# Bear Witness to Our Love...



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I stumbled upon this post on a classical music blog... and felt that there was much in what the blogger... a classical music writer... had to say. What do you all think? Can we... and should we... be putting forth more effort in our posts (and in our daily lives) in "bearing witness to our love of classical music?" Or do constant disputes between Beethoven vs Mozart "fanboys" or mudslinging between Baroque aficionados who are troglodytes stuck in the past, and sworn modernists who only listen to such noise in order to impress others with their intellectual superiority actually achieve anything worthwhile... let alone help to erase the stereotypes of classical music?

_In Andrew Harvey's Journey in Ladakh there is a discussion of how the threatened culture of the Ladhaki's can be protected. During the discussion Harvey says "All we can do is bear witness to our love of the country and its people as clearly and intelligently as possible". 'Bear witness' is an old-fashioned and therefore deeply unfashionable concept, but, despite that, there is still much that classical music can learn from it. One of the definitions of 'bear witness' is "public affirm by word or example of usually religious faith or conviction". Much time is spent wondering why the culture of classical music is threatened. Perhaps it is simply because in the mainstream media, in blogs, Facebook and Twitter we are doing everything but bear witness to our love of classical music. A scan across the classical music headlines reveals stories about everything from sexual abuse in musical schools, through the financial woes of orchestras, to the perils of dumbing down (yes, I plead guilty!), all garnished with thinly disguised self and corporate promotion. Where has all the bearing witness gone? Where is the public affirmation of our conviction that classical music is a life force? Looking back my most satisfying and productive paths have been those that have born witness to my admiration for musicians such as Jonathan Harvey and Jordi Savall, that is me with Jordi in the header photo. It would cost nothing and might just change things if every music writer - including me - spent more time bearing witness to their love of classical music._

http://www.overgrownpath.com/2013/08/we-need-to-bear-witness-to-our-love-of.html


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Can we... and should we... be putting forth more effort in our posts (and in our daily lives) in "bearing witness to our love of classical music?"


Over the past few months I have searched for a particular post by Elgarian that I found wonderful. Essentially he was discussing the ways we talk about music. I may misremember details, but essentially he personally wished to convey a sense of how the music makes him feel. Why does this particular music move him? What is special about certain music. He wanted to focus on why he loves certain music. He felt that simply stating that one likes a piece is almost too easy and conveys too little information. I'm not sure he would have used the words "bearing witness", but I think he might have agreed with the sentiment.

We often (myself included) simply state what we like or dislike, and that could be fun (we all like to talk about ourselves) or in certain cases mildly helpful. If I know someone else's tastes are very similar to mine, knowing that they like a piece I haven't heard is useful. I'll look forward to hearing it. But simply saying, "I like this" or "I hate that" doesn't convey information about the music. It conveys information about ourselves. In order to convey information about the music, we must talk about the music. The more we discuss the music (_and that can be hard_) and how it makes us feel (and that is subjective), the more someone else can get a sense of the music itself.

Finally, there are many discussions of why certain music sucks/is garbage/is destroying reality as we know it. I'm not sure that hearing how bad some music is really tells us anything. If someone doesn't like certain music, that information does not help someone else who is searching to engage with music in general. Hearing how good some music is, why it moves people, and what makes someone love it can motivate others to experience (or retry) that music.

I want to hear why others love music not why or that they dislike it. The first helps me. The latter does not. So yes, I think we should all try to "bear witness to our love" of certain works, certain composers, and classical music in general as long as "bear witness" means much more than simply stating that we like it/them.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

mmsbls said:


> [...]
> I want to hear why others love music not why or that they dislike it. The first helps me. The latter does not. So yes, I think we should all try to "bear witness to our love" of certain works, certain composers, and classical music in general as long as "bear witness" means much more than simply stating that we like it/them.


What you ask is more than hard; for me it is not possible. I know a _lot_ of words, but hitching them to feelings doesn't work. Feelings/emotions stay in a realm of their own, externally expressible only 'through body language darkly'.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> What you ask is more than hard; for me it is not possible. I know a _lot_ of words, but hitching them to feelings doesn't work. Feelings/emotions stay in a realm of their own, externally expressible only 'through body language darkly'.


Yes, I know. When I try, I manage to say more than "I love this work", but I don't know how truly helpful my words are to others. There are some musically knowledgeable and verbally gifted people who can say something both about the objective music and how it makes them feel that gives one true insight into a work. I treasure those.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

mmsbls said:


> Why does this particular music move him? What is special about certain music. He wanted to focus on why he loves certain music.


that's a question I've obsessed on a bit and not only in relation to music: why do we like whatever it is we like? finding the answer has eluded me so far, as what I like is often contradictory.


