of topic, i hope that someone will find some merits in my post.
On March 11 2010 08:33 JohnColtrane wrote: "(a famous example of something that’s “atonal” is John Cage’s 4’33”, which is exactly 4 minutes and 33 seconds worth of silence from the orchestra."
sounds fantastic
Just like Telepopmusik's song titled "15 minutes". Previous song ends with the words "And now let's just relax for the next 15 minutes" -> 15 minutes song which is just 15 minutes of silence.
As you can see, you can buy 15 minutes of silence for $2.99! Awesome!
The difference is that John Cage's work is supposed to be done live (so you can hear the shut up stifled audience (well still not exactly good use of money IMO)) and Telepopmusik made a recording of silence.
I agree. The difference is that JC is to be listened live while Telepopmusik is something you should listen alone at home for best effect.
Yeah but Telepopmusik's silence has no effect. It's recorded within a studio, whereas sound can be controlled. Cage's composition instructs the orchestra not to play their instruments, but there's nothing to prevent them from sneezing, farting etc - a form of Indeterminacy, fancy classical nerd word for chance.
Well thats the "looking for the borderlines of art" part i was talking about. Proving folks that there is music all around us, we are just not paying attention to it,or perhaps that true silence does not exists or something like that. Of course You can discover it with minimal intelectual effort yourself, but some peaople prefere to experience things rather than thinking it out.
Paying for listning to "silence" does not make much sense for me either, but if someone is buying it....well thats not my problem.
I recently had an argument with a bunch of people that labelled "Classical Music" as "Pretentious". Which really pissed me off because they didn't know what they were talking about.
On March 11 2010 08:24 broz0rs wrote: Personally, I like it to remain as elitist as it is because I don't particularly like the discussions that are going on the internet about the music itself. Youtube is a classical example, where some people love to write about "I think this interpretation is completely wrong, so and so's interpretation is far superior." They are not elitists, they are just stupid people who think they know everything when they clearly are imbeciles. When I think about elitism, I think about musicians and writers who actually give a damn about they are interpreting. It allows me to keep my thoughts about what I am feeling when I listen to this highly subjective and emotional form of music.
You're being hypocritical here. Many times some videos do actually have different interpretations, and those comments are people merely giving their opinions, it is these sorts of starting discussions which get us to start really talking about music, then getting to more profound and proper discussions, people learn, stop having such a cynical view of everyone else all the while placing your self on this high pedestal just because you can point to them saying they got nfi. And you want it to remain elitist? That's the dumbest shit I've ever heard. It's people like *you* that enforce the pretentious label that is already plaguing classical music.
The strange thing and inevitable feature of music compared to any other form of art, is that it is literally timeless. It can be kept and reproduced to almost exactly how it was first played however many years ago it was written. So much is known about the tuning systems used, instruments used et cetera. So to say that classical music will stay known only to its supposed elitist circles is quite dumbfounded, because anyone can get a CD pop it in, and listen to music how contemporaries listened to it back in their day.
On March 11 2010 08:24 broz0rs wrote: The only idea I like is teaching young kids more about classical music in schools. Kids would be exposed to a very complicated form of music, and hopefully they'll learn to appreciate it a lot more so that they have an open mind about not just music but other aspects of life as well.
I Agree with you 100% here. Education is the most important thing. Music is cultural. The only reason there is an aura of elitism and pretentiousness with classical music is because people did not grow up culturally to the musical styles. Just like people ought to know their history, people ought to know their musical history (they fold well with each other too ). Just like learning history deepens ones understanding and appreciation of the world, studying music and different types of music, also, deepens ones understand and appreciation of music as a whole.
On March 11 2010 08:42 Carnivorous Sheep wrote: Where do we draw the line? Classical orchestras have traditionally performed art music, and adhered to its standards, but art music is finding itself distanced from the general public. Should orchestras work to appeal to the masses or to plow on as they have before? "People's music" is not the same as popular music, and the idea that Beethoven and Mozart were the "pop music" of their day is simply not true.
On March 11 2010 09:06 Carnivorous Sheep wrote: And no, Mozart and Beethoven were definitely not pop stars. That is a history misconception popularized in part thanks to films such as Amadeus. Again, the 19th century audience was certainly more familiar as a whole with art music than we are today, but what is thought of today as "classical music" was basically limited to the nobility and the aristocracy - to "high society," if you will. Steve Reich does not, despite what he may think, compose pop music, no more than Schubert or Schumann did.
Some pieces were popular though. In fact the transition from baroque to classical was essentially a transition from purely aristocratic upper class, to a majority of the middle class. So as far as this is concerned, by my own definition it was quite popular.
It's all a matter of cultural difference as some have pointed out, and I mentioned above. This is the deciding blow. You have to either grow up in the culture or have it taught to you for a much fuller appreciation of it. That's why growing up in suburban Sydney I could tap my foot to any contemporary r&b/rap song, yet I would find myself having to listen to older pieces many times over, just so I could at least predict sections of a composition which is arguably the founding principle of musical appreciation. Sure a piece can sound nice and all but only when you really understand its structure and all other contemporary information about it can it really hit you deep down inside. In the same way, listening to some blues rock today or something even more contemporary like hip hop, expecting the chorus, beat transitions, rhythmic complexity of the rappers beats, all of that is imbedded within our cultural understanding of hip hop today so we don't really notice it perse, whereas classical music's contemporaries had it 'natural' to them as well. To them, they knew the basic Concertos were split up in 3 fast/slow/fast tempoed movements. It was just built-in to them.
In the same way we process grammar in our brain without us thinking about it, they could understand and appreciate music while subconsciously parsing over the musical grammar.
How well the brain can trace and predict the next segment of a piece. Will the composer play around with it a bit? Will he delay that expectation of the de capo/return by that extra phrase inserted making you cream harder when he gets back to it? Long 20 minute instrumental pieces required many many bustrips over and over for me.
It took me a while to completely grasp Jazz, but before i knew it I couldn't stop shaking my head to its beats. Same with rock. I had a weird music listening upbringing. I grew up in Kuwait, my dad listnened to pretty much only classical music, I came to Sydney at age 5 where classical music mixed with mainstream pop/rnb/rap of the day.
That being said, beautiful music will never die. I myself am a fan of mainly instrumental music, but I love listening to all types of music, random JPOP to some trance stuff, to jazz, to plain-chants, to medieval court music.
Ahh my post is all over the place, fucking frustrating arguments make me rage anyway for TLDR:
1. Music is cultural, people have to learn it. You can't just switch on some archaic genre and appreciate it, in the same way you can't read an old book and really understand what it's talking about.
2. To try close off a genre of music into its own circles is stupid. To give it distinct labels and all is fine, but to strictly endorse one group to listen to it over another is only feeding the flames.
On March 12 2010 22:29 liosama wrote:You're being hypocritical here. Many times some videos do actually have different interpretations, and those comments are people merely giving their opinions, it is these sorts of starting discussions which get us to start really talking about music, then getting to more profound and proper discussions, people learn, stop having such a cynical view of everyone else all the while placing your self on this high pedestal just because you can point to them saying they got nfi. And you want it to remain elitist? That's the dumbest shit I've ever heard. It's people like *you* that enforce the pretentious label that is already plaguing classical music.
The strange thing and inevitable feature of music compared to any other form of art, is that it is literally timeless. It can be kept and reproduced to almost exactly how it was first played however many years ago it was written. So much is known about the tuning systems used, instruments used et cetera. So to say that classical music will stay known only to its supposed elitist circles is quite dumbfounded, because anyone can get a CD pop it in, and listen to music how contemporaries listened to it back in their day.
yeah, after I wrote it I realize it was hypocritical. I'll admit it!
On March 12 2010 21:30 phosphorylation wrote: you are deliberately missing the point its a cocnept piece
bro ive got some silence
want to buy it?
That's so easy it's not even funny.
It's as silly as saying as "lololol Duchamp is so crap, he just take some toilets and put it in a museum I can do it too lolololol".
it was a serious inquiry, petal
however the fuck you may look at it, a song of silence being sold for money is hilariously retarded
It's an artwork not a product, "petal". If you can't make the difference and need to think it in terms of money, no wonder why you don't understand shit about what it is about.
To be fair, John Cage's particular work wasn't about the silence, but it was rather meant as a way for the audience to experience the surrounding sounds - and how everyone will perceive something different.
I've tried to keep personal opinions out of this, but I will throw in that I personally am not a big fan of modernism/minimalism/atonality. The focus of my knowledge of classical music centers around the (call me old-fashioned if you will) 19th century Austrian-Germanic tradition.
I don't agree with the whole "need to be brought up or taught classical music to be a listener". Personally I only started listening because I simply found that what I was listening to was boring and uninteresting, thus I delved in classical and jazz works. My taste has changed in just over a year rather considerably, from a primarily indie rock, alternative, idm and ambient listener to one who's ears are dominated by classical, both contemporary and baroque/romantic and jazz - mainly free jazz.
