# Saul's Works Part II



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Ok this is a piece that has three colors and voices.

Basically Piano, Strings and Organ, and its composed in C sharp minor.

Hope everyone enjoys this music.

Best Wishes,

Saul

*A New Sound*


----------



## Rasa

Didn't enjoy.


----------



## MJTTOMB

Revolutionary.

I like the part where you had no melody whatsoever and no sense of structure (from 0:00 to 5:07), but my favorite part was when it ended.


----------



## Aramis




----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Thanks for pointing out your ’objective’ and highly 'unbiased' take on my music.

This report really ‘helped’ me alote as a musician and as an artist.

Many Thanks.

Looking forward for more objective and intellectual analysis of my works, by these three music ‘scholars’.


----------



## Rasa

Sarcasm ill befits you



Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> But please, respect the fact that I don't want to hear any criticism on my music, I'm just not interested.
> 
> You can say:"Hey Saul, I don't like your music, it bores me..." that is an honest opinion, its not even criticism, and I accept and respect your opinion.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Rasa said:


> Sarcasm ill befits you


Actually, I really meant it.

You guys have transformed me from a mediocre composer to a world renowned musician in a matter of earth shattering objective criticisms that enlighten me in ways I have never thought would be possible.

Thanks 'Scholars', for you fair-play, candid advice and well meant comments that really had nothing to do with trashing my work, but with assisting me.

I have now seen the light!

What would I have done without you guys, I don't know.

Thanks !


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Anyways ,

Back to the music...

Baroque prelude In B minor - Allegro Con Fuoco for Solo Piano, score included.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Well i guess its effective


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Orchestral Fantasy In D minor


----------



## ricardo_jvc6

It sounds like a requiem, beautiful. I aprove this music.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

ricardo_jvc6 said:


> It sounds like a requiem, beautiful. I aprove this music.


Thank you Ricardo!

:tiphat:


----------



## emiellucifuge

Saul, perusing your youtube channelm came across the first of your "atonal gibberish" pieces. I dont think this one is quite atonal. The final chord F feels like a subdominant (II) and i feel that the tonic would be an E. This is further reinforced by the repeated accents on the leading tone d#


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

emiellucifuge said:


> Saul, perusing your youtube channelm came across the first of your "atonal gibberish" pieces. I dont think this one is quite atonal. The final chord F feels like a subdominant (II) and i feel that the tonic would be an E. This is further reinforced by the repeated accents on the leading tone d#


You need to know the background of this piece.

I was having an amusing argument with someone about how atonal music is basically gibberish and pointless, and to demonstrate to him, I composed a short piano piece for that.

Yes, it might not be perfectly atonal but it did its job...:lol:

Cheers,

Saul


----------



## emiellucifuge

Well yes i suppose it did. But atonal music can be startlingly beautiful.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

emiellucifuge said:


> Well yes i suppose it did. But atonal music can be startlingly beautiful.


Did you like the piece btw?


----------



## ricardo_jvc6

I find most of your pieces interesting and it showed some harmony.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Thanks again Ricardo.


----------



## ricardo_jvc6

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> Thanks again Ricardo.


Hey Saul can you make a symphony, like it takes place in a sea. Like chopin Études but more soft and in the end it goes more indepent and more cool.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

ricardo_jvc6 said:


> Hey Saul can you make a symphony, like it takes place in a sea. Like chopin Études but more soft and in the end it goes more indepent and more cool.


Dear Ricardo,

About 5 years ago I have composed a work called *'At the Ocean for String Orchestra' *In C sharp minor.

Hope you'll enjoy this piece.

Regards,

Saul


----------



## ricardo_jvc6

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> Dear Ricardo,
> 
> About 5 years ago I have composed a work called *'At the Ocean for String Orchestra' *In C sharp minor.
> 
> Hope you'll enjoy this piece.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Saul


Thats just awesome. I loved it.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

ricardo_jvc6 said:


> Thats just awesome. I loved it.


Glad you liked it Ricardo!.

I also made an arrangement of of this music for Two Pianos.

Score included,

Regards,

Saul


----------



## emiellucifuge

Hmmmm, Saul. I have some advice/comments I would like to give your for this piece. Would that be alright?
I dont want to turn this into the last thread.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

emiellucifuge said:


> Hmmmm, Saul. I have some advice/comments I would like to give your for this piece. Would that be alright?
> I dont want to turn this into the last thread.


Its ok...please lets hear your thoughts.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Ok. 

It seems obvious to me you intend each bar to represent one harmont. With each bar basically consisting of arpeggios of a single chord. This is a decent idea, but i have some qualms with your choice of harmony.

Bar1: c# start in the topic, fine of course

2: f# subdominant, or d#7 - fine
3. B7 - this chord comes slightly unannounced. Why did you choose a VII7 chord? A IV usually resolves to V

4. Yes the previous chord kind of resolves into this bar as a cadence onto E(7 - why?, why c#?), but:
5. Here youre back in c# with a 9th included (?)


Generally it goes on like this. Every chord is extended with 7ths and the 2nd piano LH always lands after soaring and extends the chord further - changing what we perceived to be the root and changing the function. None of these resolve at all. Of course im not saying you cant do this, but there should be a thought process behind it and a reason. Finally, the 1st piano Left hand sometimes moves onto a dissonant note and then resolves upwards - slightly odd. 
My question then is - what is the connection between these harmonies and your concept for the piece (the ocean)?


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

emiellucifuge said:


> but there should be a thought process behind it and a reason.


Thanks for your comments.

I cant let logic or mathematical and theoretical calculations dictate how my music will sound. Yes, its nice to have everything intact mathematically, but I wouldn't want this to be at the expanse of the music and final result.

Basically, what I was concerned about was translating my feelings and inspiration into music, and how the music will be attuned to my musical ideas.

As you could imagine, I began composing this music at the piano, and I felt that each following measure was a natural progression of its previous measure, I wouldn't have done it otherwise. The harmony of the left hand, is not entirely uncommon, yes its not what some people will choose to do, but I thought that the left hand harmony complements the right hand really well, and of course the sound is the best judge of them all, the end result, if its pleasurable to the ear and naturally the mind, I believe therefore its good.

Could I have written this music with more logic and more dedication to the rules of theory and harmony? most definitely yes.

Would it have been more beautiful and imaginative and would the music better reflect my musical ideas and inspiration?

I don't believe so.

Regards,

Saul


----------



## emiellucifuge

Hi Saul, this is then where we personally disagree and I hope you do not take this personally. 
The rules of harmony describe the properties of the relationships between different pitches. They have not been imposed but are formed, much like our scientific observations on the natural world.
Taking advantage of these inherent traits then can only serve to enhance music.

Of course the following is entirely subjective, but i found this particular piece had no sense of direction or push - I feel this may have something to do with the above post.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

emiellucifuge said:


> Hi Saul, this is then where we personally disagree and I hope you do not take this personally.
> The rules of harmony describe the properties of the relationships between different pitches. They have not been imposed but are formed, much like our scientific observations on the natural world.
> Taking advantage of these inherent traits then can only serve to enhance music.
> 
> Of course the following is entirely subjective, but i found this particular piece had no sense of direction or push - I feel this may have something to do with the above post.


Well, I think you confused Theory with Proven Fact.

Theory of Music, is just that theory, so too the theory of Evolution.

Evolution is not a proven fact, its only a theory, therefore one can't derive from it logical and irrefutable facts, especially when they are used to enhance our way of life.

Now mathematics are logically locked, for example 2+2=4 , there is no two ways to look at it.

But a musical theory can have many variations because at its essence its not absolute.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Sure is true - fortunately the theory of music as we know it has allowed us to explain nearly every aspect of the great master's music, and has also allowed us to create new masterpieces.


----------



## Jean Christophe Paré

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> Well, I think you confused Theory with Proven Fact.
> 
> Theory of Music, is just that theory, so too the theory of Evolution.
> 
> Evolution is not a proven fact, its only a theory, therefore one can't derive from it logical and irrefutable facts, especially when they are used to enhance our way of life.
> 
> Now mathematics are logically locked, for example 2+2=4 , there is no tow ways to look at it.
> 
> But a musical theory can have many variations because at its essence its not absolute.


We can derive from theories logical facts. We can't derive irrefutable facts from it, else it wouldn't be scientifical; scientific facts are refutable and that - in part - defines them. As long as the fact is true if the theory is right, then the fact is logical.

Does that make it true? Maybe, maybe not. That depends whether the theory is true or not, but you may not know that any more than you may truly know anything else except your own existence. That's solipsism.

On the other hand, 2+2=4 is not logically locked. 2+2=4 is only true in mathematical forms which define that 1+1=2. Change the form and it doesn't work anymore. That is why in cartesian mathematics two parallel lines never cross eachother, but in optical mathematics, two lines touch at infinity. Same goes for the square root of a negative number existing when you account for complex numbers.

No truth is set in stone. Something is only true as long as it isn't proven false and - magically - something most always has the potential of being proven false.

However, regarding the theory of harmony, it is observation that builds it. You may derive from it, but that means you will go against harmony. I am not saying that it may not sound well, but you will have to compensate with something else.

Breaking the rules only works when well done.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

emiellucifuge said:


> Sure is true - fortunately the theory of music as we know it has allowed us to explain nearly every aspect of the great master's music, and has also allowed us to create new masterpieces.


The Theory is not what allows you to do anything.

You can hear many works today that follow the strict rules of harmony and theory which are completely awful works.

Beautiful Music can and does exists besides the frame of musical theory.


----------



## Jean Christophe Paré

Well, obviously. Pure harmony is mostly boring and has been done too many times before.

However, I do not believe you may ever do the same thing without theory of harmony as you can with. No matter how fun atonal music or dissonant music may be, it still is leagues away from harmonic music. Not necessarily leagues behind or ahead, but still leagues from it.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Well no I disagree with you here Jean,

Dissonance and atonality are extensions of harmonic theory and can also have great effect. However, they must be used in capable hands, where every note is chosen carefully and still fulfils a function within the piece.


----------



## Rasa

> atonality are extensions of harmonic theory


Explain how atonality is an extension of harmonic theory please


----------



## Jean Christophe Paré

emiellucifuge said:


> Well no I disagree with you here Jean,
> 
> Dissonance and atonality are extensions of harmonic theory and can also have great effect. However, they must be used in capable hands, where every note is chosen carefully and still fulfils a function within the piece.


Every not is chosen carefully, every note functions within the piece. Yet they are carefully chosen NOT to fit within standard harmony.

That's what I meant by saying they are leagues away; they are using harmony theory to create their own different harmonies, which is why it sounds so different. It doesn't make it sound "worse" and it doesn't make it less carefully chosen. In fact, it may be even more carefully chosen. I believe it is harder to break the laws correctly than follow them correctly. Nonetheless, atonal music doesn't sound - and purposely so - like most "harmonic" music.


----------



## Jean Christophe Paré

Rasa: I don't believe it can actually be an extension of it, since by definition atonal music is made so no pitch, interval or progression rank above another. The same doesn't hold true for dissonant music, though, that can still be tonal, yet use dissonant intervals and chords. This would rather be an extension of harmonic theory.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Sure, maybe it isnt extension, but in your previous post you show that atonality is directly a reaction to tonality and therefore is based upon the exact same principles albeit in a reversed order. Eg. Tonal allows you to establish tonal centers throug cadences etc..., you use this same knowledge shen writing atonally in order to refrain from cadencing.

This is something different entirely from ignoring any theory and playing any sounds that are nice. And even if you do try and play nice sounds you will undoubtedly revert to using consonances as defined in music theory.


----------



## Jean Christophe Paré

So remind me what point you didn't agree on, because I am lost. It seems we both agree, doesn't it?


----------



## emiellucifuge

I think it was your saying that harmonic music is by definition better than non harmonic.


----------



## Jean Christophe Paré

emiellucifuge said:


> I think it was your saying that harmonic music is by definition better than non harmonic.


No. I just said non-harmonic music is totally different.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Sorry misinterpreted


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

*Organ Fantasy In F *

I'm performing my latest composition on my Yamaha Digital Piano.

I was working on the structure and the various melodies in this piece for a number of months.

Hope you'll find it enjoyable.

Regards,

Saul


----------



## Jean Christophe Paré

Do you compose that fast or?


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

No, I took my time with this piece. Additionally there's the time of practicing the piece for recording.


----------



## Jean Christophe Paré

You just seem to spout out pieces at incredible speeds. How many compositions do you make in say a month?


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

It seems so because lately I don't actually write down the scores of the pieces. What I do is build the entire piece part by part, and then when I feel that the piece has wholeness and is mature and makes sense, I record myself performing it.

Anyways, since the writing down the score process is so time consuming, I settle presenting my music like this. Eventually I'm sure there would be a device or some kind of software that can load the music file and generate a score. I refine the pieces for recording very well, so I guess when there would be a time when I'll use this software, the resulting score would need very little editing, very minor.

For example this Organ Sonata, if I'll get the chance to write the score, I would change very little from the recorded version.

By the way, if you know of any software that is able to do what I stated, please let me know.

For the record, I should say, that the majority of my works are written down into scores.

Regards,

Saul


----------



## Jean Christophe Paré

Most good notation softwares enable you to play midi and have it transcribed. Normally, I'd use Cubase though, since you can play around with the midi notes themselves instead of working with sheets. Else, Notion works good.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Jean Christophe Paré said:


> Most good notation softwares enable you to play midi and have it transcribed. Normally, I'd use Cubase though, since you can play around with the midi notes themselves instead of working with sheets. Else, Notion works good.


Yes, I know , finale's transcription from midi to score are extremely poor.
I hope that someone will invent something professional.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

I'm performing here one of my compositions for Solo Piano.

Work In C sharp minor.

Regards,

Saul


----------



## Sanctus Petrus

In a former thread you stated that you did not post your works for being criticised. Therefore, I shall not give my opinion on this one.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Sanctus Petrus said:


> In a former thread you stated that you did not post your works for being criticised. Therefore, I shall not give my opinion on this one.


Thank you.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

At an earlier conversation about one of my Mazurkas for piano, Mr. Triplet had said that my Mazurka couldn't be a real Mazurka because the meter was not 3/4.

I came across an interesting article about Chopin's Polonaise in A-flat major, Op. 53 on Wikipedia, and it sheds new light about the entire subject, and I believe disproves Mr. Triplet's assertion.

From Wikipedia,

The Polonaise in A-flat major, Op. 53 or (French: Polonaise héroïque, Heroic Polonaise) was written by Frédéric Chopin in 1842 for solo piano. This masterpiece is one of Chopin's most popular compositions and is still a current favorite of the classical pianoforte repertoire. The piece requires exceptional pianistic skills and requires virtuosity in order to be played at an appropriate level of quality.

*Although the piece is labeled as a polonaise, it has little to do with the typical polonaise style. It presents two sections with a polonaise rhythm, but most of it has no particular polonaise attribute. It has been said that Chopin had composed the piece having a free and powerful Poland in mind, which may have led him to label it as a Polonaise.*

Another possibility is that the Heroic Polonaise is closely related to the Polonaise in A major, Op.40, No. 1, known as the Military Polonaise. The introduction section of the Heroic is obviously inspired by the Military, which, unlike the Heroic, was a true polonaise.
The tempo of the piece is Alla polacca e maestoso ("like a polonaise and majestic"). The form is ternary (A-B-A), with a 30-second introduction.

The piece has a grand introduction with fast ascending chromatic notes in both hands, setting the mood of the piece. It shows the heroic side of Chopin's art.The first theme is a dance-like theme and is in the tonic key of A-flat major. It is the familiar part of the piece, and has the left hand moving in pounding octaves. The theme is repeated up an octave with short trills that fill some of the auditory gaps in the theme. There is a brief interlude with a series of chord progressions that lead into a recount of the traditional polonaise melody, with the polonaise rhythm employed in the left-hand accompaniment. The theme of Section A then repeats once before closing. Section B opens with six loud arpeggiando chords before switching to a very soft bass ostinato of descending octaves first in the key of E major and then in D sharp major. A march-like melody follows the descending octaves and this occurs twice. Section B ends, with a long lyrical interlude firstly with harmonic chord progressions and frequent modulations. A flowing sixteenth note melody in the right hand and light accompaniment in quavers (eighth notes). This ends in a descending passage before Section A is replayed. The theme is played louder and more dramatically and ends in a coda which includes material derived from the main theme.


----------



## Aksel

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> At an earlier conversation about one of my Mazurkas for piano, Mr. Triplet had said that my Mazurka couldn't be a real Mazurka because the meter was not 3/4.


Of course your Mazurka could not be a real mazurka if it was not in 3/4. A mazurka is, according to Encyclopedia Britannica,


> ...in 3/4 time with a forceful accent on the second beat


And what on earth was that about Chopin? It might not have been a true Polonaise, but it at least had the right rhythm and metre. And besides, Polonaise means Polish in French. See what he did there?