----------



## CypressWillow (Apr 2, 2013)

Ah, now this is the kind of thread that I, for one, come to Classical Music fora in search of. People of good will, intelligently sharing about music, is so 'enrolling.' If we want to introduce more people to Classical music,and we strive to make it a welcoming experience, then we are doing something good.
It has been difficult to understand why some posters feel the need to put down another persons taste/preferences/passions. The adversarial 'fanboys' who like to keep the pot boiling, the fanatics about one period or another who denigrate music that is older or newer or more or less tonal - pah! I don't know what it is they're out to accomplish, but it seems it can't be to create a safe learning experience for newbies. 
I have a theory that, as you are on this site, so you are in real life. Certainly we all have composers we don't 'get' but we needn't put them down because of it. As in the real world, certainly we know people who don't share our opinions regarding politics, religion, and other 'hot button' topics. _ Chacun a son gout._ 
I know there are people who thrive on confrontation, making snide and snarky comments from the safe anonymity of the internet. I don't find it interesting, clever, useful, or amusing. 
*Whew* quite a rant. Sorry. 
So to get back to original intent of this thread, yes I believe we should look for opportunities to 'bear witness' to our love, and do it in a gentle and nurturing way.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Well said, _CypressWillow_, but... being 'gentle and nurturing' is not a universal talent. Basically, we can only do what life has trained us to do. In extreme cases that training results in a fortress with the external 'appearance' of the business end of a morningstar.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Being critical or maybe just more ambivalent about something doesn't have to mean being snide and it could still be informative. Being positive can sometimes be insightful but other times it could just be hazy praise and really just people of the same opinion patting each other on the back. So I don't think it's quite that simple to say everyone should just talk about what they think is amazing and ignore things they don't like as much, otherwise people could become more narrow in their discussion. 

That doesn't mean that people should damn music they haven't any real experience of.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

I agree, starry. 

Making a specific criticism of a composer or piece of music, while singling out its good qualities, ought to be helpful. Too much praise would make the reader a bit mistrustful so a little shading is necessary to give a balanced picture. But simply 'trashing' music one doesn't like, or sneering at members of TC for not knowing as much as oneself, or 'scoring points' - that must be very off-putting for would-be newcomers.


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

For the masses to take these bolgs seriously or at least read it and consider it, there is no use in discsussing why one loves Xenakis' noise. That would be the exact opposite of its purpose and be destructive for classial music. So while I agree that blogs need to discuss why one likes classical music, it all comes down to actual content, much like the music itself, for it to be taken seriously.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I think that it is good to bear witness of what we like. A simpler way of putting it is to just talk about our experiences of different types of music. Cliques are an element in many if not all of the creative arts, and classical music isn't immune to this. However the less of those, and avoiding a kind of ghettoisation of different genres, eras, styles, trends, composers of classical music is also desirable. Its not a perfect world as some have pointed out, yet aiming for an open and accepting type of dialogue and sharing of ideas, experiences, information and so on is a very good thing to aim for at least.

I think that music generally is a life force, and classical is part of that wider or broader energy. To try describe it accurately of course is futile, it is different for every listener, but that is the beauty of it. Sometimes there is consensus of opinion, sometimes there isn't.

In terms of mudslinging my aim is to avoid it here, and anywhere actually. Getting personal is really just no good form. I've descended to that level before here quite a few times, and ultimately I regret it. In any case, the members of this forum tend to have eclectic and wide ranging tastes - not only within classical, but outside it too in many cases. Trying to draw battle lines gets messy and ultimately its like a line in the sand - its vague at best and it tends to cause animosity and imo has little use in the first place. 

And how things change! When I came here, I was one of a comparative few listening to post-1945 music. I included a good deal of that in my listening then, still do to some degree. However now I look around and the sands have shifted, I am definitely a traditionalist by comparison to a good deal of people here. Not rigidly so I'd hope, I'm still willing to give things a go, but now I am narrower in my outlook than before.

It all comes with experience. Many times I write here about music as if it where my personal diary. A kind of mapping of my journey. There is no right or wrong here, its kind of exploratory. Its linked to my needs and interests. Its not about being Modernist or traditionalist or whatever. Its more about the music, and what I want to get out of it, how much I'm willing to stretch things, how deeply I can go.

This is why I tend to make "I" statements. I used to generalise but now I mainly talk about my own reaction, not judge other's reactions and use that as some sort of platform for discussion of the music. Sometimes I refer to what the composer or a writer says about a piece, but that's intended more as a scaffold for me and others to get into this great music!