I don't agree with this contemporary/modern vs romantic/baroque classical periods debate. Personally I love both but enjoy the former a little more. It's probably the newer techniques that I find far more invigorating and interesting - the string quartets of Bartok, Shostakovitch and the New Viennese School are currently my absolute favorites, along with the contrasting 6 hours long 2nd String Quartet of Feldman's minimalistic era. Why cannot we just accept people's differing taste's and move on? X likes X, I respect that. The vast majority of my friends dislike classical music - I do not ridicule them, nor do I feel elitism or better than they are in any way.
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.
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.
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.
Wow that article sounds incredible... almost hard to believe even. Like the thing about the "Mosquito" that emits a sound only younger people can hear that is painful to hear? How can that be legal to use in a public area.
Some classical music sounds good to me, and some doesn't. Just the same as almost any genre of music really.
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.
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.
One conductor which was not mentioned and has been passed over too often: Leibowitz.
On March 13 2010 15:23 Surrealistic wrote: I don't agree with the whole "need to be brought up or taught classical music to be a listener".
On March 13 2010 15:23 Surrealistic wrote: My taste has changed in just over a year rather considerably,
On March 13 2010 15:23 Surrealistic wrote: from a primarily indie rock, alternative, idm and ambient listener to one who's ears are dominated by classical, both contemporary and baroque/romantic and jazz - mainly free jazz.
Edit: If you don't get what I did there, I'm contrasting the first quote, with the second quote. Like I said, it's not that you have to be 'taught' it but you really have to throw yourself into the music and it doesn't come at you right away.
I have noticed several things over the last years:
1. Musical taste changes. Sometimes dramatically. Especially if you're still young. What you like in your teens will most likely not be what you will still listen to in your twenties, and so on. I'd assume most of you here are around 20 of age. What you like now, says nothing about later on. It was the same for me.
2. Peer "pressure" also affects musical taste. Even if you think you're an exception. You will start liking things you might not have started liking otherwise, and you will view "okay" (or even bad) music as good music (and not listen to what you REALLY like most). Maybe you also attach stupid values to music (e.g.: rap/hiphop/metal = cool/true, other stuff = lame/gay) and then use that to view yourself respectively your music as superior. There are definitelty younger people who do that. This seems especially true in the rap and metal genre.
3. This elitism thing has something true about it. I have read about a study which came to the conclusion that said something along the lines of "extroverted people who may not be as intelligent as others prefer listening to simpler, expressive music like Rap, Metal or stuff like that, while intelligent, maybe introverted people prefer listening to more complex music like Classical or Jazz (maybe also complex Rock music)". The more intelligent you are the more you can enjoy the more complex styles of music. And I don't think this is far-fetched. If you're somewhat more intelligent than average, chances are you will be "bored" of "simple" music and prefer listening to something which "offers" much more, while if you aren't as intelligent you'll find the simpler music to be more enjoyable because it doesn't demand much attention from you. It doesn't have to be like that, of course, and it doesn't mean that one will *never* listen to the other type of music. A distant friend of mine who is the most intelligent person I've ever met in my life, who now makes his Dr./PhD in Physics, also really likes music... what does he listen to? Rap/Hiphop? Pop? Rock? Metal? None of it (just from time to time)... he much prefers classical music. He also doesn't go to regular concerts but to orchestral performances of various classical works. Coincidence? Maybe. But probably not...
On March 12 2010 21:30 phosphorylation wrote: you are deliberately missing the point its a cocnept piece
bro ive got some silence
want to buy it?
That's so easy it's not even funny.
It's as silly as saying as "lololol Duchamp is so crap, he just take some toilets and put it in a museum I can do it too lolololol".
it was a serious inquiry, petal
however the fuck you may look at it, a song of silence being sold for money is hilariously retarded
It's an artwork not a product, "petal". If you can't make the difference and need to think it in terms of money, no wonder why you don't understand shit about what it is about.
hey bro
im making artwork right now
jealous?
also i dont know what you are pissing on about. it's silence being sold for money. i dont give a fig whether or not you think its about it being 'art' or what not - it's a track of nothing being sold as money, and i found that retarded. what's your beef with that, gumby? you gonna tell me not to laugh at silence being sold for 3 bucks because its artistic?
3. This elitism thing has something true about it. I have read about a study which came to the conclusion that said something along the lines of "extroverted people who may not be as intelligent as others prefer listening to simpler, expressive music like Rap, Metal or stuff like that, while intelligent, maybe introverted people prefer listening to more complex music like Classical or Jazz (maybe also complex Rock music)". The more intelligent you are the more you can enjoy the more complex styles of music. .
Interesting post, but I'm sure there are people who'd think that this viewpoint is exactly the kind of elitism that makes classical music seems snobbish xD
I'd like to contradict the point about metal music, though.
I've always found this interesting, because I myself am one of those people who enjoy both metal (heavy and power/prog mostly) and classical music. And a lot of the characteristics attributed to classical/metal fans, with the notable exception of creativity, I feel applies fairly well to me. Introverted but at ease sounds about right. I've always lamented my lack of creative ability though =P
im saddened when i hear about styles dying out because of lack of sales or whatever. i dont think people should forgo their musical integrity for money, especially something as old and timeless as classical, but what else can you do? you can always practise the goods at home and bring out the friendlier stuff for concerts.
i dont know what else there is apart from education as kids, but even then, who's to say people will still take a liking to it anyway
On March 11 2010 08:14 Sunyveil wrote: personally, I hate it when my hometown classical music station sells out. But then again, I go to Oberlin Conservatory, so I'm not representative of many people at all
On March 13 2010 16:37 0xDEADBEEF wrote: 3. This elitism thing has something true about it. I have read about a study which came to the conclusion that said something along the lines of "extroverted people who may not be as intelligent as others prefer listening to simpler, expressive music like Rap, Metal or stuff like that, while intelligent, maybe introverted people prefer listening to more complex music like Classical or Jazz (maybe also complex Rock music)". The more intelligent you are the more you can enjoy the more complex styles of music.
And I don't think this is far-fetched. If you're somewhat more intelligent than average, chances are you will be "bored" of "simple" music and prefer listening to something which "offers" much more, while if you aren't as intelligent you'll find the simpler music to be more enjoyable because it doesn't demand much attention from you. It doesn't have to be like that, of course, and it doesn't mean that one will *never* listen to the other type of music. A distant friend of mine who is the most intelligent person I've ever met in my life, who now makes his Dr./PhD in Physics, also really likes music... what does he listen to? Rap/Hiphop? Pop? Rock? Metal? None of it (just from time to time)... he much prefers classical music. He also doesn't go to regular concerts but to orchestral performances of various classical works. Coincidence? Maybe. But probably not...
It has nothing to do with intelligence. I know really smart people who love pop music, and abhors classical music.
On March 11 2010 08:14 Sunyveil wrote: personally, I hate it when my hometown classical music station sells out. But then again, I go to Oberlin Conservatory, so I'm not representative of many people at all
There's a really good Mexican classical station down here in La Jolla. They actually seem to know something about music, unlike 101.2 back in the bay.
On March 13 2010 16:37 0xDEADBEEF wrote: 3. This elitism thing has something true about it. I have read about a study which came to the conclusion that said something along the lines of "extroverted people who may not be as intelligent as others prefer listening to simpler, expressive music like Rap, Metal or stuff like that, while intelligent, maybe introverted people prefer listening to more complex music like Classical or Jazz (maybe also complex Rock music)". The more intelligent you are the more you can enjoy the more complex styles of music.
And I don't think this is far-fetched. If you're somewhat more intelligent than average, chances are you will be "bored" of "simple" music and prefer listening to something which "offers" much more, while if you aren't as intelligent you'll find the simpler music to be more enjoyable because it doesn't demand much attention from you. It doesn't have to be like that, of course, and it doesn't mean that one will *never* listen to the other type of music. A distant friend of mine who is the most intelligent person I've ever met in my life, who now makes his Dr./PhD in Physics, also really likes music... what does he listen to? Rap/Hiphop? Pop? Rock? Metal? None of it (just from time to time)... he much prefers classical music. He also doesn't go to regular concerts but to orchestral performances of various classical works. Coincidence? Maybe. But probably not...
It has nothing to do with intelligence. I know really smart people who love pop music, and abhors classical music.
in general though, most people i consider intelligent have at least an above average interest in classical music of course, there are exceptions and these people unfortunately just have not opened their eyes to the arts in general -- too occupied with their primary pursuit which they excel at -- although they are fully capable of appreciating "better' music
On March 13 2010 16:37 0xDEADBEEF wrote: 3. This elitism thing has something true about it. I have read about a study which came to the conclusion that said something along the lines of "extroverted people who may not be as intelligent as others prefer listening to simpler, expressive music like Rap, Metal or stuff like that, while intelligent, maybe introverted people prefer listening to more complex music like Classical or Jazz (maybe also complex Rock music)". The more intelligent you are the more you can enjoy the more complex styles of music.