But, returning to the miraculous 4/4 mazurka. If it's in 4/4, it's not a mazurka. Dances are defined by their rhythms and metres; you would not write a waltz in 4/4. Nor a gavotte in 5/8.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Aksel said:


> Of course your Mazurka could not be a real mazurka if it was not in 3/4. A mazurka is, according to Encyclopedia Britannica,
> 
> And what on earth was that about Chopin? It might not have been a true Polonaise, but it at least had the right rhythm and metre. And besides, Polonaise means Polish in French. See what he did there?
> 
> But, returning to the miraculous 4/4 mazurka. If it's in 4/4, it's not a mazurka. Dances are defined by their rhythms and metres; you would not write a waltz in 4/4. Nor a gavotte in 5/8.


It seems pretty clear and obvious from this article about the Polonaise that the name of a work doesn't have to come from its technical character, but rather from its romantic feeling.

For it goes along to say that in essence this work by Chopin had very few technical characteristics of a Polonaise, and yet, Chopin chose to name it so because of its Romantic thought and association.

From my point of view, this article dismisses all misconceptions about the subject.


----------



## Jean Christophe Paré

The Polonaise, however, has a 3/4 rhythm throughout like a Polonaise ought to. Furthermore, the Polonaise rhythm is used as a theme in the piece, which - in part - accounts for the name. It would not be the first time either that a piece is named for a single part of it. We also have to remember that there is no set rhythm for a Polonaise but rather an usual rhythm. It also doesn't account for any accented beat which can be placed wherever the composer wishes as long as it is in 3/4. The Mazurka is defined as well as being in 3/4 and having the second or third beat stressed as opposed to the first one.

Also, "polonaise" is a French word that indicates something of polish origin. Since Chopin spoke French, he very possibly named it after that and not after the musical style.

These are sufficient reasons to account for it being named Polonaise, whereas your Mazurka doesn't have those.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Jean Christophe Paré said:


> The Polonaise, however, has a 3/4 rhythm throughout like a Polonaise ought to. Furthermore, the Polonaise rhythm is used as a theme in the piece, which - in part - accounts for the name. It would not be the first time either that a piece is named for a single part of it. We also have to remember that there is no set rhythm for a Polonaise but rather an usual rhythm. It also doesn't account for any accented beat which can be placed wherever the composer wishes as long as it is in 3/4. The Mazurka is defined as well as being in 3/4 and having the second or third beat stressed as opposed to the first one.
> 
> Also, "polonaise" is a French word that indicates something of polish origin. Since Chopin spoke French, he very possibly named it after that and not after the musical style.
> 
> These are sufficient reasons to account for it being named Polonaise, whereas your Mazurka doesn't have those.


A Mazurka doesn't always sound like a dance, and some of Chopin's Mazurkas testify to that.
Many of which a composer can write a work in 3/4 that doesn't sound like a dance at all. Not all works that have 3/4 are dances. Then and there the power of a name comes along and gives the piece a character and a genre even though it might not sound like a dance Mazurka.


----------



## Jean Christophe Paré

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> A Mazurka doesn't always sound like a dance, and some of Chopin's Mazurkas testify to that.
> Many of which a composer can write a work in 3/4 that doesn't sound like a dance at all. Not all works that have 3/4 are dances. Then and there the power of a name comes along and gives the piece a character and a genre even though it might not sound like a dance Mazurka.


I didn't even use the word "dance" once. It isn't quite a dance any more. It just derives from a form of dance, which explains the name, that is all. Nonetheless, some pieces are defined by structural qualities, especially those musical forms that derive from dances, since they try to expand on a genre that was already strictly defined. The mazurka, the minuet, the waltz all come to mind. The reason the Mazurka is in 3/4 is because the dance is always in 3/4, whereas the Minuet is only usually in 3/4 because it appeared in such form prior to it being used for classical music. These examples are folkloric music that are used for classical music - such as the trend was in the Romantic era. However, that also means that it is defined by the earlier style and isn't as flexible as other purely classical genres.


----------



## Sanctus Petrus

Saul,

Who were your respective teachers of harmony, counterpoint, fugue, orchestration, composition, analysis, etc.?


----------



## Aksel

Saul:
Yes, a piece in 3/4 can sometimes not sound like a dance. But that doesn't change the fact that when you call something mazurka, it has certain requirements it has to fill. Like it going in 3/4 and the second or third beat being accentuated. Just like a waltz or a polonaise need to be in 3/4, and that a polonaise needs to have a certain rhythm scheme. I quote from the Wikipedia article above:


> ... Although the piece is labeled as a polonaise, it has little to do with the typical polonaise style. It presents two sections with a polonaise rhythm...


The WHOLE Chopin polonaise was in 3/4, not 5/4 here and 2/4 there.
And I do think you are right when you say it does not necessarily need to _sound_ like a dance, but it does need to have all the other characteristics of that particular dance.
Otherwise, the title of "Mazurka", is just meaningless.

And can you please list some other mazurkas that aren't in 3/4?


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Aksel said:


> Saul:
> Yes, a piece in 3/4 can sometimes not sound like a dance. But that doesn't change the fact that when you call something mazurka, it has certain requirements it has to fill. Like it going in 3/4 and the second or third beat being accentuated. Just like a waltz or a polonaise need to be in 3/4, and that a polonaise needs to have a certain rhythm scheme. I quote from the Wikipedia article above:
> 
> The WHOLE Chopin polonaise was in 3/4, not 5/4 here and 2/4 there.
> And I do think you are right when you say it does not necessarily need to _sound_ like a dance, but it does need to have all the other characteristics of that particular dance.
> Otherwise, the title of "Mazurka", is just meaningless.
> 
> And can you please list some other mazurkas that aren't in 3/4?


If indeed 3/4 makes music into a dance, then what about all the other works that were written like that but are not dances at all?

We clearly see from this, that a dance or a Mazurka have nothing to do with 3/4... technically.
Yes, it might be easier or fitting to compose them in 3/4 but that's not exclusive, otherwise all 3/4 music must be a dance or a Mazurka.


----------



## Jean Christophe Paré

A mazurka has to be in 3/4. It's what defines it. That's like calling your film a romantic comedy when there's no actual relationship involving two partners in the film.

No, all 3/4 music isn't a dance or a Mazurka, because being in 3/4 isn't the only thing that defines it. It also needs set characteristics. For the Mazurka, there is a typical rhythm - though not obligatory - which is at the base of the genre, and there is the fact that the accent is not on the first beat of the bar.

Please, a Mazurka isn't a genre of music that you can easily throw around. Certainly, some are quite foggy by definition or can be interpreted in more than one way such as the double meaning of polonaise.

Yes, you can play around with the form like Chopin did, but you have to stay at least a bit within the boundaries. Your piece doesn't have a single characteristic of the Mazurka. If it had at least one or two, it would be matter to debate, but this isn't.


----------



## Aksel

No, that is totally not what I said!
3/4 does not a dance make. There are other dances with other metres. Gavottes and Bourrées are in either 4/4 or 2/4.
And dances have nothing to do with 3/4, but mazurkas do.

And I'm asking you again: Can you list any other mazurkas that aren't in 3/4?


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Jean Christophe Paré said:


> Your piece doesn't have a single characteristic of the Mazurka


That's debatable, firstly because when I first posted it on a different classical music forum , many listeners there loved it and no one said a thing like :" Hey Saul this didn't sound like a Mazurka to me"...

This is a fact.

Secondly, you are forgetting the importance of 'what the composer has to say about the whole thing'. I as the author of this work, I can call it what I wish if to my ears and mind it sounds and feels like a Mazurka. I'm looking at it from a subjective point of view, and you are looking at it objectively, but you should know that the essence of composition is all subjective. All we have is what the composer given us, and that's it.

I can also tell you even further, that even if a work was written according to all the official parameters of a Mazurka, its entirely possible that it would be void of any breath of Poland , its dances, history and people.

Music needs essence, not just theoretical requirements.


----------



## MJTTOMB

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> Music needs essence, not just theoretical requirements.


Yes, but it needs theoretical requirements as well. Theoretical requirements are the difference between John Cage and the 5-year old next door banging random notes on a keyboard.


----------



## Aramis

Some names can be given randomly, some should be given in some purpose. 

To avoid gradual deformation of some forms and not let them be totally cut from their source I would say that it's necessary that composer willing to write mazurka, dumka, trepak should have better reason and depper influence than Chopin's mazurkas, Dvorak's dumkas or Tchaikovsky's trepaks, that is: draw his inspiration directly from the folklore.

I don't feel like forbidding someone to entitle his pieces with these names but why should he want to do it at all if he never heard real dancing polonaise or never heard real Ukrainian dumka and isn't really interested in developing national style?


----------



## Jean Christophe Paré

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> That's debatable, firstly because when I first posted it on a different classical music forum , many listeners there loved it and no one said a thing like :" Hey Saul this didn't sound like a Mazurka to me"...


That's actually a sophism and if you know what that is, you also know that the argument is not acceptable.

Furthermore, I established previously the characteristics of a Mazurka and you can't disagree with the fact that your work doesn't have them. Though, honestly, it does have one characteristic, that is a lively tempo. That's not enough to make it a Mazurka.

Why can't you cope with the fact that it isn't a Mazurka?

Furthermore, we didn't contest your right to call it a mazurka. We contested the fact that it is a mazurka. There is a big difference between those. Calling my cat "Bulldog" doesn't make it a bulldog. It's still a cat. Called "Bulldog".

Essence in music is very important. However, it does not mean that logic should be discarded. Giving "subjectivity" as an excuse to lack of rigour is ridiculous. You said it yourself: Music needs essence, not *just* theoretical requirements. You said it yourself: It needs theoretical requirements, though it also needs essence.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

MJTTOMB said:


> Yes, but it needs theoretical requirements as well. Theoretical requirements are the difference between John Cage and the 5-year old next door banging random notes on a keyboard.


Well there is no much difference between Cage and a random playing of a kid.
The only obvious difference is hype. One wouldn't have paid attention to it or taken it seriously if the originator of this rather silly idea was not Cage.

As to Aramis' assertion that a composer can't rely on other composer's work and therefore should pack his bags and go in Poland and listen to the folklore directly, I would say that this would surely break up a great chunk of Bach's work, and Chopin's work and many other composes' works, for all Bach had in front of him is the music of Vivaldi, and All Chopin had in front of him is the music of John Field for his Nocturnes. None of this composers packed bags to listen directly, one that does stand out is Mendelssohn who was a traveler, and he based his Scottish and Italian music by visiting these countries himself. But the vast majority of composers found inspiration by listening to the greats of the past, or their contemporaries.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Jean Christophe Paré said:


> That's actually a sophism and if you know what that is, you also know that the argument is not acceptable.
> 
> Furthermore, I established previously the characteristics of a Mazurka and you can't disagree with the fact that your work doesn't have them. Though, honestly, it does have one characteristic, that is a lively tempo. That's not enough to make it a Mazurka.
> 
> Why can't you cope with the fact that it isn't a Mazurka?
> 
> Furthermore, we didn't contest your right to call it a mazurka. We contested the fact that it is a mazurka. There is a big difference between those. Calling my cat "Bulldog" doesn't make it a bulldog. It's still a cat. Called "Bulldog".
> 
> Essence in music is very important. However, it does not mean that logic should be discarded. Giving "subjectivity" as an excuse to lack of rigour is ridiculous. You said it yourself: Music needs essence, not *just* theoretical requirements. You said it yourself: It needs theoretical requirements, though it also needs essence.


I was insinuating, that the essence is the primal and is not the secondary, and therefore it has the sufficient 'strength' or 'weight' if you will, to define something.


----------



## Aramis

> for all Bach had in front of him is the music of Vivaldi, and All Chopin had in front of him is the music of John Field for his Nocturnes. None of this composers packed bags to listen directly, one that does stand out is Mendelssohn who was a traveler, and he based his Scottish and Italian music by visiting these countries himself. But the vast majority of composers found inspiration by listening to the greats of the past, or their contemporaries.


I was referring only to those works that claim to be related to certain folklore tradition with their titles, so Vivaldi/Bach doesn't really count as I don't know of any work by Bach that would draw inspiration from Vivaldi's pieces based on Italian folklore.

All I'm saying is: before you write polonaise/mazurka/trepak or anything like that, think twice if it makes any sense. One can write music influenced by Chopin's mazurkas without naming it mazurkas too.


----------



## Jean Christophe Paré

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> I was insinuating, that the essence is the primal and is not the secondary, and therefore it has the sufficient 'strength' or 'weight' if you will, to define something.


It never has been sufficient except in cases where the genre is defined by the essence. I'm thinking, by example, of the nocturne.

Even romantics, grand defenders of the essence, didn't do such thing as disrespect traditions. Do you know why? Because traditions are of stronger essence than a composer's will.

I would go on and rant about the logical deficiencies of such thinking, but I doubt you care about such a trivial thing as logic.

You are giving us the excuse of artistic essence, yet that holds no ground to the essence of tradition. A Mazurka is in 3/4 and with an accent on the second or third beat.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Aramis said:


> I was referring only to those works that claim to be related to certain folklore tradition with their titles, so Vivaldi/Bach doesn't really count as I don't know of any work by Bach that would draw inspiration from Vivaldi's pieces based on Italian folklore.
> 
> All I'm saying is: before you write polonaise/mazurka/trepak or anything like that, think twice if it makes any sense. One can write music influenced by Chopin's mazurkas without naming it mazurkas too.


*Bach's study of Italian *concerto style first manifests itself in organ transcriptions he made while working at the Weimar court between 1707 and 1718. These include three organ versions of concertos by Vivaldi, including the concerto in d-minor for two violins and cello obbligato, Opus 3, No. 2, published in Amsterdam in 1711. The first movement is noteworthy because it contains some of the rare indications of registration in Bach's hand. The composer specifies that the opening should be played by the two hands on separate manuals using the 4' Octava of each, while the Pedal plays an 8' Principal. Later, an 8' Principal is added to one of the manuals as a 32' Subbass is added to the pedal. These instructions provide clear evidence for the addition of stops during the course of this movement, requiring the assistance of a registrant. (Such registration changes will not, however, be heard in most of the other works recorded here because this can distort the voice leading of contrapuntal writing). The Grave provides a chordal introduction to the following fugue. I have attempted to ornament between these chordal passages in the top voice, as a first violinist might provide connecting material to serve as an upbeat for the next entry by the enire orchestra. A fugal movement is unusual in a concerto, and in his transcription of Vivaldi's Fuga, Bach makes no distinction between the tutti and solo groups that are present in Vivaldi's original. Perhaps he felt that the textural changes between statements of the subject and the episodic material provided sufficient contrast. The long sequence of the fugue subject is particularly Italian, and Vivaldi's treatment of this theme in the four-part invertible counterpoint gave the transcriber flexibility in distributing the parts so that they would conform to the manual and pedal compass of the organ. The third movement is an accompanied solo, introduced by the orchestra with dotted rhythms evoking the siciliana. The indication "largo e spiccato" suggests the detached bowstrokes of the strings accompanying the solo violin, imitated on the organ with the Violon stop. The final movement is an exciting display of Italian virtuosity, with quick repeated notes, fast scale passages and rapid manual changes.

http://www.gothic-catalog.com/Bach_the_Italian_Influence_Marshall_p/lrcd-1023.htm


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Jean Christophe Paré said:


> It never has been sufficient except in cases where the genre is defined by the essence. I'm thinking, by example, of the nocturne.
> 
> Even romantics, grand defenders of the essence, didn't do such thing as disrespect traditions. Do you know why? Because traditions are of stronger essence than a composer's will.
> 
> I would go on and rant about the logical deficiencies of such thinking, but I doubt you care about such a trivial thing as logic.
> 
> You are giving us the excuse of artistic essence, yet that holds no ground to the essence of tradition. A Mazurka is in 3/4 and with an accent on the second or third beat.


Mazurka is also defined by the essence, that's the point. The 3/4 thing doesnt make a piece of music into a Mazurka.


----------



## Jean Christophe Paré

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> *Bach's study of Italian *concerto style first manifests itself in organ transcriptions he made while working at the Weimar court between 1707 and 1718. These include three organ versions of concertos by Vivaldi, including the concerto in d-minor for two violins and cello obbligato, Opus 3, No. 2, published in Amsterdam in 1711. The first movement is noteworthy because it contains some of the rare indications of registration in Bach's hand. The composer specifies that the opening should be played by the two hands on separate manuals using the 4' Octava of each, while the Pedal plays an 8' Principal. Later, an 8' Principal is added to one of the manuals as a 32' Subbass is added to the pedal. These instructions provide clear evidence for the addition of stops during the course of this movement, requiring the assistance of a registrant. (Such registration changes will not, however, be heard in most of the other works recorded here because this can distort the voice leading of contrapuntal writing). The Grave provides a chordal introduction to the following fugue. I have attempted to ornament between these chordal passages in the top voice, as a first violinist might provide connecting material to serve as an upbeat for the next entry by the enire orchestra. A fugal movement is unusual in a concerto, and in his transcription of Vivaldi's Fuga, Bach makes no distinction between the tutti and solo groups that are present in Vivaldi's original. Perhaps he felt that the textural changes between statements of the subject and the episodic material provided sufficient contrast. The long sequence of the fugue subject is particularly Italian, and Vivaldi's treatment of this theme in the four-part invertible counterpoint gave the transcriber flexibility in distributing the parts so that they would conform to the manual and pedal compass of the organ. The third movement is an accompanied solo, introduced by the orchestra with dotted rhythms evoking the siciliana. The indication "largo e spiccato" suggests the detached bowstrokes of the strings accompanying the solo violin, imitated on the organ with the Violon stop. The final movement is an exciting display of Italian virtuosity, with quick repeated notes, fast scale passages and rapid manual changes.
> 
> http://www.gothic-catalog.com/Bach_the_Italian_Influence_Marshall_p/lrcd-1023.htm


Yet, Bach didn't falsely pretend to writing a certain musical form that wasn't. Rather, he simply wrote a concerto which was influenced by Italian composers that were contemporary to him. He didn't therefore go against any style or definition of style, so I do not quite see the point you are trying to make.