So summing up, yes to talking of our own experiences with music, yes to going on our own journeys with music, yes to looking at not only the differences but many connections between seemingly different types of music, and yes to sharing these sorts of experiences - that way it has potential to be collective rather than cliquey, ghettoised and an elitist 'closed shop' to others, particularly those who are early on in their discoveries of classical music.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

CypressWillow said:


> I know there are people who thrive on confrontation, making snide and snarky comments from the safe anonymity of the internet. I don't find it interesting, clever, useful, or amusing.


a bit of confrontation never hurt anyone. You can learn from that as well.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

deggial said:


> a bit of confrontation never hurt anyone. You can learn from that as well.


Cannot agree with you there!

My own personal belief - I know it's controversial on a forum like this, but I can take it! - is that we (as a community) often intend to signal to outsiders that they're not welcome among us, that classical music is too hard or too good or too subtle or in one way or another too elite for them.

And it works. Occasionally at least, we manage to turn people off to the music. It happens in real life as well as on the internet.

But I think the internet is making things better, actually. Thirty years ago, if you didn't find yourself in an accepting community, you just didn't find one, but now it's fairly easy to find one if you want to. Besides, given that these days no one respects musical copyrights, the internet has also made it cheaper to hear the music.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

science said:


> My own personal belief - I know it's controversial on a forum like this, but I can take it! - is that we (as a community) often intend to signal to outsiders that they're not welcome among us, that classical music is too hard or too good or too subtle or in one way or another too elite for them.


that's true, but if one likes the music all that isn't very important. We're all here primarily because we have an interest in classical music but inevitably some have been at it longer and in more involved ways. It's normal that they would roll their eyes at a beginner's enthusiasm for a completely mainstream piece and suggest something more or less obscure and complex. A challenge like that can be very beneficial, in that the beginner will be exposed to something new which might end up illuminating or even appealing. In any case, it will widen the beginner's horizon, which is always a good thing.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

deggial said:


> that's true, but if one likes the music all that isn't very important. We're all here primarily because we have an interest in classical music but inevitably some have been at it longer and in more involved ways. It's normal that they would roll their eyes at a beginner's enthusiasm for a completely mainstream piece and suggest something more or less obscure and complex. A challenge like that can be very beneficial, in that the beginner will be exposed to something new which might end up illuminating or even appealing. In any case, it will widen the beginner's horizon, which is always a good thing.


Very sensible unlike some of the pie-in-the sky stuff being bandied about !


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

moody said:


> Very sensible unlike some of the pie-in-the sky stuff being bandied about !


Aha! Sensible, eh _moody_? I was holding myself back... but now I recommend you listen to Rzewski's compositions - including De Profundis and his version of Beethoven's Appassionata.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

science said:


> Cannot agree with you there!
> 
> My own personal belief - I know it's controversial on a forum like this, but I can take it! - is that we (as a community) often intend to signal to outsiders that they're not welcome among us, that classical music is too hard or too good or too subtle or in one way or another too elite for them.
> 
> ...


The last paragraph pretty much contradicts what was said before and is more truthful I think. In real life people would simply avoid discussing music that much with those who they don't think they will get on with. People accept others on the internet whatever they look like or where they are from, because they don't have much choice luckily. But the downside to the anonymity is that some people can go extreme and pretty much isolate themselves. Most people don't try and turn others off music, most likely the opposite. However some certainly don't expect that they have to hold someone's hand every step of the way in listening to music.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

starry said:


> some certainly don't expect that they have to hold someone's hand every step of the way


This is a good phrase, because "not holding someone's hand every step of the way" could mean anything up to expressing scorn for their tastes or knowledge. We can insult them, and blame them for being insulted, defending our superior position in two different ways and at once. Judo rhetoric.

It's all good, though. I'm here, and I'm probably not going away! And this is a good site for people like me.


----------



## Guest (Aug 21, 2013)

I LOVE SHEHERAZADE !!!

I LOVE SHEHERAZADE !!!

I LOVE SHEHERAZADE !!!

I LOVE SHEHERAZADE !!!

I LOVE SHEHERAZADE !!!

I LOVE SHEHERAZADE !!!

I LOVE SHEHERAZADE !!!

(It's so nice to feel unconditionally accepted.  More likes please !!! )


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

BPS said:


> SHEHERAZADE !!!


It's ok, I guess, if that's what you're into. I used to enjoy that too, when I was seven.

JUST KIDDING OF COURSE!

I love it too.

But then, I'm easy. I've got horrible taste - I like most everything. I'm not the kind of ally anyone wants!


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

BPS said:


> I LOVE SHEHERAZADE !!!
> 
> I LOVE SHEHERAZADE !!!
> 
> ...


Can't stand the tatty rubbish.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

science said:


> But then, I'm easy. I've got horrible taste - I like most everything. I'm not the kind of ally anyone wants!