And I don't think this is far-fetched. If you're somewhat more intelligent than average, chances are you will be "bored" of "simple" music and prefer listening to something which "offers" much more, while if you aren't as intelligent you'll find the simpler music to be more enjoyable because it doesn't demand much attention from you. It doesn't have to be like that, of course, and it doesn't mean that one will *never* listen to the other type of music. A distant friend of mine who is the most intelligent person I've ever met in my life, who now makes his Dr./PhD in Physics, also really likes music... what does he listen to? Rap/Hiphop? Pop? Rock? Metal? None of it (just from time to time)... he much prefers classical music. He also doesn't go to regular concerts but to orchestral performances of various classical works. Coincidence? Maybe. But probably not...
It has nothing to do with intelligence. I know really smart people who love pop music, and abhors classical music.
in general though, most people i consider intelligent have at least an above average interest in classical music of course, there are exceptions and these people unfortunately just have not opened their eyes to the arts in general -- too occupied with their primary pursuit which they excel at -- although they are fully capable of appreciating "better' music
i dont know, why do intelligent people have to want to enjoy intelligent music? stuff that sounds good sounds good regardless of how intricate or what not it is. i'm not a moron and i love g's like fat jon
whoops, almost missed the 'better' music thing again
I don't know man I disagree. I feel it is more-so to do with patience, upbringing, and time. People who like classical music have had either of these things hanging by which helped them get to like it. I believe the main reason with people label classical music as elitist and pretentious is because of this intelligence thing that people seem to think one needs in order to appreciate classical music.
I have mentioned this time and time again, there is a (musical) cultural difference between different genres of music. Just listen to some styles characteristic to baroque, renaissance, classical, romance and modern to contemporary. Any idiot can listen to them with some seriousness and tell me that they all sound very much different from each other. That same idiot can then sit down and really listen to some old school Bach and be like wow this shit is so complex, then after he listens to more of Bach, and even more of Bach he's like "wow this ain't so complex after all" Then he dives in to some Mozart and starts having orgasms like anything compared to this Bach character. Then before long he'll find himself thrown into romance era music which is just different all together. Is he an idiot now? Was he ever an idiot in the first place?
After you get past the structure which is really the only thing which truly separates classical music from other genres of music, all genres of music are more or less the same. It's just that classical music, and instrumental music in general tend to sing very abstract ideas which are housed together using this intricate and delicate and ever so deep structure. The actual physical musical qualities to classical music, are, I believe, no different from any genre of music we see anywhere around the world. And any music major would tell you the same thing (I'm not a music major, and I don't know much about music, but I love it and that's all that matters.
On March 13 2010 16:37 0xDEADBEEF wrote: 3. This elitism thing has something true about it. I have read about a study which came to the conclusion that said something along the lines of "extroverted people who may not be as intelligent as others prefer listening to simpler, expressive music like Rap, Metal or stuff like that, while intelligent, maybe introverted people prefer listening to more complex music like Classical or Jazz (maybe also complex Rock music)". The more intelligent you are the more you can enjoy the more complex styles of music.
And I don't think this is far-fetched. If you're somewhat more intelligent than average, chances are you will be "bored" of "simple" music and prefer listening to something which "offers" much more, while if you aren't as intelligent you'll find the simpler music to be more enjoyable because it doesn't demand much attention from you. It doesn't have to be like that, of course, and it doesn't mean that one will *never* listen to the other type of music. A distant friend of mine who is the most intelligent person I've ever met in my life, who now makes his Dr./PhD in Physics, also really likes music... what does he listen to? Rap/Hiphop? Pop? Rock? Metal? None of it (just from time to time)... he much prefers classical music. He also doesn't go to regular concerts but to orchestral performances of various classical works. Coincidence? Maybe. But probably not...
It has nothing to do with intelligence. I know really smart people who love pop music, and abhors classical music.
in general though, most people i consider intelligent have at least an above average interest in classical music of course, there are exceptions and these people unfortunately just have not opened their eyes to the arts in general -- too occupied with their primary pursuit which they excel at -- although they are fully capable of appreciating "better' music
i dont know, why do intelligent people have to want to enjoy intelligent music? stuff that sounds good sounds good regardless of how intricate or what not it is. i'm not a moron and i love g's like fat jon
whoops, almost missed the 'better' music thing again
you have a point going after what sounds good has its own merit.. and soemtimes i do that too i'd like to refer that as seeking a musical drug -- it's completely legit but to claim that is good music (or at least good art) is not really wise i believe there are music that attains other goals -- nobler ones, imo
severedevil: that's coz you dont know what to look for how can you know what ideas it's putting forth if you don't know the musical language?
when i get right down to it, i listen to whatever music i listen to because i like the way it sounds. if i was on a different path, like some sort of music academia, then i would probably be more interested in another facet of music.
but i just cant sacrifice something like sound quality for other facets. it's essential to me
On March 13 2010 18:48 JohnColtrane wrote: when i get right down to it, i listen to whatever music i listen to because i like the way it sounds. if i was on a different path, like some sort of music academia, then i would probably be more interested in another facet of music.
but i just cant sacrifice something like sound quality for other facets. it's essential to me
as i said, i have abolustely no problems with that but once you start (hypothetically) claiming rock music or whatever is a higher musical form than classical, then i might get irked
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.
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 March 12 2010 21:30 phosphorylation wrote: you are deliberately missing the point its a cocnept piece
bro ive got some silence
want to buy it?
That's so easy it's not even funny.
It's as silly as saying as "lololol Duchamp is so crap, he just take some toilets and put it in a museum I can do it too lolololol".
it was a serious inquiry, petal
however the fuck you may look at it, a song of silence being sold for money is hilariously retarded
It's an artwork not a product, "petal". If you can't make the difference and need to think it in terms of money, no wonder why you don't understand shit about what it is about.
hey bro
im making artwork right now
jealous?
also i dont know what you are pissing on about. it's silence being sold for money. i dont give a fig whether or not you think its about it being 'art' or what not - it's a track of nothing being sold as money, and i found that retarded. what's your beef with that, gumby? you gonna tell me not to laugh at silence being sold for 3 bucks because its artistic?
l 0 l
I'm a mucician myself, darling, and I have played John Cage. You see how jaleous I am.
If you are an artist and don't understand that the problem of a concept piece is not its trade value, I'm deeply sorry for you. That's all I can say.
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 dont quite follow your argument either ,, composers have always been hired by institutions such as churches ,,,, royalty ,,etc to compose works ,, however in dif periods these musics where considered the popular culture ans existed on many fronts separately ,, ( also i htink you are confusing the term "classical" with orchestrated or " orchestral" classical refers to a very specific period between about 1750 to 1820 .. you mentioned beethoven < many consider him to be the beginning of the romantic era .. romantic music is not classical music , neither is atonal music , they are completley different ,ironically you sound to me as one particular group you described in your post :lumping all forms of orchestral music into the very select and smaller subset of that said term) to regress back to the original point , i didn't really discern a thesis question from you post , however i will attempt to give opinions to those i did , orchestrated music was not created by one person at one time for one reason .. it evolved as popular cultures often do .. which each generation standing on the shoulders of those that came prior ,, there was no single reason for creating orchestral music any more than there is in creating any other type of creative culture ,,,, imo one would have to go further back into history to find the initial reasons for music , in the face of tribal examination these reasons most likely are ritualistic , once again orchestrated music kept a little to form to this as churches often hired composers and still do ,, however the divergence from ritual to entertainment with music happened very slowly and way way way before the classical period , or orchestrated music for that matter ,,, the purpose orchestral music serves now is evolving as it always has ,, as an industry its merely attempting to survive and make money as it has since entertainment as an industry began .. its simple
to continue my rant . there will always be purist ( starving artist ( those that care more about the purity of the expression they strive for .... for the emotive communication , and not the money they will earn from it , quite often these people are already rich ,, sometimes they just don't mind being poor monetarily , but i doubt this type has family to feed if this is the case . composers and performers that have babies to feed cannot afford to posses such a purist attitude in the face of starving children they are responsible for ,, i think the issues are SUBJECTIVE . so we would have to interview every orchestral composer , and performers from what i could gather from your post ,,, i have a masters degree in applied piano as well as music composition ,, as a fledgling musician i understand the point of purity of expression . Many composers exists in multiple fronts , they make pieces to appeal to mainstream and thus earn a living , but they also make highbrow works to be enjoyed and studied by their musical peers , This is the great thing about humans we can be diverse ,, but the demand is what fuels the industry and this is something very separate in itself ( one other pet peave i had was you equating atonal music to serialism which alot of writers incorrectly do atonal music appears as early as Beethoven [romantic music] and most likely earlier although he is the earliest i am aware of being the father of romantic music , its a common misconception to say serial-ism = atonal just as it is to say classical music is all orchestrated music ) also you must examine the systems you are talking about serialism as a system is much less restricted by the rules it follows ,, if you are composing with a classical structure it is impossible to destroy the motive you are following while following the compositional rules of the system ,, take any Hyden piece and try to get atonal while following classical rules ,, it cant be done . i make these digressions merely to illustrate that there are many forms of music which use different systems , to say one is better than others is elitism ,although it takes a genius to break out of the restrictive system of the day to create new systems that become more " free" however one may still choose to use a previous ( less evolved system) as a form of expression , or maybe just because of personal taste and preference , in any event judging the composers motives is more difficult , as i said earlier the orchestras are merely trying to make a living , their motives are easier to perceive...