----------



## Jean Christophe Paré

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> Mazurka is also defined by the essence, that's the point. The 3/4 thing doesnt make a piece of music into a Mazurka.


And where do you see that it is defined by the essence? Just point out a single piece labelled Mazurka that doesn't fit those characteristics.

You arbitrarily decided that Mazurka is defined by the essence. That is wrong. You have obviously no knowledge of the matter and just want to cover up the fact that you mislabelled your work.

If you do have knowledge of the matter, such behaviour would make you simply stupid, which I would prefer not think you are.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Jean, the point has nothing to do about style or something of that sort, but the assertion that a composer cant really be influenced by other composer's music or style and therefore should pack his bags and hear the music directly at its source, meaning 'Folklore' music.

And I pointed out that that's not the way things worked.


----------



## Aksel

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> Mazurka is also defined by the essence, that's the point. *The 3/4 thing doesnt make a piece of music into a Mazurka.*


We don't say it does, either. 3/4 time is _part_ of what makes a mazurka a mazurka and not, for instance a bourrée. It also needs to have an accented 2nd or 3rd beat and a lively tempo.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Jean Christophe Paré said:


> And where do you see that it is defined by the essence? Just point out a single piece labelled Mazurka that doesn't fit those characteristics.
> 
> You arbitrarily decided that Mazurka is defined by the essence. That is wrong. You have obviously no knowledge of the matter and just want to cover up the fact that you mislabelled your work.
> 
> If you do have knowledge of the matter, such behaviour would make you simply stupid, which I would prefer not think you are.


Not only a Mazurka, but even a Waltz, or a nocturne, or a Sonata, or a rondo, or any other form of music, is not determined by time signature, but by its essence.

You can easily write a Waltz in any time signature you will like and choose. The idea that it 'may be ' wrong to do is, is tough. Music is not a Bible and its not the word of God, and there is no heresy if you break these various theoretical human made 'rules', big deal.

What I care about is the music itself and the end result.


----------



## Aramis

> Bach's study of Italian concerto style first manifests itself in organ transcriptions he made while working at the Weimar court between 1707 and 1718. These include three organ versions of concertos by Vivaldi, including the concerto in d-minor for two violins and cello obbligato, Opus 3, No. 2, published in Amsterdam in 1711. The first movement is noteworthy because it contains some of the rare indications of registration in Bach's hand. The composer specifies that the opening should be played by the two hands on separate manuals using the 4' Octava of each, while the Pedal plays an 8' Principal. Later, an 8' Principal is added to one of the manuals as a 32' Subbass is added to the pedal. These instructions provide clear evidence for the addition of stops during the course of this movement, requiring the assistance of a registrant. (Such registration changes will not, however, be heard in most of the other works recorded here because this can distort the voice leading of contrapuntal writing). The Grave provides a chordal introduction to the following fugue. I have attempted to ornament between these chordal passages in the top voice, as a first violinist might provide connecting material to serve as an upbeat for the next entry by the enire orchestra. A fugal movement is unusual in a concerto, and in his transcription of Vivaldi's Fuga, Bach makes no distinction between the tutti and solo groups that are present in Vivaldi's original. Perhaps he felt that the textural changes between statements of the subject and the episodic material provided sufficient contrast. The long sequence of the fugue subject is particularly Italian, and Vivaldi's treatment of this theme in the four-part invertible counterpoint gave the transcriber flexibility in distributing the parts so that they would conform to the manual and pedal compass of the organ. The third movement is an accompanied solo, introduced by the orchestra with dotted rhythms evoking the siciliana. The indication "largo e spiccato" suggests the detached bowstrokes of the strings accompanying the solo violin, imitated on the organ with the Violon stop. The final movement is an exciting display of Italian virtuosity, with quick repeated notes, fast scale passages and rapid manual changes.
> 
> http://www.gothic-catalog.com/Bach_t.../lrcd-1023.htm


I'm happy to learn about this but it has very little to do with subject.

Anyway, I should learn before that you can't be conviced about anything - we are apparently talking about two totally diffrent things. So I guess I will already thank you for discussion.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

By the way, Chopin's Mazurka in A minor Op. 17 No. 4 doesn’t sound like a dance or a Mazurka. 
Its just music, and Chopin decided to call it a Mazurka. No one in the world would have called it by that name or known it to be a Mazurka if Chopin didn’t give it that name.

Yes he did use the ¾ signature, but without the name Mazurka one would have easily called it a ‘Prelude’.


----------



## Jean Christophe Paré

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> Not only a Mazurka, but even a Waltz, or a nocturne, or a Sonata, or a rondo, or any other form of music, is not determined by time signature, but by its essence.
> 
> You can easily write a Waltz in any time signature you will like and choose. The idea that it 'may be ' wrong to do is, is tough. Music is not a Bible and its not the word of God, and there is no heresy if you break these various theoretical human made 'rules', big deal.
> 
> What I care about is the music itself and the end result.


What I find most funny is that you keep on saying that without every supporting these premisses in any way whatsoever. Nor do you give counterexamples.

As a matter of facts, musical history is against you.

And yes, a Nocturne, a Sonata and a Rondo aren't defined by the time signature. The Waltz is, by definition. Every Waltz that I know of is composed in 3/4. Feel free to bring counterexamples. A rondo is rather defined by a certain structure. The same applies to the Sonata, though sonatas are less clearly defined and many counterexamples show that there are not truly strict rules to it, but rather many different trends. On the Nocturne, however, I would agree that the essence is what defines it.


----------



## Jean Christophe Paré

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> By the way, Chopin's Mazurka in A minor Op. 17 No. 4 doesn't sound like a dance or a Mazurka.
> Its just music, and Chopin decided to call it a Mazurka. No one in the world would have called it by that name or known it to be a Mazurka if Chopin didn't give it that name.
> 
> Yes he did use the ¾ signature, but without the name Mazurka one would have easily called it a 'Prelude'.


As a matter of fact, it is in 3/4 and has a stress on the third beat, which accounts for its name. One could have called it a prelude simply because it being a mazurka doesn't prevent it from being a prelude.

If it could have been a prelude, why didn't he call it a prelude, one might ask? Well, because he was careful in his theoretical assessment of names and called it a Mazurka because it does have all the characteristics of such.

And in no way is a Mazurka obliged to sound like a dance.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Jean Christophe Paré said:


> What I find most funny is that you keep on saying that without every supporting these premisses in any way whatsoever. Nor do you give counterexamples.
> 
> As a matter of facts, musical history is against you.
> 
> And yes, a Nocturne, a Sonata and a Rondo aren't defined by the time signature. The Waltz is, by definition. Every Waltz that I know of is composed in 3/4. Feel free to bring counterexamples. A rondo is rather defined by a certain structure. The same applies to the Sonata, though sonatas are less clearly defined and many counterexamples show that there are not truly strict rules to it, but rather many different trends. On the Nocturne, however, I would agree that the essence is what defines it.


Check out Handel's Bourree for Piano In F major.

What time signature he uses for this DANCE?

4/4

WOW?

A dance in 4/4 Handel how can you Handle this?

Wikipedia:

Bourrée, French folk *dance* with many varieties, characteristically danced with quick, skipping steps. The dancers occasionally wear wooden clogs to emphasize the sounds made by their feet. Notably associated with Auvergne, bourrées are also danced elsewhere in France and in Vizcaya, Spain. Michael Praetorius mentions the bourrée in his musical compendium Syntagma musicum in 1615.


----------



## Jean Christophe Paré

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> Check out Handel's Bourree for Piano In F major.
> 
> What time signature he uses for this DANCE?
> 
> 4/4
> 
> WOW?
> 
> A dance in 4/4 Handel how can you Handle this?
> 
> Wikipedia:
> 
> Bourrée, French folk *dance* with many varieties, characteristically danced with quick, skipping steps. The dancers occasionally wear wooden clogs to emphasize the sounds made by their feet. Notably associated with Auvergne, bourrées are also danced elsewhere in France and in Vizcaya, Spain. Michael Praetorius mentions the bourrée in his musical compendium Syntagma musicum in 1615.


Saul, you are the only one that *ever* said that a dance had to be in 3/4. We all said that a *Mazurka* had to be in 3/4. A dance can happen in other time signatures and we even said so. Are you even capable of reading what we type?

Furthermore:

Definition of "Mazurka":

A lively Polish dance in 3/4 or 3/8 time with the accent usually on the second or third beat of the measure. The mazurka was popular in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Source: http://www.music.vt.edu/musicdictionary/textm/Mazurka.html

Definition of "Definition":

A description of the essential qualities of something.

Source: http://www.collinslanguage.com/resu...False&action=define&homonym=0&text=definition

If that doesn't convince you, you have serious lacks in comprehension of logic.


----------



## Aksel

I think we can Händel a dance in 4/4 perfectly fine. It's a bourrée, and thus it is in duple or quadruple time, just like a mazurka is invariably written in triple time. A mazurka in 4/4, on the other hand, is not a mazurka. 
And has it been said that all dances are in 3/4? I've mentioned several dances in duple and quadruple metre, or at least a couple.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Why in the world a Mazurka cant be but 3/4?

Why?

If the problem is that since its a dance and therefore it must be written in that signature , then what about all the other dances that were written in other signatures?

You guys make it seem that a Mazurka is some kind of God that cant be touched. All other dances can be written outside 3/4 but MAZURKA? no no no...

What's that, radicalism of art and genre... this doesn’t make any sense.


----------



## Jean Christophe Paré

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> Why in the world a Mazurka cant be but 3/4?
> 
> Why?
> 
> If the problem is that since its a dance and therefore it must be written in that signature , then what about all the other dances that were written in other signatures?
> 
> You guys make it seem that a Mazurka is some kind of God that cant be touched. All other dances can be written outside 3/4 but MAZURKA? no no no...
> 
> What's that, radicalism of art and genre... this doesn't make any sense.


You really show your lack of comprehension of the mere concept of definition. A Mazurka is *defined* as being in 3/4, whereas a lot of other musical forms' definitions do not assess the matter of time signature or account for the many different ones the composer may use.

Do you know why this is not a fork? http://www.amateurgourmet.com/ist2_2890967_spoon.jpg

Because of this: "an instrument having two or more prongs or tines, for holding, lifting, etc., as an implement for handling food or any of various agricultural tools." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fork

Now, what you are asking is the equivalent of asking why something with no prongs or tines can't be a fork. And the answer is simply because by definition, a fork has to have prongs or tines.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Jean Christophe Paré said:


> You really show your lack of comprehension of the mere concept of definition. A Mazurka is *defined* as being in 3/4, whereas a lot of other musical forms' definitions do not assess the matter of time signature or account for the many different ones the composer may use.
> 
> Do you know why this is not a fork? http://www.amateurgourmet.com/ist2_2890967_spoon.jpg
> 
> Because of this: "an instrument having two or more prongs or tines, for holding, lifting, etc., as an implement for handling food or any of various agricultural tools." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fork
> 
> Now, what you are asking is the equivalent of asking why something with no prongs or tines can't be a fork. And the answer is simply because by definition, a fork has to have prongs or tines.


Baloney.

Don't compare spiritual things to physical definitive objects, that's not so bright.


----------



## Jean Christophe Paré

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> Baloney.
> 
> Don't compare spiritual things to physical definitive objects, that's not so bright.


Philosophically, there is absolutely no reason not to compare them. Definitions are the same for everything, because logic is always correct if the premisses are good.

Therefore my statement is still valid.

Though I doubt that you understand the consequences of that.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Philosophically, there is absolutely no reason not to compare them, except for the reason that its not bright, and it makes you look bad. Freedom of speech is perfectly fine, but if you want to scream 'I'm a Schmuck' in the streets be my guest.


----------



## Jean Christophe Paré

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> Philosophically, there is absolutely no reason not to compare them, except for the reason that its not bright, and it makes you look bad. Freedom of speech is perfectly fine, but if you want to scream 'I'm a Schmuck' in the streets be my guest.


How can it be not so bright if the logic is flawless? That is contradictory.


----------



## MJTTOMB

The best musical example I can think of that would support Saul's assertions is "Les sons et les parfums tournent dans l'air du soir", from Debussy's Preludes, Book 1. It's a dance-like movement in an irregular meter. That being said, it is dance-_like_, and most assuredly not an actual waltz.

Edit: Saul, by that same logic, you can go scream "mazurkas are in quadruple meters" in a musical conservatory all you want, I'm not going to stop you, but don't expect people not to correct you.


----------



## Jean Christophe Paré

Wait. How does that support Saul? It wasn't named a waltz. Debussy doesn't pretend it is a waltz either. That's actually another example of music that is dance-like yet isn't named after a dance style likely because of the structure.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Jean Christophe Paré said:


> How can it be not so bright if the logic is flawless? That is contradictory.


Because one doesn't compare things so radically different in any way possible. The only way its logical is when the subjects that are compared share a common denominator.

There is thing called 'comparison', I'm sure you've heard of it before.
Even within things that possess more or less major similarities, for example, apples & oranges, there's a saying "Its like comparing apples and oranges' insinuating the idiocy of doing such a thing, and one doesn't even have to go to more remote and astronomically different things such as Musical sounds and Kitchen utensils, and that's simple, to the thinking mind.


----------



## MJTTOMB

Jean Christophe Paré said:


> Wait. How does that support Saul? It wasn't named a waltz. Debussy doesn't pretend it is a waltz either. That's actually another example of music that is dance-like yet isn't named after a dance style likely because of the structure.


I'm aware. It could _possibly_ be used to support him, but only after a matter of distorting the truth and such. Not claiming it's logical proof, I still agree entirely with you, Jean.

Edit: The Alfred edition of the sheet music i have refers to it as a "seductive waltz (3/4 + 2/4)"

Of course, the penultimate sentence of the description is perhaps a bit much: "The effect near the end (specific, right?) where Debussy asks the performer to have in mind the sounds of distant horns, is magical."


----------



## Jean Christophe Paré

While we're on it, do you have any idea of a simple rhythm that would recall a "promenade" - that is a stroll - that could be used as a left hand for piano?


----------



## MJTTOMB

Jean Christophe Paré said:


> While we're on it, do you have any idea of a simple rhythm that would recall a "promenade" - that is a stroll - that could be used as a left hand for piano?


Not the least idea, but off the top of my head I'd suggest looking into Moussorgsky's "Pictures" for inspiration.


----------



## Jean Christophe Paré

MJTTOMB said:


> Not the least idea, but off the top of my head I'd suggest looking into Moussorgsky's "Pictures" for inspiration.


I already thought of that when I looked up if there was an existing form I might have not known called Promenade. There are a few pieces called promenade, but most - like Mussorgsky's - are not light enough in character to my liking.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

MJTTOMB said:


> The best musical example I can think of that would support Saul's assertions is "Les sons et les parfums tournent dans l'air du soir", from Debussy's Preludes, Book 1. It's a dance-like movement in an irregular meter. That being said, it is dance-_like_, and most assuredly not an actual waltz.
> 
> Edit: Saul, by that same logic, you can go scream "mazurkas are in quadruple meters" in a musical conservatory all you want, I'm not going to stop you, but don't expect people not to correct you.


There you go, I'm sure that there are more examples.


----------



## Jean Christophe Paré

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> There you go, I'm sure that there are more examples.


If you actually read what we said, this isn't actually an example helping your case. It is another example of a piece that is dance-like in character that *wasn't* named a Mazurka, and therefore an example that proves you are not right so far.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Jean Christophe Paré said:


> If you actually read what we said, this isn't actually an example helping your case. It is another example of a piece that is dance-like in character that *wasn't* named a Mazurka, and therefore an example that proves you are not right so far.


Well, what do you know.. a Waltz in the 12/8 meter....

How Ironic...


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Chip that shoulder... outch here's yet another ironic thing...

A waltz in 2/4...

I rest my case.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Off topic...

Now that's an odd name for a title:


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Now dont be scared by this, its really scary.. but please relax...

9/16 Waltz...Nightmare indeed worse then the dried bats thing...


----------



## Jean Christophe Paré

Waltz do come in other rhythms as you can read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waltz_(music) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waltz

That isn't ironic. We already said many times that a lot of dance forms happen in different meters. Furthermore, 12/8 can be rewritten as two bars of 3/4; it is still in triple meter. As for the 2/4, it is another possible meter - though unusual - for the Waltz. 9/16 would actually be triple meter too, as three beats of a dotted crochet.