:tiphat:That's not 'horrible taste' - it's called *an open mind. * 

And I like S*C*heherazade too!


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

BPS said:


> I LOVE SHEHERAZADE !!!
> 
> I LOVE SHEHERAZADE !!!
> 
> ...


This acknowledgment of tacky-taste may not be the way to get them. 

I discovered the R-K Scheherazade sometime in my teen years, long after reading Burton's "One Thousand And One Nights". The multicolored orchestration, plus the 'scene-poem' construction, impressed me a lot - for awhile. Now that I am mature (some would say well past over-ripe), I find the music hard to listen to.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

Ingenue said:


> And I like S*C*heherazade too!


Now now, it doesn't do to be too pedantic over such things:
















It should be Шехерaзада anyway or perhaps شهرزاد


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

I think there's no better way to share one's love about classical music than to actually share personal experience. So what if other people don't_ exactly_ relate? I feel the personal story is of so much power, it can awaken another to realize his own story is of importance too, and perhaps where there is commonality, will draw encouragement from another. Music is such a personal thing. You could call it your "testimony," and this along with the actual music itself is probably the most influential way of sharing classical music with the world. I personally have an _enormous_ desire to share music with others, it's almost impulsive, and it grows as I get older.


----------



## CypressWillow (Apr 2, 2013)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> I think there's no better way to share one's love about classical music than to actually share personal experience. So what if other people don't_ exactly_ relate? I feel the personal story is of so much power, it can awaken another to realize his own story is of importance too, and perhaps where there is commonality, will draw encouragement from another. Music is such a personal thing. You could call it your "testimony," and this along with the actual music itself is probably the most influential way of sharing classical music with the world. I personally have an _enormous_ desire to share music with others, it's almost impulsive, and it grows as I get older.


Too bad we only have a 'Like' button and not a 'Hooray for you!' button.


----------



## Guest (Aug 21, 2013)

Please accept my apologies for my previous post - I had just eaten a cupcake.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

quack said:


> Now now, it doesn't do to be too pedantic over such things:
> 
> View attachment 23280
> 
> ...


Burton was a Brit. Who knows how the stories he heard and greatly embellished on would have fared in the West without him?


----------



## Guest (Aug 21, 2013)

quack said:


> Now now, it doesn't do to be too pedantic over such things:
> 
> View attachment 23280
> 
> ...


Ahem, where I am coming from (me no speaky good Ingliz, savvy?) : Shéhérazade.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

BPS said:


> I LOVE SHEHERAZADE !!!
> 
> I LOVE SHEHERAZADE !!!
> 
> ...


haha. Most people actually don't care what somebody else's personal likes are unless they agree with their own. People often read poll threads just to see whether their own preference is doing well. And then they'll 'like' a post that agrees with their own preference while most will just ignore one that doesn't. Those who actually bother to debate something they don't agree with can actually bring life to a forum.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Just backtracking a bit here:



deggial said:


> ...It's normal that they would roll their eyes at a beginner's enthusiasm for a completely mainstream piece and suggest something more or less obscure and complex. A challenge like that can be very beneficial, in that the beginner will be exposed to something new which might end up illuminating or even appealing. In any case, it will widen the beginner's horizon, which is always a good thing.


Well if the beginner asks for advice, fine. But if the advice is shoved in his or her face, can that ever be good or beneficial? I think its a downer.

In any case, I have been listening on and off for over 30 years now. & now returning to many "warhorses" I am discovering how amazing they are. Many of them, maybe even the majority, have some innovation. They haven't become popular and stayed in the repertoire for so long for nothing. Successive generations of classical listeners have enjoyed them, so too musicians. Is mainstream almost a dirty word for some people? Is obscure and/or complex necessarily better or is it just something different? That's what I'm asking. Most of that obscure stuff builds upon the mainstream stuff. So?



starry said:


> ....Those who actually bother to debate something they don't agree with can actually bring life to a forum.


Well I think there's a fine line between what you call life and what I call animosity and (sorry to be crude!) s*** fights. Debate is debate but again, if one uses something as part of some agenda, without uncovering that agenda or thinking behind one's opinions, well that tends to ruffle a few feathers doesn't it? Also tends to put people off. But now when I read a thread with "atonal" in the title, or other controversial things of the sort, I just avoid it. I know the likely outcome of these things.

There's many people who say they've read the forum before deciding to participate. Implication is they think its potentially hazardous to just jump in, lest they be chided for giving their opinions against the weight of more experienced members.

But rather than focus on some invisible pecking order I think it is good as the OP says, just talk about our experiences of music, that's the point of all this, isn't it?


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Sid James said:


> J
> Well I think there's a fine line between what you call life and what I call animosity and (sorry to be crude!) s*** fights.