On March 13 2010 20:09 JohnColtrane wrote: the problem of the piece is that nothing is happening for 4 minutes
do you actually understand what the point of the piece is
the sound is supposed to be the background of the audience, like the rustling, and the air conditioners, and coughing, and whatnot.
"The difference is that John Cage's work is supposed to be done live (so you can hear the shut up stifled audience (well still not exactly good use of money IMO)) and Telepopmusik made a recording of silence."
despite that, coughing and air conditioners? are you srs
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
Minimalists in America in the mid-1960s had to fight against the expected serial style of composition like Stockhausen, and In Britain, composers who were to become minimalists were largely under the influence of Cageian musical philosophies, having passed through a phase of serialism, and consequently you do see that the early works of some minimalists had strong serialist influences. Almost all of the late-20th-century minimalist composers have reported feeling restricted by the accepted musical practices of their various situations. Steve Reich did write serial music when he was a student, but he inclined towards stronger tonality. For god's sake, Steve Reich explicitly even says here that he had to stop writing 12-tone serialism. If that isn't a direct statement of rebellion against Schoenberg then I don't know what is, and if you yourself can't hear the distancing from Schoenberg in the music of Terry Riley, Steve Reich, and some of Philip Glass' early works, then you are just beyond help.
And I have never said that all contemporary composers are rebelling against Schoenberg either. I just said that the minimalists did. Your idea that atonal music is "suppressed" by the opponents of Schoenberg is just absurd as the influence of Schoenberg is literally everywhere, and only an area of composers moved to minimalism. The whole idea of atonal vs old classical that you presented is nonexistent.
I couldn't agree with these strings of posts more koreasilver
On March 13 2010 20:09 JohnColtrane wrote: the problem of the piece is that nothing is happening for 4 minutes
do you actually understand what the point of the piece is
the sound is supposed to be the background of the audience, like the rustling, and the air conditioners, and coughing, and whatnot.
"The difference is that John Cage's work is supposed to be done live (so you can hear the shut up stifled audience (well still not exactly good use of money IMO)) and Telepopmusik made a recording of silence."
despite that, coughing and air conditioners? are you srs
of course "listening" to 4' 33" on a regular basis is sheer foolishness it's a purely conceptual piece.. almost on the level that it shoudl not be performed once you read on the philosophy and logic of the piece's concept, you too would agree that it's qutie brilliant in its unconventional way and that's that, no more, no less
if you are not able to get over the inherent novelty and absurdity of the piece, then you are childish
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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 23:43 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.
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.
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
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.
On March 14 2010 03:08 Groslouser wrote: 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.
Sorry, but that's plainly not true. The purpose of art is not to entertain. Their is a clear cutline between art and entertainement. If you define art by its entertaining value, then counter strike is an art and Disneyland a kind of great museum.
The fact that art is not meant primarily to entertain, you will find it amongst all philosopher and all great artists who have written about art. If you were telling Wagner or Beethoven that they are entertainers they would kill themselves (or rather you).
Aristotle already has made a clear distinction in his poetics between the entertainemnt value of the artwork and the catharsis, which is for him its purpose.
Now about the music industry, and Andre Rieu, you will find out with Adorno why art loses its value when precisely it becomes a business, an lucrative industry incorporated to the capitalist world. Andre Rieu is not an artist, or an artist of very very poor value.
Also, music is a ritual. Concerts are ritual, festivals are rituals. Look at Bayreuth, for example. It's the summum of the ritual. A recital is a ritual. In this sense, concerts are much more kind of a ritual than an entertainement place.
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.
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.
He wrote something titled Marijuana .
His Beethoven symphony cycle is great. He takes some daring approaches (but follows metronome markings) and I don't take to conservative approaches so I like it. Orchestral coloring is about as best as you can get. Orchestra is RPO right after the Beecham years in excellent condition. The 9th is probably the weakest link of the set as he takes his usual daring tempi (and probably why I tend to not listen to the Furtwangler recordings, at least the 1st and 2nd movements), but the main problem is the orchestra seems underpowered in it. I wouldn't call it the best ever but I would say get it.
Eroica 1st movement
Also 4th movement instrumental (before the chorus) in my opinion is of the highest standard.
On March 11 2010 09:00 Simplistik wrote: It's not about what they should do or what they should not do.
Orchestras are businesses that sell products in order to make a profit. If customers stop attending their concerts then orchestras will try to change their repertoire. If that doesn't work then they will close. As far as I can tell many long standing orchestras are doing well. There's no reason to believe that they will die out soon.
Just wanted to add that no orchestra really "makes a profit" in the normal sense of the word. Even the top orchestras such as Berlin Phil or NY Phil only earn, at the most, around 60% of their expenses. The rest is donations or government support.
There's a nice initiative of the Berlin Phil called the Digital Concert Hall. You get high quality live video streaming of their concerts, you can also buy access to their archives and such.. The site looks great. http://dch.berliner-philharmoniker.de/
On March 11 2010 09:00 Simplistik wrote: It's not about what they should do or what they should not do.
Orchestras are businesses that sell products in order to make a profit. If customers stop attending their concerts then orchestras will try to change their repertoire. If that doesn't work then they will close. As far as I can tell many long standing orchestras are doing well. There's no reason to believe that they will die out soon.
Just wanted to add that no orchestra really "makes a profit" in the normal sense of the word. Even the top orchestras such as Berlin Phil or NY Phil only earn, at the most, around 60% of their expenses. The rest is donations or government support.
There's a nice initiative of the Berlin Phil called the Digital Concert Hall. You get high quality live video streaming of their concerts, you can also buy access to their archives and such.. The site looks great. http://dch.berliner-philharmoniker.de/
to add on to this: most (or all) orchestras, in the US at least, are funded not by ticket sales, but by grants and corporate/private donations -- this includes musician's salaries, stage personnel salaries, building/property leases, pay for guest artists, etc. as you can probably guess, some orchestras fair better than others business-wise simply because of location and name (for example, the principal oboe of the metropolitan opera orchestra has an annual salary of roughly $200k, not including the pay she gets from teaching at juilliard/mannes), but i would say that there aren't very many orchestras who are doing too well nowadays because of the current state of the economy (donating to the arts is probably the last thing on those peoples' minds). this is particularly why musicians have one of the most difficult job markets out there.
in contrast, if you are a pianist/violinist/cellist/singer and you tour as a soloist then none of this really matters because these people make an upwards of $2mil a year anyway (assuming they are in demand).
What kind of people do you meet? I have many musical friends and classical is great lol. It's easily accessible, public, not weird at all. I mean classical is the SHIT !!
On March 14 2010 18:53 evanthebouncy! wrote: What kind of people do you meet? I have many musical friends and classical is great lol. It's easily accessible, public, not weird at all. I mean classical is the SHIT !!
It's the shit but it's definitely not public. You must be very lucky to have such friends
On March 13 2010 22:32 SF-Fork wrote: off topic and quick question:
How do you name the chord B - D - F# - G???
gmaj7
ummmmm .. without a g in the bass this is just a bminor triad in root position with a 6th added,,, of course depending what key your in .. but since bm and g are relative through the d major chord ,, there isn't very many situations this wouldn't generally be viewed as a b minor chord in root
funny you view it as a gma7 it could be viewed as one with the g ommited but without any other context it should be viewed as a bminor ... with no bass to tell us this , and no context to draw from this is what it would be viewed as
On March 14 2010 19:50 chessmaster wrote: or if you add the g up top the first think you would think still would be bm7 ,, before one would think gmaj7 in a different position
The chord is g major seventh first inversion, period. Analyzing a chord has nothing to do with the context.
Why do you write four post on a completely off topic question which has been answered very clearly three pages ago?
many of you are still confusing the term classical with orchestral .. classical is a very select period of music between about the mid 18th century (1750 or so most agree ) to the the early 19th (1820 or so) beethoven mid to later works generally being regarded as the beginning of the romantic period .... .. music from different periods is NOT classical music ,,,,,, its very common to say classical = orchestral .. just likt previous posters were equating serialism=atonality ..
i replied to becuase i wanted to give the person asking the question a more detailed a more correct answer ,, viewing a chorh as first inversion instead of root form is just stupid
analyzing the chord has nothing to do with context ?????? did you really just say that ?? maybe you dont understand what context means ? in this situation it means the "tonic key.". if you seriously think the tonic key doesn't help name ambiguous chords well then there isn't much hope for you ,, or maybe you should stop pretending to know this stuff ... hahahahah you obviously know little about music theory.. i am still laughing ..