Please stay in subject. Proving that Waltz do come in meters other than 3/4 doesn't actually help your case since we are arguing that Mazurkas are defined by a meter strict to 3/4. We are not arguing about Waltz that do come in some other forms in few unusual cases.

All you are proving is that you can't find cases where mazurkas aren't written in 3/4 and resort to do the same with Waltz which doesn't actually prove your point since the whole argument is about the Mazurka.

And even there, because of the way the 2/4 one's title is written, we can safely assume that it doesn't refer to the musical form which would never be plural.


----------



## MJTTOMB

Jean Christophe Paré said:


> Waltz do come in other rhythms as you can read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waltz_(music) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waltz
> 
> That isn't ironic. We already said many times that a lot of dance forms happen in different meters. Furthermore, 12/8 can be rewritten as two bars of 3/4; it is still in triple meter. As for the 2/4, just read the two articles. 9/16 would actually be triple meter too, as three beats of a dotted crochet.
> 
> Please stay in subject. Proving that Waltz do come in meters other than 3/4 doesn't actually help your case since we are arguing that Mazurkas are defined by a meter strict to 3/4. We are not arguing about Waltz that do come in some other forms in few unusual cases.
> 
> All you are proving is that you can't find cases where mazurkas aren't written in 3/4 and resort to do the same with Waltz which doesn't actually prove your point since the whole argument is about the Mazurka.


And, at any rate, two of those examples you gave are in a triple meter.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Jean Christophe Paré said:


> Waltz do come in other rhythms as you can read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waltz_(music) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waltz
> 
> That isn't ironic. We already said many times that a lot of dance forms happen in different meters. Furthermore, 12/8 can be rewritten as two bars of 3/4; it is still in triple meter. As for the 2/4, just read the two articles.
> 
> Please stay in subject. Proving that Waltz do come in meters other than 3/4 doesn't actually help your case since we are arguing that Mazurkas are defined by a meter strict to 3/4. We are not arguing about Waltz that do come in some other forms in few unusual cases.
> 
> All you are proving is that you can't find cases where mazurkas aren't written in 3/4 and resort to do the same with Waltz which doesn't actually prove your point since the whole argument is about the Mazurka.


You need to learn how to extrapolate things.

Yes Wikipedia also says that a Waltz is the following:

*The waltz is a ballroom and folk dance in 3/4 (help·info) time, performed primarily in closed position.*

I guess by following a strict interpretation of what Wikipedia says on the Waltz, we should dismiss all the Valses written in other meters as 'not real Waltzes'...

Now extrapolate on the Mazurka... yes as a rule it should be written as 3/4 but there's always exception to the rules. As I said before you cant take a Mazurka and give it some kind of God status labeled 3/4 only.

If you do that, then you need to stick it to the Waltz too, and dismiss all other composers' works that were written on other meters as "not real waltzes".


----------



## Jean Christophe Paré

Did you actually read my post where I show that all of those you posted do not go against the definition? They are all in triple meter except for the 2/4 one which refers to the dance and does not pretend to be a waltz in itself. (Read the previous post again, I edited it about ten minutes ago.)

As for the "first liner in wikipedia", just scroll down. That's not an accurate definition but an "à peu près" that works in the most general form of Waltz. There are, however, more than on form of waltz.

Even if it said strictly triple meter, all the examples you showed are in accordance to that definition.

You really read only the parts you want. Every time one makes a valid point, you do not assess it and go directly to another part that you misinterpret. It shows how weak your ability to prove your point is.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Jean Christophe Paré said:


> As a matter of facts, musical history is against you.
> 
> Every Waltz that I know of is composed in 3/4. Feel free to bring counterexamples.


Perhaps now its evident that its against you. :tiphat:


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Jean Christophe Paré said:


> Did you actually read my post where I show that all of those you posted do not go against the definition? They are all in triple meter except for the 2/4 one which refers to the dance and does not pretend to be a waltz in itself.


Holy Cow.. how can you twist the truth like that.

The work is Called Valses , the composer (Granados) called it a Valse.. what are you arguing about?


----------



## MJTTOMB

Jean Christophe Paré said:


> Did you actually read my post where I show that all of those you posted do not go against the definition? They are all in triple meter except for the 2/4 one which refers to the dance and does not pretend to be a waltz in itself.
> 
> You too extrapolate. Go surf the net and find the many times it is written that waltzes can be written in other forms than 3/4. Now do the same for Mazurkas. There appears to be no definitive consensus for the time-signature of a waltz, else there wouldn't be so many contradictory definitions all over. The same doesn't hold true for a Mazurka; it is said everywhere that it is in 3/4 (except when it doesn't make mention on time-signature).


I did some research on the Granados. It is very clearly titled "Preludio", and is the PRELUDE to Granados's larger set of 8 poetic waltzes. It is not intended to be a waltz itself, all other pieces in the set are in triple meter and consistent with waltz form.

http://imslp.info/files/imglnks/usimg/e/e4/IMSLP08872-Granados_8_Valses_poeticos.pdf

It is not given a number. The 8 actual waltzes are.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

MJTTOMB said:


> I did some Research on the Granados. It is very clearly titled "Preludio", and is the PRELUDE to Granados's larger set of 8 poetic waltzes. It is not intended to be a waltz itself, all other pieces in the set are in triple meter and consistent with waltz form.
> 
> http://imslp.info/files/imglnks/usimg/e/e4/IMSLP08872-Granados_8_Valses_poeticos.pdf
> 
> It is not given a number. The 8 actual waltzes are.


LOL this is Hilarious.

So what that he called it Preludio ? the main point is that the work on the page is named 'Eight Poetic Waltzes', He could have written this *title *after the *Prelude *if it was such a problem, yet it wasn't a problem at all, because this prelude is an integral part of the dances themselves and cant be brushed off, and therefore is a part of the waltzes themselves, and not a separate entity.


----------



## MJTTOMB

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> LOL this is Hilarious.
> 
> So what that he called it Preludio ? the main point is that the work on the page is named 'Eight Poetic Waltzes', He could have written this *title *after the *Prelude *if it was such a problem, yet it wasn't a problem at all, because this prelude is an integral part of the dances themselves and cant be brushed off, and therefore is a part of the waltzes themselves, and not a separate entity.


Yes, and there are 9 pieces in the set. One prelude and 8 waltzes. Again, you fail to actually look at the score.

Is it an integral part of a set of waltzes? Yes. Is it a waltz? No. Was it ever intended to be a waltz? Certainly not.


----------



## Jean Christophe Paré

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> Holy Cow.. how can you twist the truth like that.
> 
> The work is Called Valses , the composer (Granados) called it a Valse.. what are you arguing about?


It is called "Valses". That is very different. That's like saying "The Empire Marches"; it wouldn't make it a march. "Poetic Waltzes" is just a pretty name like those impressionists tended to give. It could be a waltz, or he could have meant it a waltz, but the title itself doesn't mean he wanted it to be considered a waltz.

On the other hand, waltzes do exist in 2/4. Just read the article.

I think you are the one twisting the truth, as MJTTOMB exposed; the piece is the prelude to a waltz.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

MJTTOMB said:


> Yes, and there are 9 pieces in the set. One prelude and 8 waltzes. Again, you fail to actually look at the score.
> 
> Is it an integral part of a set of waltzes? Yes. Is it a waltz? No. Was it ever intended to be a waltz? Certainly not.


Yes, that's right , good catch, I stand corrected on this particular work by Granados, but as Jean pointed out there are Waltzes written in 2/4.

And as I said before one only needs to make the extrapolation between what It says on the Waltz and what It says on the Mazurka.

I don't believe that a Mazurka can only be a Mazurka if its ¾. I just don't buy it, it doesn't make any sense for the Waltz, and you do agree to that, and I don't see why Mazurka should be any different, cause after all they are both forms of dances.


----------



## Jean Christophe Paré

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> Yes, that's right , good catch, I stand corrected on this particular work by Granados, but as Jean pointed out there are Waltzes written in 2/4.
> 
> And as I said before one only needs to make the extrapolation between what It says on the Waltz and what It says on the Mazurka.
> 
> I don't believe that a Mazurka can only be a Mazurka if its ¾. I just don't buy it, it doesn't make any sense for the Waltz, and you do agree to that, and I don't see why Mazurka should be any different, cause after all they are both forms of dances.


Note that I said that waltzes in 2/4 were not actually waltzes as pertaining to the musical form but rather as pieces incidental to the dance. That is a major difference.

The same doesn't apply for the Mazurka because the dance form isn't known to exist in other forms than 3/4, so you can not argue that it is a mazurka in the sense that it is incidental to the dance rather than the musical form. The musical form itself, like the waltz, is always in triple meter.

Please also note that when we say 3/4, we basically mean triple meter because all triple meter can be rearranged to 3/4, just like 2/4 can be rearranged to 4/4.


----------



## MJTTOMB

Though I agree with your assertion that mazurkas are defined by their essence, I feel this essence is virtually always displayed through triple meter and strong accent patterns.

For instance, I feel your B-flat major mazurka is a rather nice example of what I would consider a more proper Mazurka.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Incidental or not, there are waltzes written in other meters besides 3/4. This is a fact.
One needs to ask and also explain why in the world a Mazurka cant be written outside 3/4 and still be considered a Mazurka. I have yet to hear a logical explanation to why this particular dance form must be written as such. 

Other dances are more flexible, like the Waltz, and the Handel dance I've pointed out before, why the Mazurka should be any different?

It wasn’t done before?

Who cares.

I did it, there's a first thing for everything and I'm proud of it.


----------



## Jean Christophe Paré

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> Incidental or not, there are waltzes written in other meters besides 3/4. This is a fact.
> One needs to ask and also explain why in the world a Mazurka cant be written outside 3/4 and still be considered a Mazurka. I have yet to hear a logical explanation to why this particular dance form must be written as such.
> 
> Other dances are more flexible, like the Waltz, and the Handel dance I've pointed out before, why the Mazurka should be any different?
> 
> It wasn't done before?
> 
> Who cares.
> 
> I did it, there's a first thing for everything and I'm proud of it.


Because the Mazurka is defined as being in 3/4. Why is it important? Because the effect of a stressed second or third beat is very different in 3/4 than in 4/4 where you have a certain symmetry (2+2) of beats, while 3/4 can be seen as (1+2) or (2+1). Such has no symmetry and a stressed beat will be more isolated and provide a different "feeling". The same would be different for a stress on first beat that we just compute as "Stress on first beat, check"; it has no accent on as normally syncopated beat, so it does not cause symmetry problems.

That's the reason for the definition, it seems.

Now, the definition still says that it is in 3/4, whereas the definition of a lot of other dances doesn't exclude other meters.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

I'm unconvinced Jean...

I don't get why something like this cant be called a Mazurka if I choose to call it so.

Note, this is not a real composition but a study and an example for demonstration. I recorded myself playing this this instant composition, or improvisation after our discussion here.

For me, this music sounds like a Mazurka even though its not written in 3/4.


__
https://soundcloud.com/sauldzorelashvili%2Fmazurka-study


----------



## Jean Christophe Paré

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> I'm unconvinced Jean...
> 
> I don't get why something like this cant be called a Mazurka if I choose to call it so.
> 
> Note, this is not a real composition but a study and an example for demonstration. I recorded myself playing this this instant composition, or improvisation after our discussion here.
> 
> For me, this music sounds like a Mazurka even though its not written in 3/4.
> 
> 
> __
> https://soundcloud.com/sauldzorelashvili%2Fmazurka-study


You have shown already that you will never be convinced by any logical argument.

Either way, to me it doesn't sound like a Mazurka. It resembles a Chopin-styled piece at best. The thing mostly reminiscent of a Mazurka is the left hand chords.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Jean Christophe Paré said:


> You have shown already that you will never be convinced by any logical argument.
> 
> Either way, to me it doesn't sound like a Mazurka. It resembles a Chopin-styled piece at best.


Music is a story, Mazurka is also a story. Its not always a must to begin the story with a dance. Note that there are elements of dance in between the other themes, and the other themes lead towards that dance. The leading themes are extremely connected to the dance sections, and shouldnt be excluded and called "not real mazurka" just because they are not in 3/4.

Music is greater then all these "rules' you suggest.


----------



## Jean Christophe Paré

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> Music is a story, Mazurka is also a story. Its not always a must to begin the story with a dance. Note that there are elements of dance in between the other themes, and the other themes lead towards that dance. The leading themes are extremely connected to the dance sections, and shouldnt be excluded and called "not real mazurka" just because they are not in 3/4.
> 
> Music is greater then all these "rules' you suggest.


Music is more than rules, yet the rules explain why. The rules aren't there just for fun; without them it doesn't feel like a Mazurka.


----------



## Chris

I'm waiting for Saul to write a quintet for four instrumentalists


----------



## Jean Christophe Paré

Chris said:


> I'm waiting for Saul to write a quintet for four instrumentalists


I still can't stop laughing. Thank you for that.


----------



## Aramis

Chris said:


> I'm waiting for Saul to write a quintet for four instrumentalists


It isn't problem, it's enough to score it for string quintet but never make first and second violin play together so the violinist may change instruments and sometimes play second and sometimes first violin.

So you should rather say "for four instruments". That would make more sense.


----------



## Jean Christophe Paré

Aramis said:


> Isn't not a problem, it's enough to score it for string quintet but never make first and second violin play together so the violinist may change instruments and sometimes play second and sometimes first violin.
> 
> So you should rather say "for four instruments". That would make more sense.


Aramis, don't break the fun.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Chris said:


> I'm waiting for Saul to write a quintet for four instrumentalists


Technical limitations are not the same as form inovation.

Genius :wave:


----------



## Rasa

Writing a piece in 4/4 and calling it a mazurka is hardly a form innovation...


----------



## Jean Christophe Paré

The 3/4 requirement for a Mazurka is a technical limitation. The example is very similar to the Mazurka problem.


----------



## Chris

There may be some justification for Saul's groundbreaking mazurka. Are there not other dictionary-busting works played in the concert hall? What about:

- the trio part of the minuet and trio movement in classical period symphonies. Normally played by more than three instrumentalists, I think.

- 'overture' mean 'opening', so what about those that stand on their own, like Tchaikovsky's Romeo and Juliet? That doesn't open anything.


----------



## Aksel

Chris said:


> There may be some justification for Saul's groundbreaking mazurka. Are there not other dictionary-busting works played in the concert hall? What about:
> 
> - the trio part of the minuet and trio movement in classical period symphonies. Normally played by more than three instrumentalists, I think.
> 
> - 'overture' mean 'opening', so what about those that stand on their own, like Tchaikovsky's Romeo and Juliet? That doesn't open anything.


I don't know about the trio thing, but from what I read, the concert overture is a stand-alone piece, generally based on a literary subject. They became popular when orchestras started performing opera overtures in concerts. So concert overtures could potentially open an opera or any such piece, but instead, they don't.
The magical 4/4 mazurka is a different beast entirely. Overtures are much less strict in form that dances.

And Saul: Different dances have different metres. A bourrée is always written in duple or quadruple metre, just like a mazurka or a polonaise is always written in triple metre.


----------



## Jean Christophe Paré

Chris said:


> There may be some justification for Saul's groundbreaking mazurka. Are there not other dictionary-busting works played in the concert hall? What about:
> 
> - the trio part of the minuet and trio movement in classical period symphonies. Normally played by more than three instrumentalists, I think.
> 
> - 'overture' mean 'opening', so what about those that stand on their own, like Tchaikovsky's Romeo and Juliet? That doesn't open anything.


The trio refers to the musical form, not the number of instrumentalists.

The overture one was explained at the time as an opening to a non-existent piece, an opening before a book rather than before another musical piece.

Furthermore, the name is given to a type of piece, but that doesn't mean that the piece is exactly what the name is defined as. Surely a Polonaise isn't always produced in Poland, and, interchangeably, a piece may be written in Poland by a polish composer and yet not be a polonaise: The word "Polonaise", much like "Overture" and "Trio" take on a different meaning when applied to musical forms.

Would you see, however, a Trio that is neither in ternary form - such as what is called a Trio in classical symphonies - nor played by three instrumentalists?


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

I have called it a Mazurka and there is no way in the world that I would call it something else.
The nerd *whoeveritmaybe*, that somehow decided that only 3/4 are Mazurka is history.

I follow the essence of the music and not the meter to determine if the music is Mazurka or not.

Each to his own.

Cheers...

Saul


----------



## Jean Christophe Paré

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> The nerd *whoeveritmaybe*, that somehow decided that only 3/4 are Mazurka is history.l


I like how narcissistic you are in thinking you may be able to change that.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Jean Christophe Paré said:


> I like how narcissistic you are in thinking you may be able to change that.


I have already did.


----------



## Aksel

Saul, can you please explain what makes the piece a mazurka? And please stop saying that it has the essence of a mazurka. Oh, and please explain what the essence of a mazurka is, while you're at it.


----------



## Jean Christophe Paré

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> I have already did.


No, you didn't. You just wrongly named a piece of yours.


----------



## Rasa

Calling it a mazurka doesn't not make you an innovator. It makes you inept.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Yes its a Mazurka and there's nothing you can do about it.