I don't think it's a thin line at all. Some people don't want to debate they just want to have a blinkered view and fool themselves that that is debate. But why judge people by the worst? Music shouldn't be judged by the worst, so why should forums? And some people certainly can't take debate, they are thin skinned and just want their view heard and nothing else.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

starry said:


> I don't think it's a thin line at all. Some people don't want to debate they just want to have a blinkered view and fool themselves that that is debate.


I tell you why I think there's a thin line. Its basically because people try to convert others to what they believe in. So you get these what I call merry go round threads where people keep coming back and saying the same thing. Like variations on a theme, but much more tedious. So, if its a controversial issue, there is going to be little or no consensus on the matter. Take atonal music, Wagner or John Cage. So what I tend to do on these threads is say my piece and go, or if I can have a dialogue with someone its fine. But coming back a million times to (a) Convince others I'm right and they're wrong, (b) Insinuate if they don't believe what I do, they're fools, and (c) making a mockery of what they say and turning it against them - well, these are things that tend to happen. I call that just a joke, not real "debate." But we can beg to differ, that's fine.



> ...And some people certainly can't take debate, they are thin skinned and just want their view heard and nothing else.


Again, I'm not thin skinned as regards real debate, what I tune out of is things like passive aggressive behaviour, arrogance, gloating, all that stuff which is toxic. I mean do you think these things can be called positive by any strech of the imagination? I think we can aspire to behaviour better than this, honestly. But I suppose this type of behaviour can be more interesting and engrossing than debate focussed on opinions, not egos. Well, maybe interesting for those not on the end of such things. All one can do ultimately is avoid it, and avoid making extreme or potentially extreme or fallacious arguments that attract more of the same.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

I _never said_ everything is positive, that's why I said don't judge things by the worst, if we did that we would all be afraid of discussion and it wouldn't really be a forum. It's easy to let these people have their way and shut up discussion and have them laughing at the control they can have. But, as with music I don't really like, I try not to interact with either the active aggressive people or the passive aggressive. If I don't see something as being of use to me then I walk away, though if someone has replied to you it's probably worth pointing out if your point has been twisted first.

So I'm not sure we have that much disagreement, maybe you didn't interpret what I was saying in the way I intended. I simply brought up the passive aggressive (thin skinned) nature of some (trying to deny discussion) alongside the overly aggressive (those trying to annoy people directly). Maybe some, not all, of these people are completely unaware of the effect of their approach of forums as well. Not that pointing it out will make things clearer because their viewpoint is likely limited.

As for people trying to convince others about music that's pretty pointless. I do wonder if people are really trying to do that most of the time though. Many, not all, probably just want to represent their opinion on a subject whenever it comes up. It's just that some of these topics come up quite often (that relates to another recent thread here).

And complete consensus really makes for no discussion anyway, so that doesn't have to be a problem. It's more about discussion of others opinions but also having respect for them, and above all not twisting what they say. Coming to an understanding of someone's point probably allows some agreement, while at the same time accepting complete agreement isn't possible but also isn't necessary for a forum.


----------



## Guest (Aug 23, 2013)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> [...] _Perhaps it is simply because in the mainstream media, in blogs, Facebook and Twitter *we are doing everything but* bear witness to our love of classical music. A scan across the classical music headlines reveals stories about everything from sexual abuse in musical schools, through the financial woes of orchestras, to the perils of dumbing down (yes, I plead guilty!), all garnished with thinly disguised self and corporate promotion. Where has all the bearing witness gone? Where is the public affirmation of our conviction that classical music is a life force?_


I take exception to the 'we'.


The BBC's Proms is a continuous 'bearing witness' to the love of classical music - daily affirmation from the middle of July to the beginning of September
The majority of contributors here regularly bear witness
I recently bore witness (or did I just bore witless?) in the Haydn thread, the 'about this Beethoven guy', and elsewhere.
It's true that debate at TC can get robust, and I see nothing wrong in that: I agree with starry that to debate about something where there is disagreement can bring a thread to life. Disagreement has its potential downsides, but then so does a succession of posts affirming the joys of [name of a composer] - such affirmation rarely gets taken up by the community as a talking point.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

starry said:


> ....
> 
> So I'm not sure we have that much disagreement, maybe you didn't interpret what I was saying in the way I intended. I simply brought up the passive aggressive (thin skinned) nature of some (trying to deny discussion) alongside the overly aggressive (those trying to annoy people directly). Maybe some, not all, of these people are completely unaware of the effect of their approach of forums as well. Not that pointing it out will make things clearer because their viewpoint is likely limited.