Ok, that "anyone who thinks any piece of art is better than the other" thing was mine. And i will stand with it. Pity You didnt read one of my previous posts in this topic ( it seems so), where i was explaing my position.
In short, it looks like that.
1.There is no coherent, aesthetical theory that will explain all forms of artistic activity. It either has a huge internal inconsistencies, or its not broad enough to include all forms of activity we would all agree to call art.
If You disagree here there is no realy much talking left, thats my view on status of modern aesthetic theory. Thats my personal opinion, its well founded (i have a degree in philosophy, currently getting a phd in philosophy of science- math particulary so i am maybe a little biased, but i still know a lot about aesthetics). You of course have Your own opinion, its propably different. Lets just agree to disagree then.
If however You agree:
2.Since there is no theory that You could use to judge art without falling into inconsistency (as all existing theories have its flaws) it is better not to judge art, because using theory we know is flawed, (as it fails to explain phenomenon of art), is just plain stupid.
3.Since You cant judge art, You cant say that one piece is better than the other, even if it screams to, Why You ask? Becuase even if it looks right, it can be wrong (Sun orbits around Earth yeah? It looks that way. But we have a theory thats says otherwise, and that theory works. There is no working theory in aesthetics (one critique use that, other uses different). One says that and other the oposite.
In short that is my view. Pity my English is not good enough to explain it properly but i hope You will get what i mean.
i really don't understand what you mean at all,, or maybe you are just biased towards minor chords lmao .....that is like saying an aminor 7 is a cmajor6 in a different position ,, all chords can be viewed as multiple chords ,, but is exactly the context i.e. what key (tonic) we are in that tells us the name of the chord ,,,, so when you have no musical data to draw from we as musicians generally name a chord by its bass when you have no tonic key to draw from calling a bm6 a gmaj7 in first inversion is over complected and WRONG when you have no chords that come before and tonic key as to analyze ,, this is exactly what context is stuff to draw from as to more accurately name inversions , intervals , chords , and relationships .. we are essentially talking about the intervals between these notes and their harmonic value ,, since ALL all chords have more than one name it is exactly the context that names a chord ,, that is why a bm6 can be a gmaj7 in the proper setting, but we have no such setting i.e a tonic origin and previous chords to compare and contrast , if you think context has nothing to do with analyzing music ,, then well... that says it all ,, yeah kinda some run on posts need to use the edit from now on ,, ifv you were to name a b-d-f#-g interval with figured bass it would show as a bm chord plain and simple if you were to ask any musician with more than elementary schooling they would agree without a tonic to draw from this would always be called a bm6 ,,, so let me get this str8 ,,, for every chord ,, when naming it , you choose to take the first inversion name ( outside of tonic pieces) as they stand alone instead of the more simple root form ? or do you only do this for some chords and not others ,, lol you have a very unique system whats it called ????, lets make a more simple situation... do you call a c major in root position ( just a simple triad ) would you call that an e minor chord with a suspended 5th ? lmao you make no sense.... enough of educating sophomoric posters ,,, on another front i like your philosophy silvanel .. i am nowhere near as schooled as you in philosophy but i appreciate it greatly ( never got past 6 credits in it during my schooling ) but i have done a lot of reading on my own after college , not near enough to deeply critique your theory or contrast it to previous or current philosophies ,, but the logic seems intact IF your assumptions are correct which imo they are
On March 14 2010 20:12 Silvanel wrote: Ok, that "anyone who thinks any piece of art is better than the other" thing was mine. And i will stand with it. Pity You didnt read one of my previous posts in this topic ( it seems so), where i was explaing my position.
In short, it looks like that.
1.There is no coherent, aesthetical theory that will explain all forms of artistic activity. It either has a huge internal inconsistencies, or its not broad enough to include all forms of activity we would all agree to call art.
If You disagree here there is no realy much talking left, thats my view on status of modern aesthetic theory. Thats my personal opinion, its well founded (i have a degree in philosophy, currently getting a phd in philosophy of science- math particulary so i am maybe a little biased, but i still know a lot about aesthetics). You of course have Your own opinion, its propably different. Lets just agree to disagree then.
If however You agree:
2.Since there is no theory that You could use to judge art without falling into inconsistency (as all existing theories have its flaws) it is better not to judge art, because using theory we know is flawed, (as it fails to explain phenomenon of art), is just plain stupid.
3.Since You cant judge art, You cant say that one piece is better than the other, even if it screams to, Why You ask? Becuase even if it looks right, it can be wrong (Sun orbits around Earth yeah? It looks that way. But we have a theory thats says otherwise, and that theory works. There is no working theory in aesthetics (one critique use that, other uses different). One says that and other the oposite.
In short that is my view. Pity my English is not good enough to explain it properly but i hope You will get what i mean.
If you had read what I have written... There are very consistent aesthetic theories. Kant, but you could also find Adorno, Hegel, even Aristotle, or moderns people like Badiou, Rancière, Deleuze, all theses philosophers have extremely complexe and interesting aesthetic teories from which you can say that a work of art is better than another. Heidegger has a theory which explains art in general, and which also permit to judge it in terms of value.
For Badiou Metallica is worse than Schoenberg. That's an example he gave in one of his work, and its based on his theory of events. That's a possibility, a theory.
How can you say that there is no complete aesthetic theory? That's just non-sense. Are you really studying philsoophy? And do you really know about aesthetic? From what you are saying, aesthetic doesn't exist (you say you no aesthetic, but there are no aesthetic theory....) Unless you think that Kant is flawed, but I wouldn't expect a philosophy student to think that a major philosopher can be flawed in any way on his major work.
On March 14 2010 20:06 chessmaster wrote: analyzing the chord has nothing to do with context ... hahahahah you obviously know little about music theory
Listen, dude. I have a degree in analysis and in harmony. And I am in master in a major conservatoire.
C E G is a major chord, in C major, in F flat minor or in which ever key your are in. You get it? A major chord is a major chord, it only depends the fucking intervals inside the chord. So a major seventh is a major seventh. That's not more complicated than that.
Now, the bass doesn't decide the nature of the chord, only its inversion. Bass is not fucking root note. Name of the chord is the name of the root note. In this example G is the root note, not B so it's a G chord. With the inversion, we would call it a sixth and fifth chord on B.
The fonction, the degree changes from the context, but not the nature of the chord. A dominant chord is a dominant chord in a context. But we are talking about the chord in itself. A seventh is not a fonction. Jesus. Just... learn something.
Hope your brain didn't explode. And please don't argue this one. Just don't. Because you don't know. And because you have written 60 one-liners about an off topic shit which brings nothing to this thread, which had been answered already perfectly by several people. You'll get yourself a ban, and it doesn't worth it.
i also have a degree in composition and you are wrong when you have no tonic to judge from you callo a chord by its root position your an idiot ,, you dont call a b minor chord a g chord ,, i still dont understand what the hell you are saying .. i also have a masters in applied piano ,, you actually just said to me you dont judge a chord by its context .. stop pretending to know what you are talking about .. and according to your logic a c maj chord is a dif chord in a dif inversion ,,, so to you minro chords dont exist lmao ... make some sense please .. we have NO tonic he asked from the point of view of intervals and harmonic value PURELY the b is in the bass in this case ,, since we have no tonic value its a b minor chord geezae you are very very very dense .. and in the sense of no tonal key we have nothi8ng else to judge from than the bass note .... where did you go to school they didnt teach you this stuff ??????? we have no tonal key .. what do you not get about this ,,, how to suppose we decide what to call a chord then .. whichever we want ,, ... so to you major chords take precedence over minor chords ??????? you dont seem to understand that this is a single chord ... none of these theory rules apply we only have 4 notes to judge harmonically .. we could call it a gmaj7 1st inversion if we wanted to .. its not exactly incorrect .. its not consistent to naming chords however.. and according to you an amin7 in root would actually be called a cmaj6 ,, and with no tonic that is just incorrect .. why you dont understand this when you pretend to be schooled is beyond me
On March 14 2010 22:16 chessmaster wrote: i also have a degree in composition and you are wrong when you have no tonic to judge from you callo a chord by its root position your an idiot ,, you dont call a b minor chord a g chord ,, i still dont understand what the hell you are saying .. i also have a masters in applied piano
How on earth can you be so stubborn. That's amazing.
B D F# G has G as a root note, because the root note is the note from which you only have a succession of thirds. The root note gives its name to the chord. So the chord is a seventh, major seventh starting from G.
G B D F#: four thirds from the root note. Now it has three inversion possible:
1st inversion: B D F# G: 6/5 chord. That's our chord.
2nd inversion D F# G B: 4/3 chord
3rd inversion F# G B D: 2 Chord
That's four different form of the same G seventh chord, with different inversions and differet basses.
So... This chord is a chord on B, but it is a G chord because the bass doesn't decide the nature of the fucking chord. Only its inversion.