----------



## Rasa

So if I decide that the Queen Elizabeth is French, and tell you nothing you can do about it, we should issue her a French passport?


----------



## Jean Christophe Paré

It is not a Mazurka and there's nothing you can do about it. Saying Hitler was a nice guy doesn't erase history and make him one.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Again you guys are comparing apples to oranges...

I see that you don't want to accept it as a Mazurka.

That's fine with me, don't accept it.

As far as I am concerned , its a Mazurka.

Now grab those _*Polished*_ shoes and go out and dance ...


----------



## Aksel

Can you please answer my question, Saul?
Can you tell me what makes that a mazurka? And what is the essence of a mazurka, anyway?


----------



## Jean Christophe Paré

This one doesn't even bear a vague resemblance to a Mazurka.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Good Morning, America.

That was the Mazurka on subject.

What then were you talking about all along if its the first time you hear it...

_Strange............._


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

My Symphony In F sharp Minor - Allegro Con Fuoco.


----------



## Aksel

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> Good Morning, America.
> 
> That was the Mazurka on subject.
> 
> What then were you talking about all along if its the first time you hear it...
> 
> _Strange............._


To be fair, there was another one where part of it was in 4/4. But have we said we haven't heard it before? I certainly haven't.

And about your symphony: What movement is it?


----------



## Sanctus Petrus

I strongly believe there is a mazurka hidden, even sometimes very deep down, in every piece of music ever written...


----------



## Jean Christophe Paré

Sanctus Petrus said:


> I strongly believe there is a mazurka hidden, even sometimes very deep down, in every piece of music ever written...


Sure. Mariana Trench kind of deep.


----------



## Rasa

Sanctus Petrus said:


> I strongly believe there is a mazurka hidden, even sometimes very deep down, in every piece of music ever written...


And hidden deep on the inside of the mazurka is a single-voice organum serving as the theme for an atonal fugue without countersubject


----------



## Chris

There was a composer named Saul
Whose mazurkas confused one and all
The critics said 'Surely
A mazurka is purely
A dance played 3/4 at the ball?'


----------



## emiellucifuge

Bravo!
:tiphat:


----------



## Rasa

Winner right there.

At least one person in this thread understand metrum


----------



## Aksel

A composer named Saul
Wrote a groundbreaking new mazurka
People didn't understand

It's a limerick. Promise.


----------



## Rasa

Aksel said:


> A composer named Saul
> Wrote a groundbreaking new mazurka
> People didn't understand
> 
> It's a limerick. Promise.


If you say so, it must be true. One must understand the rhyme to know it's true limerick nature


----------



## Aramis

This place is hidden in your inner mortuary of sickness - love...


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Aksel said:


> To be fair, there was another one where part of it was in 4/4. But have we said we haven't heard it before? I certainly haven't.
> 
> And about your symphony: What movement is it?


The Only Movement, its a one movement symphony.

It has been done before, nothing groundbreaking there, look up Webern.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Chris said:


> There was a composer named Saul
> Whose mazurkas confused one and all
> The critics said 'Surely
> A mazurka is purely
> A dance played 3/4 at the ball?'


There was a listener named Chris, who couldn't put up his dancing cap when he heard Mazurkas written in the 4/4... so he sat down alone in the polished hall all miserable and lonely.


----------



## Aksel

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> The Only Movement, its a one movement symphony.
> 
> It has been done before, nothing groundbreaking there, look up Webern.


Yes, I do know there are one-movement symphonies. So you're in the clear there. Just wanted to check.

And GREAT limerick, by the way. You really seem to have mastered the form so well.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Aksel,

Limerick you should know is also a town in Ireland...


----------



## Aksel

Yes, I do know that. I also know that it is also a kind of poem, *defined *as having a rhyme scheme of AABBA, the two first and last lines having three verse feet of three syllables each, and the third and fourth lines having two verse feet of three syllables each.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Aksel said:


> Yes, I do know that. I also know that it is also a kind of poem, *defined *as having a rhyme scheme of AABBA, the two first and last lines having three verse feet of three syllables each, and the third and fourth lines having two verse feet of three syllables each.


Yes, I knew that... cool..


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

This is my arrangement of the music *Evenstar* by Howard Shore from the movie The Lord of the Rings.

I'm performing here on the Piano.

Best Wishes,

Saul


----------



## Jean Christophe Paré

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> Yes, I knew that... cool..


So it is fine for poetic forms to be defined by structure, but it isn't for music? Surely music's essence must then be much superior as a form of art to forego the structural limitations of forms whereas poetry have to follow them.


----------



## Sid James

This bloke thinks that virtually all music composed after about 1900 is rubbish - so why should we take him seriously as a composer? No composer worth their salt can afford to be rusted on to such outdated notions of what art should be. If they do that, their art is dead and not living...


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Jean Christophe Paré said:


> So it is fine for poetic forms to be defined by structure, but it isn't for music? Surely music's essence must then be much superior as a form of art to forego the structural limitations of forms whereas poetry have to follow them.


That's right, Music is pure spirituality, where words as of themselves are limitations.

Sometimes words are not sufficient to express certain feelings, they limit what you really feel in your heart of hearts, and that's where music begins. Where words end, music takes over, and because of that, music cant have the same rules as words have.

This is ABC, and pretty logical, its not even poetic.

BTW, check out Mendelssohn's letter explaining why his reasons for calling his 48 piano pieces 'Songs without Words'.


----------



## Jean Christophe Paré

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> That's right, Music is pure spirituality, where words as of themselves are limitations.
> 
> Sometimes words are not sufficient to express certain feelings, they limit what you really feel in your heart of hearts, and that's where music begins. Where words end, music takes over, and because of that, music cant have the same rules as words have.
> 
> This is ABC, and pretty logical, its not even poetic.
> 
> BTW, check out Mendelssohn's letter explaining why his reasons for calling his 48 piano pieces 'Songs without Words'.


Music has no limitation but words do? Fine. Then explain general relativity to me using only music, please.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Jean Christophe Paré said:


> Music has no limitation but words do? Fine. Then explain general relativity to me using only music, please.


Where did I say that Music has no limitations?

I never said that.

Music has far less limitations then words when it comes to expressing feelings.

Now general relativity is not a subject about feelings, I'm sure you know that.


----------



## Jean Christophe Paré

"That's right, Music is pure spirituality, where words as of themselves are limitations"

Opposition of pure spirituality vs. limitation implies that music - being of pure spirituality - doesn't suffer from limitations whereas words do.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Jean Christophe Paré said:


> "That's right, Music is pure spirituality, where words as of themselves are limitations"
> 
> Opposition of pure spirituality vs. limitation implies that music - being of pure spirituality - doesn't suffer from limitations whereas words do.


The only Spiritual entity that has no limitations is God.
Since the concept and reality of music is a creation of God, we know that every created thing has some limitations, some more then others.

That's why in Judaism there are seven great Wisdoms.

The highest of all is called 'The Wisdom to Know God'.

The one just below this wisdom is called 'The Wisdom of Music'.

The Sages of Israel ask why music is so close and high up the list right next to the highest level of wisdom?

They answer:

Because music is all spiritual and therefore is the closest thing to God, since God himself has no body or any physicality, and is all spirituality. But because music is a created phenomenon , therefore it has limitations, just like every other created thing.

Now if you look all around you, all things were created by God, some are more physical then the other, and some are more spiritual then others. Music is the most spiritual thing right before God. So one can imagine the greatness of music. Also you must understand that the Hebrew word for music is called 'Nigun' its spelled with three letters, and these same letters make up the Hebrew word 'Gonen' which means 'To Protect'.

Music has an amazing attribute besides generating joy and communicating feelings, its also a very powerful military tool, that can protect individuals and nations.

King David for example was a Great Composer and a Poet and also a great Warrior. His Songs of Praise to the God of Israel actually protected him and all of Israel. Also when Joshua had led the Israelites into the City of Jericho when they entered the Land of Israel, he commanded a number of Jews to encircle the city 7 times and Play out with their Horns, and upon finishing the 7th circle with the great sounds of the Horns, the Walls of Jericho fell, and the Jews entered. Read it for yourself in the Book of Joshua. There are other examples as well.

Now if you want to communicate your love to God , you can say the words 'I love you God' but they wouldn't sufficiently express the true nature of your Love, but if you call out a song of Praise from the bottom of your heart, a pure voice from the depths of your soul, that music will express the love that you feel for god better then a thousand words, because music comes from the soul, which is the innermost part of the human being.

The Music comes from the soul, the essence of the human being, where words come from the intellect, meaning your mind is trying to convey feelings and ideas and thoughts by putting into something that the other person will understand, but its only a translation, not the essence of what you really feel, but music doesn't need the translation of the intellect, its just pure 100 percent raw of what you really feel, that's why all of humanity understands music because all humans have souls, but not everyone understands the same words because not everyone knows the same language.

Now to take this immense power, soul, and spiritual entity called music, and attach the same laws that apply to words, would be counterproductive, for words and music are totally different phenomenon, who work differently to achieve different things.

If you study how people behave in extreme situations, upon hearing good or bad news, they scream out, and they don't use words. The joy or the pain of the news is just too powerful to express with words, there are just no words to really perfectly express what a human being goes through at that moment in time.

As I said before, where words end, music begins.


----------



## Jean Christophe Paré

That was funnily shallow. A lot of big words but nothing besides them, no explanation. As for your religious arguments, it only applies if you accept that the words spoken by those men are true. Which I don't. Not more than other men, at least.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Jean Christophe Paré said:


> That was funnily shallow. A lot of big words but nothing besides them, no explanation. As for your religious arguments, it only applies if you accept that the words spoken by those men are true. Which I don't. Not more than other men, at least.


Its not shallow at all, and if you actually think about what I said more in depth, maybe you will change your mind. Not everything can be brushed off with words...


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Andre said:


> This bloke thinks that virtually all music composed after about 1900 is rubbish - so why should we take him seriously as a composer? No composer worth their salt can afford to be rusted on to such outdated notions of what art should be. If they do that, their art is dead and not living...


Take the music as it is, if you like it, and enjoy it its a matter of fact not choice. If you will choose not to like my music even though you do like it, it destroys the whole point of listening.

I didn't say that "virtually all music composed after about 1900 is rubbish" , I said that the vast majority is rubbish, and I stand with this opinion.

I will be the first one to tell you that my music compared next to the greats of before 1900, is rubbish, and any composer who will tell you that their music is not rubbish compared to the greats is living in a fantasy self indulging dimension.

This is nothing new, even within other intellectual great wisdoms, like Rabbinical Geniuses of this day, they themselves write they can't match the great Sages of Israel, for they were living in a more pure world, and had greater closeness to God, and therefore were bestowed by him with greater wisdom.

That's why today there are no prophets, yes there are great genius Rabbis who know thousands of books by heart word by word, and are great and holy men but they don't come close to the Giants that walked before, people like King David, and King Solomon, and the Mighty Sages of the Talmud, no one today can know or understand the magnitude of their genius and greatness, for their time was a different time then ours.

Even the great scientists of past age were greater then the scientists of today, for today's scientists are like small midgets sitting on top of Giants, for without the knowledge and contributions of past scientists, today's scientists would be close to nothing.


----------



## Sid James

I'm not saying your music is rubbish. That would be highly primitive and stupid coming from a layman who has never composed a single note of music in his life (although I have been listening to classical on and off for more than 20 years). What I can say is that it wouldn't hurt for you to at least study some of the "greats" post-1900 to get a full picture of what has gone on in music closer to our own times. I'm talking of the "biggies," Stravinsky, Bartok, Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, Hindemith, Britten, Tippett, Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Ives, guys like that. & even things that will push you further out of your comfort zone, such as Varese, Stockhausen, Carter, Ligeti, Birtwistle, Xenakis, Berio, Sclesi, etc. etc. The only possible thing that can happen is that you learn something which is for your benefit as a composer. & I'd also go to a few live concerts of these if they happen in your area. Open your mind.

On one of his tv shows, UK chef Gordon Ramsey said to one of the chefs in a business he was trying to fix "Where the f**ks the passion?" This is a rather crude way of saying it, but if you are not passionate in some way about exploring ALL areas of classical music, then why bother? Where's the passion? Where's the journey? Where's the exploration and pushing of boundaries?

BTW, I don't know what this whole argument has to do with Rabbinical history, to tell you the truth...


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Andre said:


> I'm not saying your music is rubbish. That would be highly primitive and stupid coming from a layman who has never composed a single note of music in his life (although I have been listening to classical on and off for more than 20 years). What I can say is that it wouldn't hurt for you to at least study some of the "greats" post-1900 to get a full picture of what has gone on in music closer to our own times. I'm talking of the "biggies," Stravinsky, Bartok, Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, Hindemith, Britten, Tippett, Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Ives, guys like that. & even things that will push you further out of your comfort zone, such as Varese, Stockhausen, Carter, Ligeti, Birtwistle, Xenakis, Berio, Sclesi, etc. etc. The only possible thing that can happen is that you learn something which is for your benefit as a composer. & I'd also go to a few live concerts of these if they happen in your area. Open your mind.
> 
> On one of his tv shows, UK chef Gordon Ramsey said to one of the chefs in a business he was trying to fix "Where the f**ks the passion?" This is a rather crude way of saying it, but if you are not passionate in some way about exploring ALL areas of classical music, then why bother? Where's the passion? Where's the journey? Where's the exploration and pushing of boundaries?
> 
> BTW, I don't know what this whole argument has to do with Rabbinical history, to tell you the truth...


My dislike of their music is not as a result of ignorance, or not listening to their music, I have listened to their music, and I don't like it at all.

Aside from a number of pieces by a number of composers, the rest are just as I said, Rubbish in my opinion, not they as human beings, but their music.

The Rabbinical and scientific thing was an example , it was meant to compare.


----------



## Mantas Savickis

Saul, I read here a little... I suggest you to give original titles to your compositions cause when you call it mazurka, symphony etc. there always will be someone who will try to find general rules of genres in your compositions. What is the point to call composition mazurka? Give it very original title so people can remember it. In other hand, if you would like to call your music this way try to keep writing following general rules. I can say from my experience - this "strategy" limits creativity. Sorry for my english. Good luck


----------



## Rasa

Uploaded with ImageShack.us


----------



## Sanctus Petrus

Mantas Savickis said:


> Saul, I read here a little... I suggest you to give original titles to your compositions cause when you call it mazurka, symphony etc. there always will be someone who will try to find general rules of genres in your compositions. What is the point to call composition mazurka? Give it very original title so people can remember it. In other hand, if you would like to call your music this way try to keep writing following general rules. I can say from my experience - this "strategy" limits creativity. Sorry for my english. Good luck


You might have given golden advice here.

But maybe Saul is inspired by Eric Satie who also gave complete nonsensical titles and comments to his masterpieces?


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Mantas Savickis said:


> There always will be someone who will try to find rules of genres in your compositions.


Thanks for your advice... but...

Here's a nice fable for you to read:

*A MAN and his son were once going with their Donkey to market. As they were walking along by its side a countryman passed them and said: "You fools, what is a Donkey for but to ride upon?"

So the Man put the Boy on the Donkey and they went on their way. But soon they passed a group of men, one of whom said: "See that lazy youngster, he lets his father walk while he rides."

So the Man ordered his Boy to get off, and got on himself. But they hadn't gone far when they passed two women, one of whom said to the other: "Shame on that lazy lout to let his poor little son trudge along."

Well, the Man didn't know what to do, but at last he took his Boy up before him on the Donkey. By this time they had come to the town, and the passers-by began to jeer and point at them. The Man stopped and asked what they were scoffing at. The men said: "Aren't you ashamed of yourself for overloading that poor Donkey of yours-you and your hulking son?"

The Man and Boy got off and tried to think what to do. They thought and they thought, till at last they cut down a pole, tied the Donkey's feet to it, and raised the pole and the Donkey to their shoulders. They went along amid the laughter of all who met them till they came to Market Bridge, when the Donkey, getting one of his feet loose, kicked out and caused the Boy to drop his end of the pole. In the struggle the Donkey fell over the bridge, and his fore-feet being tied together he was drowned.

"That will teach you," said an old man who had followed them:

"PLEASE ALL, AND YOU WILL PLEASE NONE." *


----------



## Aramis




----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

I cant stand Abraham Fried, he doesn't represent authentic Jewish music, and is a total clown. Now if you want me to post idiots of different ethnic groups who misrepresent the true spirit of their cultures, be my guest.

Now if you like Jewish music , here's something written about 200 years ago by the Great Rebbe of Liadi, he was a famous Kabbalist, and a scholar of biblical proportions, and he also was a great composer.


----------



## ricardo_jvc6

jewish music... mmm its nice, I love their Harmonical Atonal and Dissonant sounds, Very pure. And very religious.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Ricardo if you liked that music, I think you will like this too.

This is the Holy Words of King David, the Sweet Singer of Israel, his Pslams sang by the Israeli Singer Erez Yechiel, sang in its original Ancient Hebrew.

Pslams 121.


----------



## ricardo_jvc6

beautiful, makes me think of a new Era. The Era when musicians make jewish music, truly thats awesome.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

ricardo_jvc6 said:


> beautiful, makes me think of a new Era. The Era when musicians make jewish music, truly thats awesome.