Well I personally interpret thin skinned as overly sensitive, in my mind it doesn't necessarily go with passive aggressive. But I suppose it can. There is a danger I think of legitimising the worst types of behaviour and waving off concerns about it by saying the person objecting to someone dishing it out to them as being too sensitive. Well I think that its okay to put things strongly sometimes, but if there is a pattern of negating what people say or labelling them, well I think its okay to be sensitive to that kind of behaviour.

I find it ironic how I think there is a common perception, or stereotype, of classical music listeners as being people who are sensitive to subtleties and so on to music. On the other hand, you got these ideological debates here which descend easily to a very low kind of primitive level. So there is that gap there between a stereotype of classical listeners as being (or tending to be?) cultivated people, and cherishing that sensitivity and development of high level things, and on the other hand what we get here in these heated debates. & the worst of the behaviours in those often dismays me, to the point of not even going there. So I can fully understand newbies reading that and thinking "do I really want to join and participate in this forum?"



> ...
> As for people trying to convince others about music that's pretty pointless. I do wonder if people are really trying to do that most of the time though. Many, not all, probably just want to represent their opinion on a subject whenever it comes up. It's just that some of these topics come up quite often (that relates to another recent thread here).


Well to my mind, the more controversial the topic, the more prone it is to that type of proseletysation. I mean Wagner is the obvious one, another one is Modernist ideology generally. These things take on a kind of cult life online. I think its wise for me now not to wade into these debates. In any case over the years here I have said all I can about them anyway. No use in repeating myself (tedious). But that whole conversion dynamic tends to happen with polarising composers or more controversial types of music. This is why, in recent times, if I do a thread relating to something like that, I really emphasise in my opening post that all opinions are welcome. There is no right or wrong answer there. So its not about presenting some dichotomy that people will automatically pounce on, its saying just say what you think, that's it. The less agenda the better, imo, in any topic but particularly controversial ones. I am interested in those but more for diversity of opinions you get rather than making my particular opinion predominate.



> ... Coming to an understanding of someone's point probably allows some agreement, while at the same time accepting complete agreement isn't possible but also isn't necessary for a forum.


Well yes, I think at least trying to understand where people are coming from with their opinion on a certain topic - whether I do or don't agree with that opinion - is a good thing to do, or try to do.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

I've been "liking" posts on both sides of this argument. But, that's me....kind of wishy-washy. 

The issue for me is one of respect. I agree with "Sid" that even a wide-eyed newbie should be able to test the waters here without hesitation. And, people making snide remarks about their taste (or lack of such) is not going to be conducive to that.

It seems very childish and insecure to me to feel the need to put other people down all the time. That is not debate - it's just bullying, and I have no sympathy with it.

On the other hand, if everyone just feels the need to say nothing unless they can second what everyone else says - well, that's going to make people lose interest in the forum, isn't it?

It seems to me to be a matter of both _what_ you say - be honest and not agenda-motivated - and _how_ you say it - show some maturity and decency.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

I definitely don't think polarizing is helpful at all. It actually tends to be that both sides of a musical 'divide' (which is probably quite artificially created even) can have good things to it and also bad things. The whole modernist/traditional thing I definitely see like that. It doesn't have to be about teams on either side, and certainly not everyone looks at it like that. Simplifying things just takes away the complexity, and I find the complexity more truthful and interesting.

People are all different so they react to things differently as well. You have to interpet words and the whole tone of somebody which isn't always easy on the internet. I'm all for people being able to have whatever opinion they want, though I'm all for people being able to give a contrary opinion as well. I think they are necessary for each other on a forum. It's interesting to try and get to the root of why someone thinks the way they do, often people don't go into that. But asking about that has to be done carefully in case someone thinks you are making the post about them and not about the music. I certainly think it's better to stick to the music and not to make assumptions about someone personally, but at the same time if you don't ask you end up having to. If someone isn't really willing to discuss something and they are set on a particular angle there isn't much point persevering, the walls have been built up. You probably just have to sense when that happens and realise a discussion isn't viable.

Some may say what has all this to do with music, well I think it has everything to do with it. Because how we listen to and so think about music is a large part of what music is, in my opinion.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

Here's what I still can't figure out, relative to the OP:

Let's say someone comes on the site and posts a thread about how much they love the music of Franz Lizst. I don't share that "love". But, I don't really base my non-love on anything other than the fact that I never happen to have been really moved by anything of Lizst's that I've heard up to this point. Now, I could go into detail about my reasonings as to why Lizst has never moved me to date, but what's the point of it? I don't think I would ever jump onto a thread about Lizst simply to tell someone who loves him that I don't. 

Maybe I just haven't heard the right Lizst piece yet. Maybe I haven't heard him under the right circumstances. It's not like I can say - "In the 23rd measure of the second section, he uses a diminished chord when he should have just used a minor seventh", or something like that. It's just my feelings. I can't see the reason to jump in on a thread just to try to rain on someone's parade.