It has nothing to do with the key. You don't know. You are the jackass. And if you are really studying music, good luck with your life.
so to you minor chords dont exits ,, i havge said already it is not incorrect to say it is a gmaj7 but is not consistent with naming chords... you are basically saying minro chords dont exist ,, the root note b .. isnt denoting a b chord .????????. it is inconsistent with your point ,, i already have a degree i am done with it .. but to me its obvious you dont ... you seem to think a major chord takes precedence over a minro chord .. and you seem to think you dont judge a chord by its context !!! you cant esacpe that you said that .. it is the most amusing thing you have said thus far .. lmao you not worth responding to any more ,,, you are beyond hope , i already conceded we could call it a gmaj7 .. but i also said it makes no sense to without a tonic FORCING us to .. its not something someone would do who wants to communicate correctly .. you keep talking about inversions like i dont understand what an inversion is lmao ...... that HAS no relevance .. heres an idea you may want to start responding to the points i am making instead of just taking nonsense ,,,, you r just showing me you lack of education ,,,,, so to you every minor chord doesn't exist ,, they are all major chords in different positions hahahahaha ,, whatever that means ,, i will try this one more time and see if you get it this time ... every chord has multiple names ,,, we generally decide which name to call a chord by the key we are in in the current piece of music we are playing ,, are you following me so far ? we have no such tonic key in this situation which to judge whether this is in fact a b minor 6 chord or a gmaj7 .. still following ? ...... so in these situations musicians use the root position to name chords .. what do you not get about this ... you are spewing forth info on intervals that anyone having taking music appreciation would know ,,, i am taking about interval values as they relate to tonic value ,, in which we have NONE !!!!!!!!!!!!! SO ONE MORE TIME ..., SINCE WE HAVE NO TONIC VALUE we call it by its bass note in such a clear cut case as this ,, some chords are so ambiguous they have more than one name and neither is wrong or right ,, while this is also the case here 9 times out of 10 most would say this is bm6 judging it by itself. in this case this is clearly a bm6 although .. it is not incorrect tio say it is also a gmaj7 1st inversion it is not what most would say unless wanting to explain how chords relate .. lamo are you actually listing simple chord inversions implying it will spin my head ... geeze what did you read a teach yourself guitar book or something and now you think your an expert ,, these inversions have absolutely nothing to do with my point althgoht they were amusing ,, you keep regurgitating the same things which have absolutely no meaning with .. i fully understand chord inversions and the third decides the nature of a chord in the sense of minor and major .. the d is a flat third to the b key ,, the b is in the bass ,, why would you choose gmaj inversion instead of b root ?????? i never said the bass decided the nature i said it decided the TONE when we have no key to judge you are escaping this issue with misdirection ,,
On March 14 2010 20:12 Silvanel wrote: Ok, that "anyone who thinks any piece of art is better than the other" thing was mine. And i will stand with it. Pity You didnt read one of my previous posts in this topic ( it seems so), where i was explaing my position.
In short, it looks like that.
1.There is no coherent, aesthetical theory that will explain all forms of artistic activity. It either has a huge internal inconsistencies, or its not broad enough to include all forms of activity we would all agree to call art.
If You disagree here there is no realy much talking left, thats my view on status of modern aesthetic theory. Thats my personal opinion, its well founded (i have a degree in philosophy, currently getting a phd in philosophy of science- math particulary so i am maybe a little biased, but i still know a lot about aesthetics). You of course have Your own opinion, its propably different. Lets just agree to disagree then.
If however You agree:
2.Since there is no theory that You could use to judge art without falling into inconsistency (as all existing theories have its flaws) it is better not to judge art, because using theory we know is flawed, (as it fails to explain phenomenon of art), is just plain stupid.
3.Since You cant judge art, You cant say that one piece is better than the other, even if it screams to, Why You ask? Becuase even if it looks right, it can be wrong (Sun orbits around Earth yeah? It looks that way. But we have a theory thats says otherwise, and that theory works. There is no working theory in aesthetics (one critique use that, other uses different). One says that and other the oposite.
In short that is my view. Pity my English is not good enough to explain it properly but i hope You will get what i mean.
If you had read what I have written... There are very consistent aesthetic theories. Kant, but you could also find Adorno, Hegel, even Aristotle, or moderns people like Badiou, Rancière, Deleuze, all theses philosophers have extremely complexe and interesting aesthetic teories from which you can say that a work of art is better than another.
For Badiou Metallica is less good than Schoenberg. That's an example he gave in one of his work, and its based on his work as a whole, and in particular on his theory of events. That's a possibility, a theory.
How can you say that there is no complete aesthetic theory? That's just non-sense. Are you really studying philsoophy? And do you really know about aesthetic? From what you are saying, aesthetic doesn't exist (you say you no aesthetic, but there are no aesthetic theory....)
Of course there are plenty of aesthetical theories. They are complex sure, perhaps even interesting (not to me but hey thats just me). But the only important question here is, "Do they work?". My answer is no, they dont. The problem is that most likely we have much different requirements for theories in general. I do not consider them sufficient, You do. But please lets not argue about specific theories (there is realy no point, time, and this not a good place also). There are plenty of critique of all mentioned theories (from differnt points of view). All theories has their flaws (You will not argue this would You?) To me those flaws disqualify them.
As i mentioned above my main point of intrest is science and math, i do belive that there is no realy point in arguing about aesthetics or ethics. Whats astonishing to me is that behave like You have never encountered such philosophical position, while plenty of acedemics from my University shares it (not all of them obviously (especialy those teaching ethics and aesthetics)).
I graduated in 2006, University of Łódź, Philosophy, Would You like me to scan my diploma and send You?
i suggest you go study figured bass ... modern shorthand doesnt fully encompass these things .. and here is the last point if you don't concede you are just ignorant after this i don't know what to do .. in that case of calling this a gmaj7 you would add the notation 1b .. this notates first inversion when this notation is absent there is nothing else we would call this chord but a b minor 6.. maybe you just were not aware of this ,, that is all i can assume ,,, when this notation is absent in modern notation one would always assume this to be a minor chord becuase of the bottom note being b as i said there is no symbol telling us to judge this as a gmajor chord in first inversion,, why you would choose to name a chord by a first inversion over a root form is beyond me ... in the absence of a symbol telling us to or a tonic key one would always judge harmonic intervals by their root form when possible .. this is the preferred method ,, why you ask ?????? well so we can be consistent ......i can keep making this simple point over and over until you respond to it ,, i have rebutted you point on intervals they have nothing to do wi8th this as there is no symbol telling us to judge this as an inversion ,, so we judge it by its root form he didnt ask would a b-d-f#-g 1b --- be a gma7 in first position at least i ddint see that symbol following those notes .. please educate yourself before you attempt to others ... here is a simple site you may chesk out .. that explains this in detail since you refuse to learn from me argue with wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inversion_(music) bring special attention to the part lower case letters ,,,, here i will post it here .... Lower-case letters may be placed after a chord symbol to indicate root position or inversion.[3] Hence, in the key of C major, the C major chord below in first inversion may be notated as Ib, indicating chord I, first inversion. (Less commonly, the root of the chord is named, followed by a lower-case letter: Cb). If no letter is added, THE CHORD IS ASSUMED TO BE IN ROOT POSITION , as though A had been inserted. ....... WHAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND ABOUT THIS ...... SINCE THERE IS NOTHING TELLING US NOT TO JUDGE THIS IN ROOT FORM WE ALWAYS WILL ... THIS IS HOW MUSIC THEORY WORKS .. I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU GOT YOUR EDUCATION ,, MAYBE FORM THE FIGMENT OF YOUR IMAGINATION
Quite frankly, arguing over the artistic value of anything is just stupid to me because that would require that there is some sort of objective standard by which to value and interpret art... (Obviously I believe that there isn't and that art is something to be interpreted subjectively.) If you believe that the compositions of John Williams are somehow less artistic than Mozart or Bach because they come out on TV shows and movies, you're just an ignorant and elitist ass in my opinion not because you're uneducated or anything like that but because you fail to see that scoring a movie is a form of self expression in itself.
Personally I hate this train of thought because I feel it drives so many artists to try to be unique and esoteric when they otherwise wouldn't just for the sake of being accepted as a serious artist rather than some sort of sellout. It's elitism like this that really squelches peoples' ability to express themselves. Could we just start enjoying all forms of art and accepting it for what it is rather than pretend that there's some sort of valid intellectual reason for PIECE A being superior to PIECE B just so we can sound smarter than the next guy over?
And for the record I do like Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven, I hate Stravinsky, and Metallica is awesome...
On March 14 2010 23:59 HeartOfTofu wrote:Could we just start enjoying all forms of art and accepting it for what it is rather than pretend that there's some sort of valid intellectual reason for PIECE A being superior to PIECE B just so we can sound smarter than the next guy over?