Glad you enjoyed this music...


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

The Secret Wedding - Piano


----------



## Guest

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> Take the music as it is, if you like it, and enjoy it its a matter of fact not choice. If you will choose not to like my music even though you do like it, it destroys the whole point of listening.
> 
> I didn't say that "virtually all music composed after about 1900 is rubbish" , I said that the vast majority is rubbish, and I stand with this opinion.
> 
> I will be the first one to tell you that my music compared next to the greats of before 1900, is rubbish, and any composer who will tell you that their music is not rubbish compared to the greats is living in a fantasy self indulging dimension.
> 
> This is nothing new, even within other intellectual great wisdoms, like Rabbinical Geniuses of this day, they themselves write they can't match the great Sages of Israel, for they were living in a more pure world, and had greater closeness to God, and therefore were bestowed by him with greater wisdom.
> 
> That's why today there are no prophets, yes there are great genius Rabbis who know thousands of books by heart word by word, and are great and holy men but they don't come close to the Giants that walked before, people like King David, and King Solomon, and the Mighty Sages of the Talmud, no one today can know or understand the magnitude of their genius and greatness, for their time was a different time then ours.
> 
> *Even the great scientists of past age were greater then the scientists of today, for today's scientists are like small midgets sitting on top of Giants, for without the knowledge and contributions of past scientists, today's scientists would be close to nothing.*


The logic in so much of this is lacking, but your final statement is patently absurd. The great scientists of the past are greater than the scientists of today? Really? Yes, much of what we know came from the discoveries of those in the past. But we also have had to relearn so much of what those past giants taught us that was false. Is Henry Ford less of a genius than whoever first thought to put a round wheel on a cart to help move it more easily? Koch's postulates were truly revolutionary in our understanding of the germ theory of disease. But what about the scientists who discovered that you could harness bacteria to produce things like human insulin to help the lives of diabetics? Are you really so ignorant of the incredible accomplishments that scientists today are making? And where do you draw the line? Einstein was revolutionary in his time. Would you have counted him as great were you to be writing this early in his career, or dismiss him as a small midget compared to the Giants that came before him?

To refer back to Jewish history, which you do a lot, this is very akin to the problem that the Israelites often faced - they were always ready to happily accept the pronouncements of prophets long dead while stoning the living ones. A dead prophet trumps a living one any day.

So it is with you - it is almost as if the only sure way to determine quality is how long the person has been dead. The longer they have been decomposing in the ground, the more authoritative they are. A dead composer/scientist/etc. trumps a living one any day of the week for you. You see no value in anything new or advanced. Hence Mahler, Stravinsky, Prokofiev, etc. produced only drivel, while Hummel and Rubinstein are unappreciated geniuses. Living scientists are midgets - dead ones are giants.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

DrMike said:


> The logic in so much of this is lacking, but your final statement is patently absurd. The great scientists of the past are greater than the scientists of today? Really? Yes, much of what we know came from the discoveries of those in the past. But we also have had to relearn so much of what those past giants taught us that was false. Is Henry Ford less of a genius than whoever first thought to put a round wheel on a cart to help move it more easily? Koch's postulates were truly revolutionary in our understanding of the germ theory of disease. But what about the scientists who discovered that you could harness bacteria to produce things like human insulin to help the lives of diabetics? Are you really so ignorant of the incredible accomplishments that scientists today are making? And where do you draw the line? Einstein was revolutionary in his time. Would you have counted him as great were you to be writing this early in his career, or dismiss him as a small midget compared to the Giants that came before him?
> 
> To refer back to Jewish history, which you do a lot, this is very akin to the problem that the Israelites often faced - they were always ready to happily accept the pronouncements of prophets long dead while stoning the living ones. A dead prophet trumps a living one any day.
> 
> So it is with you - it is almost as if the only sure way to determine quality is how long the person has been dead. The longer they have been decomposing in the ground, the more authoritative they are. A dead composer/scientist/etc. trumps a living one any day of the week for you. You see no value in anything new or advanced. Hence Mahler, Stravinsky, Prokofiev, etc. produced only drivel, while Hummel and Rubinstein are unappreciated geniuses. Living scientists are midgets - dead ones are giants.


You know there is a famous story about the Satmar Rebbe who was traveling on a plane.
Next to him sat a gentile who happened to be an atheist, and the gentile was very curious as to why the grandson of the Rebbe who was traveling with him, was serving him , assisting him, carrying things for him, helping him in everyway, while his own grandson was busy playing around with the other kids, and just the opposite, he was the one that was caring for his grandson, and serving him reminding him to eat and rest etc…

So the atheist leaned towards the learned Rebbe and asked him :"How come your grandson is here serving you in every possible way, while I have to run around serving my grandson"?

The Rebbe answered:

You believe in evolution, and think that the first humans came from the apes, that means that according to you, as time goes by humans are becoming less ape and more human, that is why your grandson is more human then you because you are closer to your ape ancestors then your grandson, and you acknowledge this, and offer assistance and help to your grandson.

While I believe that I was created by God, and the first human being was the most perfect creature that God had created, his Magnum Opus of his creation, that means that I since I'm older then my grandson, I'm closer to that first Great Human being, and my grandson is more distance cause he came after me, therefore its befitting that my grandson will serve me and not the other way around.

This story is a major philosophical eye opener on how one looks at the world with the correct understanding of context.

People today just don't know the grandeur of the great people of past generations, lets not kid ourselves they were way more, and I stress way more greater then us, in every way possible. As time goes progresses from ancient times towards nowadays, this progression is nothing more then distancing ourselves from the true potential and capacity of what people back then could do. Whatever they did we just cant do today, we can't be prophets, we cant be such Great thinking men as the great men of past generations.

Remember that today some people are impressed by scientists that possess one or two academic degrees.
But can any scientist today can measure up to the Rambam?

The Rambam , Rabbi Moshe Ben Mimon , otherwise known in the secular world as Maimonides, was one of the greatest Jewish Rabbis in history, and he lived only about 850 years ago in Spain.

He surrounded all the wisdoms:

*A great Torah Giant

A doctor of Kings

A famous world renowned philosopher

A master mathematician

A great astronomer and astrologer.

A prolific author of Ground breaking Works such as 'The Mighty Hand' a detailed codification of the entire Jewish corpus of Law, a phenomenal achievement.

He wrote 4 books on medicine which I had the privilege to hold in my hands and read some of its great content, and which until this very day universities all around the world still study.

He authored the world famous book on philosophy ' The Guide to the perplexed'.*

Can any scientist of today or past age, stand up to him?

He would be greatly overshadowed and overtaken by the greatness of Maimonides.

And one doesn't even have to venture back to the Great Giants of the Talmud.

In my younger days while studying in the Yeshiva in Queens NY, I had the privilege to strike up a conversation with a Sephardic Rabbi who studied in YU university (Yeshiva University, a prominent Rabbinical and Secular University in NYC). He had told me that when he was 19 years old, none other the Einstein himself paid a visit to his class to deliver a lecture. He said that he was very impressed by the brilliance of Einstein, but he still was not a match to the Lubavitcher Rebbe, who he also had the privilege to meet.

The Lubavitcher Rebbe knew the entire Talmud word by word with its immediate 'on -page' commentaries by 14. He spoke over 10 languages and could read and understand Old French Poetry. The Rebbe is a Master of Kabbalah, the most hidden and most difficult part of the Torah. In short he knows the entire Torah of Moses , every book about the Torah sits in his heart and mind, (we are talking about tens of thousands of books). Besides his phenomenal achievements in the Torah, he was a brilliant master of mathematics, and science studying in the university of Sarbon, France.

The Rebbe is from our Generations, but given his amazing grandeur, he still didn't come close to Maimonides of 850 years ago, and no one is even going back to the Giants of the Talmud.

So yes, there are Great people that lived in our generation, musicians, scientists, and Theologians and religious leaders, but they are way far from the Era of Great revelation and communication between God and people, where that communication was evident on a daily basis, I'm talking about Prophecy.

So all we have to do is look at the past and honor the Greats, lets humble ourselves to those who really lived in almost a different existence, so much is hidden today from humanity because the deterioration of humanity, morality, and way of life.

We Jews pray for the coming of the Messianic Era where God will reveal himself to us, and we together with the rest of humanity will know him.


----------



## MJTTOMB

Grandeur? I see nothing grand about a warrior-tribe of Israelites running around the Middle East thousands of years ago committing genocide on essentially every unfortunate civilization they happened to brush shoulders against. Not to mention the fact that they kidnapped the women from these societies and enslaved them through marriage, all in the name of their jealous and angry God.


----------



## Guest

What were the great advances in the sciences that Maimonides put forward? As I understand it, he was a gifted physician, but not really a pioneer, so much as a chronicler of the wisdom of that time.

In comparison, we have Pasteur - he developed cures for anthrax and rabies and gave us the process of pasteurization which allows all of us to go down to the store and buy milk without fear of drinking something contaminated. How many lives have been saved thanks to Pasteur's "inferior" accomplishments?

What about Sir Isaac Newton? He made incredible discoveries in the fields of gravity, physics, mathematics, and optics, most of which are still relevant more than 280 years after he died.

Einstein?

Granted, none of these men were rabbinic scholars, but where in Judaic tradition is it stated that rabbinic wisdom automatically makes one the ultimate scholar of everything? Does the wisdom also extend to other areas - do they still have to take their cars to get repaired like everybody else, or does it not extend that far?


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

MJTTOMB said:


> Grandeur? I see nothing grand about a warrior-tribe of Israelites running around the Middle East thousands of years ago committing genocide on essentially every unfortunate civilization they happened to brush shoulders against. Not to mention the fact that they kidnapped the women from these societies and enslaved them through marriage, all in the name of their jealous and angry God.


Well I guess John Adams the Second President of the United States was a mute and didn't know what he was talking about when he said and wrote famously:

*"I will insist the Hebrews have [contributed] more to civilize men than any other nation. If I was an atheist and believed in blind eternal fate, I should still believe that fate had ordained the Jews to be the most essential instrument for civilizing the nations ...

They are the most glorious nation that ever inhabited this Earth. The Romans and their empire were but a bubble in comparison to the Jews. They have given religion to three-quarters of the globe and have influenced the affairs of mankind more and more happily than any other nation, ancient or modern."

- John Adams, Second President of the United States
(From a letter to F. A. Van der Kemp [Feb. 16, 1808] Pennsylvania Historical Society*http://www.simpletoremember.com/jewish/blog/john-adams-and-the-jews/

Please dont let me start with the huge list...


----------



## MJTTOMB

Do you have any intelligible, original ideas, or do you just mindlessly copy and paste quotes that you think are moderately relevant to the subject?

Why do I care what John Adams thought about the ancient Israelites?


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

MJTTOMB said:


> Do you have any intelligible, original ideas, or do you just mindlessly copy and paste quotes that you think are moderately relevant to the subject?
> 
> Why do I care what John Adams thought about the ancient Israelites?


This was really a weak argument Mr. Triplet, I'm sure that you can do better then that.

Dogging down the subject and then using evasive tactics because you really don't have anything to say is hardly deserving of a response, but I responded anyways, out of some respect to you.

If I wouldn't care about what The Second President of the United States have said about my people, and if I wouldn't care about all the other wonderful things that other great world famous people have said about them, why would I care about what you say?

Are you any better then them all?

Even you know that you're not.

You kinda remind me of the futile attempt of Aramis at 'questioning' Mendelssohn's prodigious abilities.
I mean where is the wisdom in trying to discredit something that is so obvious and factual?

Why would anyone today try to convince people that the world is flat?

Wouldn't that be outrageously foolish and pointless?


----------



## Guest

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> This was really a weak argument Mr. Triplet, I'm sure that you can do better then that.
> 
> Dogging down the subject and then using evasive tactics because you really don't have anything to say is hardly deserving of a response, but I responded anyways, out of some respect to you.
> 
> If I wouldn't care about what The Second President of the United States have said about my people, and if I wouldn't care about all the other wonderful things that other great world famous people have said about them, why would I care about what you say?
> 
> Are you any better then them all?
> 
> Even you know that you're not.
> 
> You kinda remind me of the futile attempt of Aramis at 'questioning' Mendelssohn's prodigious abilities.
> I mean where is the wisdom in trying to discredit something that is so obvious and factual?
> 
> Why would anyone today would try to convince people that the world is flat?
> 
> Wouldn't that be outrageously foolish and pointless?


Remind me - is your presence here on this forum to discuss music or to forward the idea of the superior accomplishments of the Jewish people throughout the ages?


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

DrMike said:


> Remind me - is your presence here on this forum to discuss music or to forward the idea of the superior accomplishments of the Jewish people throughout the ages?


If you don't like the way the discussion on my thread is going about, no one is forcing you to participate. So if you so choose, You can leave.

I'm discussing things as they emerge in the flow of the conversation, there are no ulterior motives, here, and btw, no one is stopping you from presenting the superiority of your people if you choose so, whether intentionally or not.

And to hear this accusation from a Christian who believes that a Jew can be God himself, is rather hypocritical.

I mean, if Jews can be God, doesn't that pretty much proves their superiority over all things and beings?

Well as the Old Saying Goes :

"You said it First"…


----------



## Sid James

I think I'll just reach for my vomit bucket (the way this thread is going & the other one started by you?)...


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Andre said:


> I think I'll just reach for my vomit bucket (the way this thread is going & the other one started by you?)...


This is an internet website, nothing more.

You need to take things easy, relax.

The conversation began with music, traveled on some different topics, then it came to religion, and it would go back to music, and so on, what's the point in participating on a forum, if you just cant bare an alternative point of view on things?

I personally love exchanging ideas and different points of view and different opinions, even if they counter mine.


----------



## Guest

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> If you don't like the way the discussion on my thread is going about, no one is forcing you to participate. So if you so choose, You can leave.
> 
> I'm discussing things as they emerge in the flow of the conversation, there are no ulterior motives, here, and btw, no one is stopping you from presenting the superiority of your people if you choose so, whether intentionally or not.
> 
> And to hear this accusation from a Christian who believes that a Jew can be God himself, is rather hypocritical.
> 
> I mean, if Jews can be God, doesn't that pretty much proves their superiority over all things and beings?
> 
> Well as the Old Saying Goes :
> 
> "You said it First"…


:lol:
Ahh, where to begin?
Christianity is a religion, not an ethnic group. Jews can be Christians. My belief is that we are all children of God, and that our ultimate potential is based more on what we do, and not from whom we came.

To say that I am hypocritical because I believe Christ to be the son of God as a Jew is incomprehensible. And because Christ was a Jew does not then impart superiority to the entire race. A Jew can be an incredible doctor. That does not then imply that all Jews can be incredible doctors. A Jew can be an incredible composer. That does not then imply that all Jews can be incredible composers.

You tout the amazing accomplishments of the Jews. What of their depths as well? What of their cycles of falling into idolatry, even so far as sacrificing their own children to the gods of other nations? That their wickedness at times led to their destruction as a nation - Saul lost the kingdom to his posterity because of his unrighteousness. David had a man sent to his death to cover up his adultery. Solomon's posterity lost half the kingdom because they strayed from God's commandments. Ultimately the entire kingdom was overrun and the people were transplanted to another land for their disobedience. While Moses was communing with God, the people were beseeching Aaron to create an idol for them to worship. Their wickedness in the wilderness resulted in their wandering for 40 years, with that generation not being allowed to enter the promised land. Judah himself was complicit in selling his own brother into slavery out of jealousy. What does all of this mean regarding Jews? Nothing. The fact is, we each are responsible for our own actions, and can't simply tout our pedigree as some source of inherent superiority - isn't that at the heart of anti-semitism? A belief that the ancestry of a person determines their inherent worth?


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

DrMike said:


> :lol:
> Ahh, where to begin?
> Christianity is a religion, not an ethnic group. Jews can be Christians. My belief is that we are all children of God, and that our ultimate potential is based more on what we do, and not from whom we came.
> 
> To say that I am hypocritical because I believe Christ to be the son of God as a Jew is incomprehensible. And because Christ was a Jew does not then impart superiority to the entire race. A Jew can be an incredible doctor. That does not then imply that all Jews can be incredible doctors. A Jew can be an incredible composer. That does not then imply that all Jews can be incredible composers.
> 
> You tout the amazing accomplishments of the Jews. What of their depths as well? What of their cycles of falling into idolatry, even so far as sacrificing their own children to the gods of other nations? That their wickedness at times led to their destruction as a nation - Saul lost the kingdom to his posterity because of his unrighteousness. David had a man sent to his death to cover up his adultery. Solomon's posterity lost half the kingdom because they strayed from God's commandments. Ultimately the entire kingdom was overrun and the people were transplanted to another land for their disobedience. While Moses was communing with God, the people were beseeching Aaron to create an idol for them to worship. Their wickedness in the wilderness resulted in their wandering for 40 years, with that generation not being allowed to enter the promised land. Judah himself was complicit in selling his own brother into slavery out of jealousy. What does all of this mean regarding Jews? Nothing. The fact is, we each are responsible for our own actions, and can't simply tout our pedigree as some source of inherent superiority - isn't that at the heart of anti-semitism? A belief that the ancestry of a person determines their inherent worth?