Now, if the thread were - "Do you like Lizst better than you like Schumann?" - well, I would jump in on that.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

If you have nothing really to say on someone then I say obviously don't say anything, I do that all the time.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

Sid James said:


> Well if the beginner asks for advice, fine. But if the advice is shoved in his or her face, can that ever be good or beneficial? I think its a downer.
> 
> In any case, I have been listening on and off for over 30 years now. & now returning to many "warhorses" I am discovering how amazing they are. Many of them, maybe even the majority, have some innovation. They haven't become popular and stayed in the repertoire for so long for nothing. Successive generations of classical listeners have enjoyed them, so too musicians. Is mainstream almost a dirty word for some people? Is obscure and/or complex necessarily better or is it just something different? That's what I'm asking. Most of that obscure stuff builds upon the mainstream stuff. So?


speaking of bearing witness - _I_ find it beneficial because I'm very curious by nature. I tend to click on a link even when I don't agree with the points made by its poster. There's a niggling thought in my mind that says "something amazing might be just a click away". Whenever I post something I am aware that somebody might feel the need to reply with a different opinion whether I asked for it or not. It's the nature of internet communication - you're never entirely sure who might chime in with their 2p at any given time.

nothing wrong with warhorses, of course, but they are easy to access, once you know where to look. Not necessary so with the obscure or more complex. Generally speaking I tend to like warhorses a lot better than the obscure stuff but hearing obscure/challenging works can be very enriching. Briefly put, I enjoy being aware of different perspectives even though I might settle for very mainstream ones.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

deggial said:


> ...
> 
> nothing wrong with warhorses, of course, but they are easy to access, once you know where to look. ...


Well I've done my share of kind of being negative about warhorses. But then I realised that I needed to lift my game and actually make an effort to understand these things. That meant reading about them, as well as reading people's opinions here and if I got the chance go to a public lecture about stuff of this sort. Its easy to misjudge warhorses, and for some it might be kind of fashionable online. But the bottom line for me is that innovation doesn't have to be wierd noises or music that's hard to endure. I mean I once read on this forum someone saying that Haydn wasn't an innovator. Well, that doesn't match up with the reality, the facts. He was one of the biggest innovators in the history of WEstern classical music. But listening to his music now, I can understand how that fact passes people by today, two hundred years after the fact. So what I'm saying is that there is nothing wrong with having a mainstream taste, even if a person stops at warhorses. So what? Its some of the most innovative, influential and most widely cherished and loved music around. So I don't see the problem with liking these pieces of music.

If people make comments on other's taste, as Vesteralen alluded to, it doesn't sit well with me at all. Taste and preference in music is a personal thing. We all have limitations. I'd rather the person talk about what they think about their own limitations, not that of others. If they do that, they are the best person to judge what are their limitations, and if they want, they can develop some remedy for those limitations or blockages. Its what I have done, to question my own thoughts or opinions that might be dodgy. Overall this strategy has worked. People are innately curious and they have the ability to absorb information from a variety of sources and come up with solutions to their own problems. I don't need some schoolmarm type person telling me how to think and what to listen to and all that. They should do it with themselves, control themselves not others.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Vesteralen said:


> Here's what I still can't figure out, relative to the OP:
> 
> Let's say someone comes on the site and posts a thread about how much they love the music of Franz Lizst. I don't share that "love". But, I don't really base my non-love on anything other than the fact that I never happen to have been really moved by anything of Lizst's that I've heard up to this point. Now, I could go into detail about my reasonings as to why Lizst has never moved me to date, but what's the point of it? I don't think I would ever jump onto a thread about Lizst simply to tell someone who loves him that I don't.
> 
> ...


The kind of thing that I really enjoy is when someone can help me enjoy or appreciate something more than I have so far. So, let's say, Bruckner's Seventh Symphony. That's a work that I haven't appreciated much yet. If someone says something about it that makes it more enjoyable to me, or makes my experience of it better in any way (fuller, richer, more insightful, whatever), then I'd appreciate that.

What's not useful are comments designed to enforce, create, or overturn orthodoxies. Being told what I'm supposed to think about Bruckner's Seventh - i.e. "It's not a real masterpiece; the eighth is much better" or comments along those lines - just tells me how to sound "cool" in discussions among snobs, which is nice but isn't as interesting or useful: I can do ok in those crowds already... but what I'd really like is to appreciate Bruckner's Seventh better!


----------



## Guest (Aug 24, 2013)

science said:


> What's not useful are comments designed to enforce, create, or overturn orthodoxies.