If someone said they thought Bone Thugz n Harmony were the greatest lyrical songwriters of all time, with the greatest melodies and most beautiful ideas; and then when you asked them what they thought of Bob Dylan or Stevie Wonder they replied 'Never really heard them but they probably suck; and why should I listen to them, I've already found the pinnacle of music with Bone Thugz n Harmony why bother listening?'; and then when you pressed them on it they said 'My opinion is as valid as yours, all the first year philosophy students told me so', how would you feel?
And for the record I do like Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven, I hate Stravinsky, and Metallica is awesome...
How can anyone 'hate' Stravinsky?!?!?!?!
How much of his work have you actually listened to? I mean if you don't like the brilliant ballets you can at least like the neo-classicism such as The Rake's Progress, and if you don't like that you can at least enjoy the symphonies or the smaller works!
My general opinion of classical music is that if you don't like or appreciate any of the great composers, it's your fault for not understanding, accepting and appreciating the right things in their work; rather than your perfectly hallowed opinion. I think if you spent some quality time with Stravinsky you would like him .
As a matter of fact that's my general opinion about art. Disliking something which is well-respected and well-loved is down to ignorance rather than a personality trait, in my opinion.
oh man chessmaster how on earth did you get a degree in anything
learn to type ffs
How can you use wikipedia as an official source for anything, especially music?
Yes when you're dealing with atonality you don't call B D F# G a Gmaj7, you call it (if I'm not mistaken) B341 (bass note + half steps between cluster on top). But that's only applicable to .1% of music, if that. I agree with everything Biff said, and as a conservatory student I can not fathom the idea of you studying composition or theory in any context with posts like that.
On March 15 2010 00:28 sc4k wrote: If someone said they thought Bone Thugz n Harmony were the greatest lyrical songwriters of all time, with the greatest melodies and most beautiful ideas; and then when you asked them what they thought of Bob Dylan or Stevie Wonder they replied 'Never really heard them but they probably suck; and why should I listen to them, I've already found the pinnacle of music with Bone Thugz n Harmony why bother listening?'; and then when you pressed them on it they said 'My opinion is as valid as yours, all the first year philosophy students told me so', how would you feel?
I would say that you can't know until you at least listened to Bob Dylan or Stevie Wonder. If after listening to Stevie Wonder, he felt that Bone Thugz n Harmony were better artists, then I would have nothing to say to that because his opinion is actually as valid as my own. But the point is that it is HIS OPINION rather than some sort of objective truth. In fact, there is no objective truth in regard to who the better artist is. All we can speak to is how much certain artists and aesthetics appeal to us on an individual level.
On March 15 2010 00:28 sc4k wrote: How can anyone 'hate' Stravinsky?!?!?!?!
How much of his work have you actually listened to? I mean if you don't like the brilliant ballets you can at least like the neo-classicism such as The Rake's Progress, and if you don't like that you can at least enjoy the symphonies or the smaller works!
My general opinion of classical music is that if you don't like or appreciate any of the great composers, it's your fault for not understanding, accepting and appreciating the right things in their work; rather than your perfectly hallowed opinion. I think if you spent some quality time with Stravinsky you would like him .
As a matter of fact that's my general opinion about art. Disliking something which is well-respected and well-loved is down to ignorance rather than a personality trait, in my opinion.
Yes, I've had this talk several times with a friend of mine who absolutely loves Stravinsky. The problem is not that I fail to understand it. The problem is that the music itself simply doesn't jive for me and therefore I hate listening to it. I find it (for the lack of a better word), unsettling. I also hate listening to death metal, but I don't feel it's a result of ignorance or inability to understand on my part. We all have our own personal preferences in the end and aside from the intellectual aspect of art, which I'm sure we can all appreciate to one degree or another, there's also the ultimate appeal of the final product to consider and in Stravinsky's case, his compositions simply don't appeal to my own musical tastes. I'm not saying he's an inferior composer in any way. I'm just saying that I don't like the vast majority of his compositions that I've heard to date. Whether the composer is loved and well-respected or not has no bearing on what I hear and feel when I sit down on my couch and turn on music.
There's a huge difference between saying "I don't like Picasso's work." and saying "Monet is a better artist than Picasso." The first statement is fine because there's an actual basis for it in that you personally don't like Picasso's work. The second statement is baseless nonsense and sadly, this kind of statement comes up all too often in the artistic world.
My post was more about separating opinion from objective fact when speaking about art, be it painting, music, photography, etc. There's no factual basis for saying that Beethoven has more artistic value than Metallica because to suggest something like this would require the existence of some sort of universally accepted standard by which to value art. No such standard exists so why do we feel the need to pretend that it does?
On March 14 2010 22:28 chessmaster wrote: so to you minor chords dont exits ,, i havge said already it is not incorrect to say it is a gmaj7 but is not consistent with naming chords... you are basically saying minro chords dont exist ,, the root note b .. isnt denoting a b chord .????????. it is inconsistent with your point ,, i already have a degree i am done with it .. but to me its obvious you dont ... you seem to think a major chord takes precedence over a minro chord .. and you seem to think you dont judge a chord by its context !!! you cant esacpe that you said that .. it is the most amusing thing you have said thus far .. lmao you not worth responding to any more ,,, you are beyond hope , i already conceded we could call it a gmaj7 .. but i also said it makes no sense to without a tonic FORCING us to .. its not something someone would do who wants to communicate correctly .. you keep talking about inversions like i dont understand what an inversion is lmao ...... that HAS no relevance .. heres an idea you may want to start responding to the points i am making instead of just taking nonsense ,,,, you r just showing me you lack of education ,,,,, so to you every minor chord doesn't exist ,, they are all major chords in different positions hahahahaha ,, whatever that means ,, i will try this one more time and see if you get it this time ... every chord has multiple names ,,, we generally decide which name to call a chord by the key we are in in the current piece of music we are playing ,, are you following me so far ? we have no such tonic key in this situation which to judge whether this is in fact a b minor 6 chord or a gmaj7 .. still following ? ...... so in these situations musicians use the root position to name chords .. what do you not get about this ... you are spewing forth info on intervals that anyone having taking music appreciation would know ,,, i am taking about interval values as they relate to tonic value ,, in which we have NONE !!!!!!!!!!!!! SO ONE MORE TIME ..., SINCE WE HAVE NO TONIC VALUE we call it by its bass note in such a clear cut case as this ,, some chords are so ambiguous they have more than one name and neither is wrong or right ,, while this is also the case here 9 times out of 10 most would say this is bm6 judging it by itself. in this case this is clearly a bm6 although .. it is not incorrect tio say it is also a gmaj7 1st inversion it is not what most would say unless wanting to explain how chords relate .. lamo are you actually listing simple chord inversions implying it will spin my head ... geeze what did you read a teach yourself guitar book or something and now you think your an expert ,, these inversions have absolutely nothing to do with my point althgoht they were amusing ,, you keep regurgitating the same things which have absolutely no meaning with .. i fully understand chord inversions and the third decides the nature of a chord in the sense of minor and major .. the d is a flat third to the b key ,, the b is in the bass ,, why would you choose gmaj inversion instead of b root ?????? i never said the bass decided the nature i said it decided the TONE when we have no key to judge you are escaping this issue with misdirection ,,
Man, I'm a musician not a psychiatrist. I can try to help you with musical issues, but for the other problems you should see a specialist.
On March 14 2010 20:12 Silvanel wrote: Ok, that "anyone who thinks any piece of art is better than the other" thing was mine. And i will stand with it. Pity You didnt read one of my previous posts in this topic ( it seems so), where i was explaing my position.
In short, it looks like that.
1.There is no coherent, aesthetical theory that will explain all forms of artistic activity. It either has a huge internal inconsistencies, or its not broad enough to include all forms of activity we would all agree to call art.
If You disagree here there is no realy much talking left, thats my view on status of modern aesthetic theory. Thats my personal opinion, its well founded (i have a degree in philosophy, currently getting a phd in philosophy of science- math particulary so i am maybe a little biased, but i still know a lot about aesthetics). You of course have Your own opinion, its propably different. Lets just agree to disagree then.
If however You agree:
2.Since there is no theory that You could use to judge art without falling into inconsistency (as all existing theories have its flaws) it is better not to judge art, because using theory we know is flawed, (as it fails to explain phenomenon of art), is just plain stupid.
3.Since You cant judge art, You cant say that one piece is better than the other, even if it screams to, Why You ask? Becuase even if it looks right, it can be wrong (Sun orbits around Earth yeah? It looks that way. But we have a theory thats says otherwise, and that theory works. There is no working theory in aesthetics (one critique use that, other uses different). One says that and other the oposite.
In short that is my view. Pity my English is not good enough to explain it properly but i hope You will get what i mean.
If you had read what I have written... There are very consistent aesthetic theories. Kant, but you could also find Adorno, Hegel, even Aristotle, or moderns people like Badiou, Rancière, Deleuze, all theses philosophers have extremely complexe and interesting aesthetic teories from which you can say that a work of art is better than another.