Virtually every point you made was wrong, but I don't blame you, because you were fed by your Christian handlers from a very young age, complete historical inaccuracies and distortions.

King David was not an Adulterer simply because Jewish Law says that before the Men go to war they must divorce their wives, and upon their return they can marry them again. When Bat Sheva's husband left for battle he divorced his wife, therefore technically King David didn't have improper relationships with her, because she had no husband at that time.

Also Uriah, her Husband was a 'Mored Bamalchut' meaning he rebelled against the Stature of David as the King of Israel. According to Jewish Law, a King cant forgive this kind of rebellion on his crown, and he must kill the perpetrator. Therefore King David arranged to send Uriah deep into the battle so he would die fighting for Israel in honor and not be killed in shame as a result of a capital punishment.

So why did God get upset at King David about this incident?

Because the way the whole thing developed didn't befit a King so great as King David, as Jewish Sources say that God is extremely careful with his calculations when it comes to his Saints.

Also King Saul didn't lose his Kinghood because of his "unrighteousness". King Saul was a Prophet and one of the most righteous Leaders of the Jewish people, he didn't follow one of the Commandments of God, which was to completely destroy the Tribe of Amalek, he later on admitted his sin and was forgiven by God, but he lost the Crown to King David nevertheless.

That's what happens when you base your words on ignorance, you call out on the Greatest of Men, the Messiahs of God, "adulterer" and "unrighteousness", I think you should ask forgiveness from God today before you to sleep for slandering his two great Servants, the Holy King David and King Saul.

And as to your accusation that the 'Jews created the Golden Calf while Moses was on the Mountain'.

You should know a basic law when reading the Torah, something that every Jewish child knows, but you have a problem you don't know Hebrew, and since that's the case, for you the word 'AM' and 'Beni Israel' don't make any difference because the English Translation makes you believe that this is the same people, the Jews.

Well these are not the same words.

AM = The Gentile population that came out with the Jews after witnessing their miraculous salvation.

Beni Israel = The Actual Children of Israel, the Jews themselves.

What word the Torah use when describing those who made the Calf?

AM.

The Jews never did the Golden Calf, it was the pagans that came out with them, but the Jews also got punished for the crimes of the pagans, because the Jews didn't protest, but the actual forming of the calf was made by non-Jewish Hands…

And I don't even want to continue with the rest of the ignorant things you said, because I think you got the picture.

Please return to me and talk to me about religion, after you get your facts straight, but if you don't know you can ask, and I can help you understand to the best of my ability, but to come here and say that the Jews did this and that, and King David did this and that, and that the Jews got punished without understanding the context of things, is not really productive to the discussion.


----------



## Krummhorn

This is not the forum for discussing religion ... those exist elsewhere and have no place on this site. 

We have such a diverse population of different nationalities and just as many different religious beliefs or non-beliefs. 

Discussions on religion will get absolutely nowhere here, and have had nasty results ... so let's keep our discussions within the confines of music. 

Thank You


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Krummhorn said:


> This is not the forum for discussing religion ... those exist elsewhere and have no place on this site.
> 
> We have such a diverse population of different nationalities and just as many different religious beliefs or non-beliefs.
> 
> Discussions on religion will get absolutely nowhere here, and have had nasty results ... so let's keep our discussions within the confines of music.
> 
> Thank You


I'm ok with that.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Well, I almost missed this interesting thread.

Regarding the music by the artist/composer/whatever named Saul Dzorelashvili. I listened to the two pieces of music of his in the earlier pages of this thread. I think the music presented is lackluster, boring and fails to convey any form of emotion (which is perhaps surpising, given that the composer appears to promote his music as "traditional" and appears to very broadly dismiss whole generations of composers). 

I'm in between flights at the moment during the holiday season, and I certainly haven't got the time nor inclination to read the lengthy discussions about Judaism and religion, which I have quickly gleaned through, and found it bizzare to have it all mingled up in a thread like this. It certainly doesn't strike one as taking the composer's music any more seriously than the manner of presentation found in this thread. Tis the holiday season afterall; indeed, strange things can happen.

As for the composer himself, any manager promoting his music these days would seriously recommend him adopt a "professional name" to replace the surname, which is difficult to spell and arduous to pronounce. No disrespect, but the industry is not an easy one for a young aspiring composer.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Hey Handel,

Like Khachaturian and Rachmaninoff are supposed to be any better?

If they managed to sell their drivels, I'm sure that I would too...

Even short names are strange...

Elgar sounds like a razor, Chopin are you going shopping?

Liszt, list, Bach...'I'll be Bach'... 

Beethoven sounds like beets salad... and the list goes on...

I'm sure you can Handle it....


----------



## MJTTOMB

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> Hey Handel,
> 
> Like Khachaturian and Rachmaninoff are supposed to be any better?
> 
> If they managed to sell their drivels, I'm sure that I would too...
> 
> Even short names are strange...
> 
> Elgar sounds like a razor, Chopin are you going shopping?
> 
> Liszt, list, Bach...'I'll be Bach'...
> 
> Beethoven sounds like beets salad... and the list goes on...
> 
> I'm sure you can Handle it....


I've come to the conclusion that you're a troll.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

MJTTOMB said:


> I've come to the conclusion that you're a troll.


I'm happy you have reached this great milestone.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Playing some Bach


----------



## Rasa

Way to go, mr. Claydermann


----------



## Sanctus Petrus

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> Playing some Bach


I hear you simplified some of Bach's intricate harmonic marches.
You also showed that one does not need to stick to original melody nor rythm.
I think this will make the music more accessible for everyone.
Keep up the good work.


----------



## MJTTOMB

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> Playing some Bach


Aah, it's beautiful. It reminds me of Wagner.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Thank you Sanctus, for your comments, though I believe that at some moments the harmony that I created with this piece is a little more complex then Bach's.

Here is a an arrangement I made of some of Grieg's Music...

Best Wishes,

Saul


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Poem for Piano


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Performing my Fantasi In D minor for Solo Piano.

This is a very early work, but a recent recording.

Regards,

Saul


__
https://soundcloud.com/sauldzorelashvili%2Ffantasy-in-d-minor-for-solo-piano


----------



## ricardo_jvc6

the last 2 musics we're good.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

ricardo_jvc6 said:


> the last 2 musics we're good.


Thank you Ricardo!


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

My *Caprice in A minor*, score included.

It does require above avrage technique for the piano.

*Allegro Apassionato*


----------



## emiellucifuge

In general I like it. good melody and some nice harmonic touches.

However, go easy on the big crashing chords!


----------



## MJTTOMB

emiellucifuge said:


> In general I like it. good melody and some nice harmonic touches.
> 
> However, go easy on the big crashing chords!


I'm with emiellucifuge on this one, nice piece but about halfway through I began to get tired of the pounding block chords. Maybe experiment with some other accompaniment patterns. On the bright side, the passage at the very end was a nice refreshing relief from the hail of eighth note block chords in the left hand.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

MJTTOMB said:


> I'm with emiellucifuge on this one, nice piece but about halfway through I began to get tired of the pounding block chords. Maybe experiment with some other accompaniment patterns. On the bright side, the passage at the very end was a nice refreshing relief from the hail of eighth note block chords in the left hand.


You are both correct with your criticism on this piece. This is the only piece where I get the same feedback by everyone. Nice melodies , interesting ideas, but then the 'overdone' left hand accompaniment. As you might of guessed, this music was not meant to be 'beautiful', its a very direct piece of music, not really dreamy or Romantic, but like something that one wants to say, and he wants to say it in the most blunt and direct way, without any beautifications. I believe Beethoven has a number of those pieces that one would say that they are not necessarily beautiful, but very direct.

But the main point is, the left hand chords are actually music, not the most beautiful music I grant you, but its not there because of a lack of alternative, but because I felt that I could best express what I wanted to say with this piece, by writing it like this.

Yes its a flaw in composition, but there is nothing that I can do about it, its entirely possible to 'romanticize' the left hand , but that would cause the music to lose its point.

I wonder what others would have done under a similar situation...


----------



## emiellucifuge

Yes, I understand. I suppose in quite the same manner I might choose to write in a serial method.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

emiellucifuge said:


> Yes, I understand. I suppose in quite the same manner I might choose to write in a serial method.


But how?...


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Prelude for Solo Guitar In D major - Allegro


__
https://soundcloud.com/sauldzorelashvili%2Fprelude-for-solo-guitar-in-d-major


----------



## MJTTOMB

A bit mundane, and if I were a guitarist I'd much prefer to stick to the works of Villa-lobos.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

MJTTOMB said:


> A bit mundane, and if I were a guitarist I'd much prefer to stick to the works of Villa-lobos.


Why stick with only him?

Here's a work for Harp in C major, Andante.


__
https://soundcloud.com/sauldzorelashvili%2Fwork-for-harp-in-c-major


----------



## emiellucifuge

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> But how?...


I dont quite understand your question?


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

emiellucifuge said:


> I dont quite understand your question?


Hi,

I meant to say that how are you going to reconcile between these two very opposite styles. This piece is a classical work, and you want to rewrite it using the 12 tone system that Schoenberg invented... how are you going to do that?


----------



## emiellucifuge

No no no, thats not what I meant at all!
I was comparing your argument for using those block chords to a potential reason to write twelve tone music.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

emiellucifuge said:


> No no no, thats not what I meant at all!
> I was comparing your argument for using those block chords to a potential reason to write twelve tone music.


I see, meaning that who cares about beauty , as long as one can express himself fully, he shouldn't stick to classical styles...I think that this is what you're getting at.

But I said that this work was a special situation, and I needed to write in strict method, but that doesn't mean that all my works would be like that...


----------



## emiellucifuge

Yes precisely, I believe composers should write how they like and that applies to you also.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

emiellucifuge said:


> Yes precisely, I believe composers should write how they like and that applies to you also.


Of course they can write how they like and want, but I believe they should be encouraged to compose in more classical romantic styles, because I believe these styles are way more superior then the modern form of writing.

This is an opinion.


----------



## Jean Christophe Paré

Yet you keep on shoving it down our throats and calling modern forms "mindless" and "crap" - though I wouldn't be sure of the exact words you used - instead of just saying you do not like them.

Your Neo-Romanticism is touching, but Romanticism's relativism also included respect for other forms and a desire of exploring new forms - it certainly would have included atonality and its likes, at least philosophically.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Jean Christophe Paré said:


> Yet you keep on shoving it down our throats and calling modern forms "mindless" and "crap" - though I wouldn't be sure of the exact words you used - instead of just saying you do not like them.
> 
> Your Neo-Romanticism is touching, but Romanticism's relativism also included respect for other forms and a desire of exploring new forms - it certainly would have included atonality and its likes, at least philosophically.


The correct words were 'drivel' and 'pointless'.

I'm entitled to my opinion.

And you need to relax....:tiphat::trp:


----------



## Guest

Nothing in the arts or sciences ever stays static - in art, as in nature, to stay still is to die. Sure, we hearken back to some of the relevant lessons of the past that are still applicable, but we don't blindly adhere to everything that is past. We take the good and discard the rest. As we advance, sometimes we may head down dead-end streets, and we have to go back a bit to get back on course, but that doesn't mean a complete reversal. We can revere creations and ideas of the past for the genius that they were, but what is the point in endlessly recreating them? Was Beethoven interested in merely recapitulating what so many others had done? New ideas and new capabilities drive new compositions. We can look back in nostalgia on things of the past, and fret that "they don't make 'em like they used to," but while complexity and modernity can produce some things that are garbage, or useless, there are so many other ways they enhance everything.

In the classical period, many people harkened back to the ideas and the architecture of the greeks and romans - but they incorporated those things into their new ideas, rather than copy them perfectly. 

Music shouldn't be static. How bland would the music selection be were we to arbitrarily pick a certain person's favorite period and make it the line in the sand - no new ideas beyond this point, anything new will be labeled drivel. That isn't to say that we have to accept all new ideas - composers should still be held to the standard of writing quality or having their work ignored and forgotten. But nothing in life can remain static. Nature and life are in constant motion. Each new stage sacrifices some of the benefits of the previous while adding new ones.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

For me Bach sounds more complex then the trumpet battles of Mahler and Bartok.

Big sound and high volume and many instruments is not what I call 'complex'.

You're theory would have been correct if music since Bach got more advanced, it didn't , just the opposite had happened, it was broken down, separated, and simplified.

Many Voices working together, to achieve a purpose, in harmony, coming together in beauty, peacefulness, and love, not harmonic showmanship like Liszt, who drilled the piano and turned it into some kind of a Greek Sport.

Don't let those Gigantic chords fool you, there's more to music then hype.

*Bach*






*Mendelssohn* created in this music extreme complexity while following the steps of the Greats. Liszt didn't write anything more complex then this work. Its entirely possible to generate complexity and innovation, and new ideas while staying classical.


----------



## Aksel

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> For me Bach sounds more complex then the trumpet battles of Mahler and Bartok.
> 
> Big sound and high volume and many instruments is not what I call 'complex'.
> 
> You're theory would have been correct if music since Bach got more advanced, it didn't , just the opposite had happened, it was broken down, separated, and simplified.
> 
> Many Voices working together, to achieve a purpose, in harmony, coming together in beauty, peacefulness, and love, not harmonic showmanship like Liszt, who drilled the piano and turned it into some kind of a Greek Sport.
> 
> Don't let those Gigantic chords fool you, there's more to music then hype.
> 
> [REMOVED YOUTUBE VIDEOS]
> 
> *Mendelssohn* created in this music extreme complexity while following the steps of the Greats. Liszt didn't write anything more complex then this work. Its entirely possible to generate complexity and innovation, and new ideas while staying classical.


You do seem to throw around the word classical quite a lot. Can you please define it? Because I don't think we have the same definition.

And yes, after Bach, music got simpler. It got simpler during Bach as well. Bach - Johann Sebastian, that is - was, after all a stylistic dinosaur in his time. But after music got simpler, it got more complex again. It's all in cycles.


----------



## Guest

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> For me Bach sounds more complex then the trumpet battles of Mahler and Bartok.
> 
> Big sound and high volume and many instruments is not what I call 'complex'.
> 
> You're theory would have been correct if music since Bach got more advanced, it didn't , just the opposite had happened, it was broken down, separated, and simplified.
> 
> Many Voices working together, to achieve a purpose, in harmony, coming together in beauty, peacefulness, and love, not harmonic showmanship like Liszt, who drilled the piano and turned it into some kind of a Greek Sport.
> 
> Don't let those Gigantic chords fool you, there's more to music then hype.
> 
> *Bach*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Mendelssohn*


You really believe that Bach represents the most advanced of all music, and that after him, music became more simplistic? Yes, there were virtuoso composers who no doubt wrote to showcase their abilities, but the choices are not between Bach and Liszt, or Bach and Bartok, or Bach and Mahler. Beyond Bach you have Haydn, the father of the string quartet and the symphony. You have Beethoven. You have Brahms. You have Wagner (setting aside your own personal lack of fondness for him, he is generally viewed as a very influential individual in music). And virtuosity does not mean that a piece cannot be beautiful. Rachmaninoff was a piano virtuoso, and wrote his music for himself to play, and yet his 2nd piano concerto is a very beautiful piece. There is also Schubert, Berlioz, Bruckner, Tchaikovsky, Elgar, Barber, Mendelssohn, Schumann, Mozart . . . I could go on. You create these false dichotomies - either there is Bach, or there is Mahler. But the gap between those two is so vast, it is ridiculous to compare.

You rail against Mahler so much - I can point to numerous works of his that are incredibly beautiful - his Lieder, for one. The Urlicht movement of his 2nd symphony is a thing of beauty. Or what of Beethoven's 15th string quartet? Incredibly beautiful.

If we were to eliminate everything beyond Bach, we would be cutting out so much that is wonderful.


----------



## Guest

Saul, your desire to force all composers into a narrow window of what you deem not "drivel" is bringing to mind a movie my children like to watch - Dr. Seuss' Horton Hears a Who. In the movie version, the mayor of Whoville has grand designs for his only son, Jojo, to follow in his footsteps as the next mayor, just as every male in the family has been going back for many generations. But Jojo wants something else. In a moment of seeming open-mindedness, and thinking that he is encouraging his son to strive for whatever will make him happy, he magnanimously declares that Jojo is absolutely free to live his own life - he can be whatever kind of mayor he wants to be.

And so it is with you - you claim to support whatever a composer wishes to compose, but really you don't believe it. You totally support a person's desire to write whatever kind of "classical" music they like, and anything outside of that is automatically drivel and pointless. Your idols - Bach and Mendelssohn - did write masterpieces. But they represented the end of movements. Bach was the pinnacle of baroque (not classical), but after him, there was no place else to go, so music went in a new direction. Mendelssohn tried to keep his foot in the classical period, with some features of romanticism, but the world had moved on.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

There is a misconception in the classical music world about the notion that music composed in our days must reflect our time.

I don’t know where this baby came from, but I just don’t think its correct or even applied, its sort of a hypocrisy. 