Why not? If orthodoxies are good, they should be enforced; if they are bad, they should be overturned.



science said:


> Being told what I'm supposed to think about Bruckner's Seventh - i.e. "It's not a real masterpiece; the eighth is much better" or comments along those lines - just tells me how to sound "cool" in discussions among snobs,


It's perfectly possible that someone wishes to overturn an orthodoxy just to overturn an orthodoxy - not to 'sound cool'.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

MacLeod said:


> Why not? If orthodoxies are good, they should be enforced; if they are bad, they should be overturned.
> 
> It's perfectly possible that someone wishes to overturn an orthodoxy just to overturn an orthodoxy - not to 'sound cool'.


Well, that's not my thing at any rate. I find that kind of thing distasteful, so that might be an orthodoxy of my own. But then, it might be like the "intolerance of intolerance" principle - seems a paradox, but actually just good sense.

After all, I really can't see what good it does anyone to know what we're supposed to enjoy, or to debate that on either side. Whether people do that kind of thing because they want to for posturing or not, I guess I don't really know, but I can't find any other motivation behind it.

But if someone can actually tell me something about the music itself, or about its history, or whatever, rather than just indicating the attitudes I'm supposed to adopt, well, that's something valuable. I don't care even if they're just doing that to sound cool - it's great for me.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

Sid James said:


> Well I've done my share of kind of being negative about warhorses. But then I realised that I needed to lift my game and actually make an effort to understand these things. That meant reading about them, as well as reading people's opinions here and if I got the chance go to a public lecture about stuff of this sort. Its easy to misjudge warhorses, and for some it might be kind of fashionable online.
> 
> [...]
> 
> So what I'm saying is that there is nothing wrong with having a mainstream taste, even if a person stops at warhorses. So what? Its some of the most innovative, influential and most widely cherished and loved music around. So I don't see the problem with liking these pieces of music.


I don't see the problem with talking about warhorses. People who don't want to talk about them won't participate. The thing is it's a mixture of us here and some people have probably got sick of the warhorses from having listened or studied them to death, whereas others simply love them and always will. I'll give you an example: I have a very extensive fine arts background. I studied art history alone for 12 years. I lost count of how many times I had to go over the Renaissance-Impressionism chunk of art history. I am so sick of talking about it you won't believe. Do I like the art produced during that period? Of course. But I can rarely be bothered to go into any detail about it.



> I don't need some schoolmarm type person telling me how to think and what to listen to and all that.


why not ignore them, then?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

deggial said:


> I don't see the problem with talking about warhorses. People who don't want to talk about them won't participate. The thing is it's a mixture of us here and some people have probably got sick of the warhorses from having listened or studied them to death, whereas others simply love them and always will...


Well there's room, of course, for warhorses and other things, more obscure or lesser known things for example. I was just embellishing my earlier point that there is nothing wrong with a person who focuses on mainstream, popular or "warhorse" type repertoire. Just as there is no problem with those who like more obscure or esoteric things. So what I'm saying relates to the opening post by stlukes, this thing about one group pitted against the other in online discussions (he gives the example of Modernists versus conservatives). That's what gets me here, when people put others in boxes and build these dichotomies.

But ultimately, what you say here is true:



> ...why not ignore them, then?


That's all I can do, particularly to those members who I have tended not to get along with in the past, or if I think the tone of a particular post can make me react in a way that's not particularly productive (read: toxic!). You know, that's the issue, making a decision whether one wishes to proceed with a particular conversation or not. So yeah, ulimtately the ball is in our own court, so to speak.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

People can have whatever music preference they want, though if they make judgements on music that is outside their preference and which they don't even listen to then they shouldn't be surprised if that annoys people. If somebody doesn't like music for no reason other than that style isn't their preference then I'm not sure how that really contributes to discussion. As I said if I have nothing to say on something (because it isn't a style I listen to so much) then I don't comment. Because I don't really see how I can contribute and have anything to really say if I don't listen to the thing I'm talking about. Listening has to come first and talking second.

I'm not so into orthodoxies as people just having their own individual thoughts, if that just happens to agree with some other people that's fine, as long as they are thinking and listening for themselves rather than just joining some team. If anyone is trying to look cool it tends to be those that just jump on board with a group rather than daring to listen and think for themselves. And I don't think most overturn an orthodoxy just for the sake of it, that would just be for trolls. Most question things to open up discussion rather than just limit discussion. 

Most discussion on boards doesn't just relate in a limited way to the OP, if that was the case there would be very short threads and little discussion. There has to be room for people to have different perspectives on a point so that not everyone has to think in exactly the same way was as the first post.

Also Sid suggested most people are aware of their limitations, I'm not so sure this is true. Many confuse limitations or lack of experience of something with their value judgement. This could be the case with all kinds of people, but I suspect it's even more likely with those who have less experience of listening.


----------