For Badiou Metallica is less good than Schoenberg. That's an example he gave in one of his work, and its based on his work as a whole, and in particular on his theory of events. That's a possibility, a theory.
How can you say that there is no complete aesthetic theory? That's just non-sense. Are you really studying philsoophy? And do you really know about aesthetic? From what you are saying, aesthetic doesn't exist (you say you no aesthetic, but there are no aesthetic theory....)
Of course there are plenty of aesthetical theories. They are complex sure, perhaps even interesting (not to me but hey thats just me). But the only important question here is, "Do they work?". My answer is no, they dont. The problem is that most likely we have much different requirements for theories in general. I do not consider them sufficient, You do. But please lets not argue about specific theories (there is realy no point, time, and this not a good place also). There are plenty of critique of all mentioned theories (from differnt points of view). All theories has their flaws (You will not argue this would You?) To me those flaws disqualify them.
As i mentioned above my main point of intrest is science and math, i do belive that there is no realy point in arguing about aesthetics or ethics. Whats astonishing to me is that behave like You have never encountered such philosophical position, while plenty of acedemics from my University shares it (not all of them obviously (especialy those teaching ethics and aesthetics)).
I graduated in 2006, University of Łódź, Philosophy, Would You like me to scan my diploma and send You?
Ok, we are interested in radically different kind of philosophy, as you seem to be rather oriented towards analytical philosophy while I read mostly continental philosophy. I know lot of analytical philosopher don't even discuss aesthetic anymore.
Aesthetic as an era of research is therefore not relevant for you, and the discussion is over.
There is one point though that I don't understand, which is that in my views a philosopher is never wrong or flawed. And is never right neither. It's non-sense for example saying that Spinoza or Plato is wrong, because philosophy is not looking for the truth anyway. Which is why, precisely, it is not science.
On March 14 2010 22:28 chessmaster wrote: so to you minor chords dont exits ,, i havge said already it is not incorrect to say it is a gmaj7 but is not consistent with naming chords... you are basically saying minro chords dont exist ,, the root note b .. isnt denoting a b chord .????????. it is inconsistent with your point ,, i already have a degree i am done with it .. but to me its obvious you dont ... you seem to think a major chord takes precedence over a minro chord .. and you seem to think you dont judge a chord by its context !!! you cant esacpe that you said that .. it is the most amusing thing you have said thus far .. lmao you not worth responding to any more ,,, you are beyond hope , i already conceded we could call it a gmaj7 .. but i also said it makes no sense to without a tonic FORCING us to .. its not something someone would do who wants to communicate correctly .. you keep talking about inversions like i dont understand what an inversion is lmao ...... that HAS no relevance .. heres an idea you may want to start responding to the points i am making instead of just taking nonsense ,,,, you r just showing me you lack of education ,,,,, so to you every minor chord doesn't exist ,, they are all major chords in different positions hahahahaha ,, whatever that means ,, i will try this one more time and see if you get it this time ... every chord has multiple names ,,, we generally decide which name to call a chord by the key we are in in the current piece of music we are playing ,, are you following me so far ? we have no such tonic key in this situation which to judge whether this is in fact a b minor 6 chord or a gmaj7 .. still following ? ...... so in these situations musicians use the root position to name chords .. what do you not get about this ... you are spewing forth info on intervals that anyone having taking music appreciation would know ,,, i am taking about interval values as they relate to tonic value ,, in which we have NONE !!!!!!!!!!!!! SO ONE MORE TIME ..., SINCE WE HAVE NO TONIC VALUE we call it by its bass note in such a clear cut case as this ,, some chords are so ambiguous they have more than one name and neither is wrong or right ,, while this is also the case here 9 times out of 10 most would say this is bm6 judging it by itself. in this case this is clearly a bm6 although .. it is not incorrect tio say it is also a gmaj7 1st inversion it is not what most would say unless wanting to explain how chords relate .. lamo are you actually listing simple chord inversions implying it will spin my head ... geeze what did you read a teach yourself guitar book or something and now you think your an expert ,, these inversions have absolutely nothing to do with my point althgoht they were amusing ,, you keep regurgitating the same things which have absolutely no meaning with .. i fully understand chord inversions and the third decides the nature of a chord in the sense of minor and major .. the d is a flat third to the b key ,, the b is in the bass ,, why would you choose gmaj inversion instead of b root ?????? i never said the bass decided the nature i said it decided the TONE when we have no key to judge you are escaping this issue with misdirection ,,
Flaunting your composition degree loses its effect when you can't even use the English language...
On March 15 2010 00:43 Sunyveil wrote: oh man chessmaster how on earth did you get a degree in anything
learn to type ffs
How can you use wikipedia as an official source for anything, especially music?
Yes when you're dealing with atonality you don't call B D F# G a Gmaj7, you call it (if I'm not mistaken) B341 (bass note + half steps between cluster on top). But that's only applicable to .1% of music, if that. I agree with everything Biff said, and as a conservatory student I can not fathom the idea of you studying composition or theory in any context with posts like that.
On March 15 2010 00:28 sc4k wrote: If someone said they thought Bone Thugz n Harmony were the greatest lyrical songwriters of all time, with the greatest melodies and most beautiful ideas; and then when you asked them what they thought of Bob Dylan or Stevie Wonder they replied 'Never really heard them but they probably suck; and why should I listen to them, I've already found the pinnacle of music with Bone Thugz n Harmony why bother listening?'; and then when you pressed them on it they said 'My opinion is as valid as yours, all the first year philosophy students told me so', how would you feel?
I would say that you can't know until you at least listened to Bob Dylan or Stevie Wonder. If after listening to Stevie Wonder, he felt that Bone Thugz n Harmony were better artists, then I would have nothing to say to that because his opinion is actually as valid as my own. But the point is that it is HIS OPINION rather than some sort of objective truth. In fact, there is no objective truth in regard to who the better artist is. All we can speak to is how much certain artists and aesthetics appeal to us on an individual level.
We don't disagree here, but my point is that almost everyone is ignorant in one way or another. Very rarely do you have discussions with someone about taste where both of you are on an equal level in terms of understanding. If two people were completely cognisant of one topic, but had completely different opinions, neither would be more right than the other of course.
Like I said that rarely happens, and even if one does take the time to listen to other artists, one might not be taking the right approach to fully understanding and enjoying them.
On March 15 2010 00:28 sc4k wrote: How can anyone 'hate' Stravinsky?!?!?!?!
How much of his work have you actually listened to? I mean if you don't like the brilliant ballets you can at least like the neo-classicism such as The Rake's Progress, and if you don't like that you can at least enjoy the symphonies or the smaller works!
My general opinion of classical music is that if you don't like or appreciate any of the great composers, it's your fault for not understanding, accepting and appreciating the right things in their work; rather than your perfectly hallowed opinion. I think if you spent some quality time with Stravinsky you would like him .
As a matter of fact that's my general opinion about art. Disliking something which is well-respected and well-loved is down to ignorance rather than a personality trait, in my opinion.
Yes, I've had this talk several times with a friend of mine who absolutely loves Stravinsky. The problem is not that I fail to understand it. The problem is that the music itself simply doesn't jive for me and therefore I hate listening to it. I find it (for the lack of a better word), unsettling.
I find that word itself to be unsettling, you can't have listened to Stravinsky's neoclassical period! Surely you can't, if you call his music 'unsettling'! I also really advise you try a few more times to get into The Rite of Spring, I mean come on it's one of the greatest pieces of the 20th century. Think of all the roads it inspired people to travel, and what it did for the sounds of films and TV. Think of how much horror and action music is indebted to Igor!
On March 15 2010 01:08 HeartOfTofu wrote: Whether the composer is loved and well-respected or not has no bearing on what I hear and feel when I sit down on my couch and turn on music.
All I meant by that is that it's a good general barometer for gauging whether a work has any worth beyond its basic components. Usually, better artists escape the shackles of genre interchangeability and tend to have great appeal in certain circles.
On March 15 2010 01:08 HeartOfTofu wrote: There's a huge difference between saying "I don't like Picasso's work." and saying "Monet is a better artist than Picasso." The first statement is fine because there's an actual basis for it in that you personally don't like Picasso's work. The second statement is baseless nonsense and sadly, this kind of statement comes up all too often in the artistic world.
I'll agree with you there, of course. Although I still object to someone saying they 'hate' Stravinsky, it doesn't compute, sorry.
On March 15 2010 01:08 HeartOfTofu wrote: My post was more about separating opinion from objective fact when speaking about art, be it painting, music, photography, etc. There's no factual basis for saying that Beethoven has more artistic value than Metallica because to suggest something like this would require the existence of some sort of universally accepted standard by which to value art. No such standard exists so why do we feel the need to pretend that it does?
Of course I won't argue with you here but I'm saying that probably more than three quarters of all aesthetic opinions in the world are made from positions of relative ignorance; and should not be defended with the phrase 'all opinions are equal'.
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.
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...
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 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 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.
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 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.
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 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 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 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
.
