EPTi agree with you
Classical music, “elitism,” and cultural relevancy - Page 9
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
JohnColtrane
Australia4813 Posts
i agree with you | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7796 Posts
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. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7796 Posts
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. | ||
|
chessmaster
United States268 Posts
| ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7796 Posts
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. Bye. | ||
|
chessmaster
United States268 Posts
| ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4673 Posts
On March 14 2010 21:45 Biff The Understudy wrote: 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? | ||
|
chessmaster
United States268 Posts
| ||
|
sc4k
United Kingdom5454 Posts
| ||
|
HeartOfTofu
United States308 Posts
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... | ||
|
sc4k
United Kingdom5454 Posts
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. | ||
|
Deleted User 31060
3788 Posts
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. | ||
|
HeartOfTofu
United States308 Posts
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? | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7796 Posts
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. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7796 Posts
On March 14 2010 22:37 Silvanel wrote: 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. | ||
|
matjlav
Germany2435 Posts
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... | ||
|
Merlin
United States82 Posts
| ||
|
rabidch
United States20288 Posts
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. Some people are crazy. | ||
|
sc4k
United Kingdom5454 Posts
On March 15 2010 01:08 HeartOfTofu wrote: 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 01:08 HeartOfTofu wrote: 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'. | ||
|
HeartOfTofu
United States308 Posts
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. | ||
| ||