If music composed today must reflect our age, then why listen to anything that was composed before our life time? Why listen to Bach, Mozart, Brahms, or Beethoven.

They are after all a thing of the past, their music bares no association with us, and they never met us, knew us , understood us, or had anything to do with us. So why bother.

This is one hypocrisy.

Secondly,

Composers since time immemorial composed their music based on biblical inspiration, or other historical events, Handel’s Chanukah for example, His King Saul, his Queen Sheba, Mendelssohn’s Elijah, and many other examples where composers were inspired by the events of history….

Wait a minute? doesn’t music suppose to represent the present age, why venture back to the annals of history and base your music on pass ages?

That is the second hypocrisy.

Now lets talk about Mahler and Wagner, Mahler followed Wagner’s music, period, both were champions of the Germanic Music. I don’t have anything against Mahler for choosing this path, but I dislike German music that was written with Nationalistic Pomp. Had Wagner kept his mouth shut and his pen in his pocket and didn’t spend so much time writing diatribe and hate on other people, I would have looked on German National music more favorably, but since ‘Hate’ is so strongly associated with it, I don’t care for it.

Its also important to mention that towards the end of his years, Mahler found strong connection in Bach’s music, and Bach became his favorite composer towards the end of his life.

I guess he came to the obvious conclusion that in music you don’t need to yell from the top of your lungs in order to express your voice and be heard, but rather things have to be done with a greater care, thoughtfulness, and context. I guess he came to understand this in the end.

Now somebody asked what I mean by ‘Classical’.

To me classical music, is music written by Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Mendelssohn, Weber, Hummel, Brahms, Grieg, Chopin, Schumann, Rubinstein, Sibelius, Korsakov, Tchaikovsky and a number of other composers.

After Bach these composers wrote the music in the classical style, meaning their music sounds classical, of course some were more faithful to the style, then others, but generally these are the major classical composers.

After the 1900’s composers began to compose music, but not ‘Classical music’.

This was a grave mistake, because music became way less great, beautiful, innovative, and meaningful, and I believe that if they would have composed their music in the classical music style, they would have produced great masterpieces.


----------



## MJTTOMB

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> To me classical music, is music written by Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Mendelssohn, Weber, Hummel, Brahms, Grieg, Chopin, Schumann, Rubinstein, Sibelius, Korsakov, Tchaikovsky and a number of other composers.


Possibly one of the most ignorant statements you've made yet, Saul. I look forward to seeing you try to top this one.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

MJTTOMB said:


> Possibly one of the most ignorant statements you've made yet, Saul. I look forward to seeing you try to top this one.


Oh Sorry, you're right, they are pop singers, I was wrong, how dare I call them classical composers...


----------



## MJTTOMB

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> Oh Sorry, you're right, they are pop singers, I was wrong, how dare I call them classical composers...


Not that, how dare you discredit all music that does not fit within your exceptionally narrow understanding of the world of classical music.

Classical music is an expansive term covering everything from Palestrina to Cage, whether you happen to enjoy all of it or not.


----------



## Aksel

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> There is a misconception in the classical music world about the notion that music composed in our days must reflect our time.
> 
> I don't know where this baby came from, but I just don't think its correct or even applied, its sort of a hypocrisy.


Music reflects our own time like it always has. Art imitates life. 
Why do you think Bach's music is so complex as it is? It wasn't because he was divinely inspired by some deity to write it; it was simply the fashion, just as ornate sculptures and powdered wigs were. The complexity of his music simply shows that he wrote for a sophisticated audience that appreciated such complexity.
Grieg's compositions are full of folk music from Norway and is very clearly very nationalistic. They were composed in a time where the Norwegian national spirit was a very important part of the Norwegian mindset. Norway yearned for freedom from the Swedes, and because of this, Norwegian culture was worshiped. Post-1848 Europe was all about building new nations, and for that, people needed a cultural identity.
Won't you say that these are all examples of music reflecting the current times?



> If music composed today must reflect our age, then why listen to anything that was composed before our life time? Why listen to Bach, Mozart, Brahms, or Beethoven.
> 
> They are after all a thing of the past, their music bares no association with us, and they never met us, knew us , understood us, or had anything to do with us. So why bother.
> 
> This is one hypocrisy.


Of course the music of the past has an association with us. The music of the past is a part of our common cultural heritage. It teaches us about the ideals and ideas of the people that came before us. It also gives a foundation for the arts to further evolve.
And frankly, some of it is rather nice to listen to.

But aren't things of the past different? There is a reason why people still read Jane Austen, you know. Quality work stays.



> Secondly,
> 
> Composers since time immemorial composed their music based on biblical inspiration, or other historical events, Handel's Chanukah for example, His King Saul, his Queen Sheba, Mendelssohn's Elijah, and many other examples were composers were inspired by the events of history….
> 
> Wait a minute? doesn't music suppose to represent the present age, why venture back to the annals of history and base your music on pass ages?
> 
> That is the second hypocrisy.


What, exactly is Händel's Chanukah? I've never heard of it, nor does Google help.
And do you know why Händel wrote oratorios? Because they were popular. People wanted spectacle, something they could not get when the opera houses (where Händel's operas were being performed) were closed, so Händel composed oratorios with biblical settings. 
But of course music inspired by historical events was and is popular. We enjoy learning about the past. And both Händel and Mendelssohn were deeply religious, so I don't see why they shouldn't compose religious music or music inspired by Biblical or other religious events.
And we all draw parallels from history to the present day.



> Now lets talk about Mahler and Wagner, Mahler followed Wagner's music, period, both were champions of the Germanic Music. I don't have anything against Mahler for choosing this path, but I dislike German music that was written with *Nationalistic Pomp*. Had Wagner kept his mouth shut and his pen in his pocket and didn't spend so much time writing diatribe and hate on other people, I would have looked on German National music more favorably, but since 'Hate' is so strongly associated with it, I don't care for it.


Because music at that time isn't deeply nationalistic? Just about every composer under the sun at the time incorporated nationalist elements into their music in some form or another, whether it be by using folk music or by other methods.

I was going to say something about Wagner's antisemitism, but out of fear that this thread might turn into that other one, I'm not.



> Its also important to mention that towards the end of his years, Mahler found strong connection in Bach's music, and Bach became his favorite composer towards the end of his life.


See? Mahler related to Bach. Just like some people find God at an old age, Mahler found Bach.



> I guess he came to the obvious conclusion that in music you don't need to yell from the top of your lungs in order to express your voice and be heard, but rather things have to be done with a greater care, thoughtfulness, and context. I guess he came to understand this in the end.


Mahler isn't all fortissimo, you know.

And what context are you talking about? A religious context? Historical, mayhaps? 
Well, it can't be historic, because music is static and does not change with the times.



> Now somebody asked what I mean by 'Classical'.
> 
> To me classical music, is music written by Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Mendelssohn, Weber, Hummel, Brahms, Grieg, Chopin, Schumann, Rubinstein, Sibelius, Korsakov, Tchaikovsky and a number of other composers.
> 
> After Bach these composers wrote the music in the classical style, meaning their music sounds classical, of course some were more faithful to the style, then others, but generally these are the major classical composers.
> 
> After the 1900's composers began to compose music, but not 'Classical music'.
> 
> This was a grave mistake, because music became way less great, beautiful, innovative, and meaningful, and I believe that if they would have composed their music in the classical music style, they would have produced great masterpieces.


So music written by other composers than Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Mendelssohn, Weber, Hummel, Brahms, Grieg, Chopin, Schumann, Rubinstein, Sibelius, Korsakov, Tchaikovsky and a number of other composers is just drivel, then?
And can you please define this classical style other than that it "_sounds classical_" or that it was faithful to style? Define it objectively, please.

And also, please show me some formal pieces Grieg wrote.

And "_faithful to the style_"? *coughquadruplecoughmeasurecoughmazurkacough*


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

MJTTOMB said:


> Not that, how dare you discredit all music that does not fit within your exceptionally narrow understanding of the world of classical music.
> 
> Classical music is an expansive term covering everything from Palestrina to Cage, whether you happen to enjoy all of it or not.


How dare I?

Freedom of Speech, Freedom of opinion, Freedom of Ideas.

I didn't mean to discredit Palestrina and the other elder composer of the Baroque Era, I just started with Bach, because lets be honest, he is the major figure of the Baroque Era, I'm not going to list every single composer of the Baroque Era, not that all were great, of course, but its useless to single them all out.

And after the 1900, no more classical music, that's right, perhaps very few exceptions.
Though there are composers today that are composing their music in the classical style, and they should also be considered as 'classical composers'. But Rachmaninoff, Bartok, Mahler, Webern , Copeland, Schoenberg, Ligetti, and the other modernists are not classical composers, they are just simply composers.


----------



## Guest

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> There is a misconception in the classical music world about the notion that music composed in our days must reflect our time.
> 
> I don't know where this baby came from, but I just don't think its correct or even applied, its sort of a hypocrisy.
> 
> If music composed today must reflect our age, then why listen to anything that was composed before our life time? Why listen to Bach, Mozart, Brahms, or Beethoven.


Listening to music is one thing - composing is another. Beethoven didn't compose the same music that Bach did, but he may have drawn inspiration from it. We also know that he was influenced by Haydn, but did not copy him. I can read a book written by Dickens, and yet, were I to write one of my own, it would be rather ridiculous to write in his same style and language. You can appreciate the past without having to replicate it.



> Composers since time immemorial composed their music based on biblical inspiration, or other historical events, Handel's Chanukah for example, His King Saul, his Queen Sheba, Mendelssohn's Elijah, and many other examples where composers were inspired by the events of history….
> 
> Wait a minute? doesn't music suppose to represent the present age, why venture back to the annals of history and base your music on pass ages?
> 
> That is the second hypocrisy.


At the time, that is what interested the people. Originally Handel wrote Italian style operas, because that is what people wanted. Then interest in them waned, and people wanted more biblical-themed works. Religion had a stronger hold and a bigger presence in those days, and that is reflected in a great many things. Bach wrote a great deal of works that were religious because he was often employed by churches, and that was required of him. The music represented the interests of the age. It tells us that religion was an integral part of their lives, and thus played a large role in their music. And Biblical stories have always had a huge draw in the arts.



> Now lets talk about Mahler and Wagner, Mahler followed Wagner's music, period, both were champions of the Germanic Music. I don't have anything against Mahler for choosing this path, but I dislike German music that was written with Nationalistic Pomp. Had Wagner kept his mouth shut and his pen in his pocket and didn't spend so much time writing diatribe and hate on other people, I would have looked on German National music more favorably, but since 'Hate' is so strongly associated with it, I don't care for it.
> 
> Its also important to mention that towards the end of his years, Mahler found strong connection in Bach's music, and Bach became his favorite composer towards the end of his life.
> 
> I guess he came to the obvious conclusion that in music you don't need to yell from the top of your lungs in order to express your voice and be heard, but rather things have to be done with a greater care, thoughtfulness, and context. I guess he came to understand this in the end.


While Mahler may have been influenced by the stylistic elements of Wagner, to say that his music was nationalistic is rather absurd. Yes, it was Germanic, and had many similarities to other Germanic composers, but Mahler was Germanic. That's like complaining that Tchaikovsky was too Russian, or Chopin too Polish. And Mahler suffered much of the discrimination you hate Wagner for - even with his conversion to Catholicism. He was never accepted in Vienna, and eventually left and moved to America. His music was banned by the Nazis - hardly the fate of other German National music. Mahler's inspiration was everything around him. His second symphony had as its them resurrection. His Das Lied von der Erde is the setting of Chinese poems to music.



> Now somebody asked what I mean by 'Classical'.
> 
> To me classical music, is music written by Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Mendelssohn, Weber, Hummel, Brahms, Grieg, Chopin, Schumann, Rubinstein, Sibelius, Korsakov, Tchaikovsky and a number of other composers.
> 
> After Bach these composers wrote the music in the classical style, meaning their music sounds classical, of course some were more faithful to the style, then others, but generally these are the major classical composers.
> 
> After the 1900's composers began to compose music, but not 'Classical music'.
> 
> This was a grave mistake, because music became way less great, beautiful, innovative, and meaningful, and I believe that if they would have composed their music in the classical music style, they would have produced great masterpieces.


To summarize your opinion here: anything that you like is classical; anything you don't like is pointless drivel. There is no actual objective measurement in your definition by which we can categorize music. You have such disparate composers as Sibelius and Bach, Haydn and Tchaikovsky. You rail against German national music, but then you list Grieg, who wrote nationalistic music, as did Sibelius, Tchaikovsky, even Haydn (lest we forget that the national anthem that the Nazis marched to was set to music from one of his string quartets?).

Understand - you are entirely within your rights to declare which music you care for and which you don't. But, while "classical" music can be somewhat nebulous a term, there are certainly many broadly accepted terms for the various periods, and only those with very little interest in or appreciation for classical music lump it all into this dichotomy of yours of classical and not classical. You list nobody before Bach. Did "classical" music magically appear with Bach? What about Monteverdi? Vivaldi? Tallis? Palestrina? Des Prez? von Bingen? Telemann? Buxtehude? Biber? You talk about the beauty of interweaving so many voices into one beautiful harmony. What about Tallis' 8-part motet Spem in Alium? What about Byrd? Dowland?


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Well, in my opinion Bach is one of the greatest composers ever, and this is just a fact. If you look at classical music since the Baroque Era all the way to Modern Music, what you would call Atonal music, you will see a slow but constant breaking down of order and consistency. The Baroque Era featured composers such as Bach and Vivaldi who dedicated their art to order, theme, and logic. This means that their music was a reflection of their time and their very selves. 

People back then were more balanced and had more consistency and order in their lives, and their music reflected their way of life and inner being. As time went by, The classical Era still kept the overall order but breached some aspects of the formal laws of music. Then came the Romantic Era, and so another breaking of that form, and more 'freedom' was given to composers to write as they please but even in that time, the formal style was still somewhat intact. But many of today's composers write music that is atonal, meaning void of any formality , they write music of 'come what may be’, even suggesting to put a cat to run over the piano, and the sounds that it produces they call ‘music’ or a ‘composition’. 

We see a slow and gradual breaking of order since that Baroque Era until today. Back then people had more order and harmony in their lives and societies, and their music reflected that. As time went by, people began to feel inner turmoil, inside themselves and in their societies, therefore the music was more ‘free’ in form and gradually as time passed by became less orderly and less formal, breaking down the laws of music because the music reflected their state of being, and the state of the societies they lived in.

One of the reasons that Bach was great is because he was able to produce great and highly spiritual moving music in spite of the dedication to order and harmony, he was great because he kept the laws , and from these adherence to the laws of music he created masterpieces, something that many of today’s composers cant do even though they have all these ‘freedoms’ from the laws of music.

That is why I love Mendelssohn too, for he was a great Baroque and Classical Era lover, and his music was extremely orderly, balanced and consistent. Mendelssohn, just like Bach produced great music precisely because he stuck to the laws of music and to the Spirit of Classical Music. Hector Berlioz famously said that Mendelssohn ‘loved the dead too much’ , meaning that he loved Bach, Handel and Mozart way too much because he wrote his music just like they did, with adherence and respect to the laws of music, in fact one can argue and say that he was the Baroque/Classical composer of the Romantic Era.

Bach, Handel, Vivaldi, Mendelssohn and other Baroque composers are probably the greatest composers that ever lived precisely because they wrote their music in accordance to the laws of music, structure, formality, order, and harmony and all of these things represented their inner peace and harmony, that ’s what makes us love them, because we also yearn and dream to have inner peace and inner harmony which so reflects in these composers’ music.

And this is the main reason why I so dislike modern atonal music. 

Is it not enough that the world today is in such turmoil and confusion, do I also have to add music to be this way, disorderly and mixed up with no sense of logic and direction?
In music I want to find peacefulness and Relaxation, Joy and a Peace of Mind and I don’t want it to remind me of the turmoil that exists in the world, for that we have the media.

Cheers,

Saul


----------



## Aksel

Yes, that is all well and good, Saul. Now that we've established that you don't like modern music (who'da thought?), can you please respond to what has been written about your previous post? 

And by the way, do you feel like this about the other arts? Do paintings still have to be done in the style of Michelangelo? Do we still have to dance Allemandes and Gavottes because waltzes are too modern?


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Aksel said:


> Yes, that is all well and good, Saul. Now that we've established that you don't like modern music (who'da though?), can you please respond to what has been written about your previous post?
> 
> And by the way, do you feel like this about the other arts? Do paintings still have to be done in the style of Michelangelo? Do we still have to dance Allemandes and Gavottes because waltzes are too modern?


I think that I have responded generously by now, and I will try to respond to everyone's comments later on, all of this takes time you know...

And yes, I feel the same about visual arts and also dance.

Face it, human beings today live in more turbulent times, and their music and art reflects that, but who needs this ? music and art should bring us to a higher state of existence, its supposed to unite us all, in peace, and to bring us closer to our creator, and also give us a measure of peace of mind.

These are gifts from God, and we are wasting them on nonsense...


----------



## MJTTOMB

And just because you are unmoved by the works of Ives, Cage, and Schoenberg, the fault is with them? I find modern works very moving. Particularly the works of Roslavets. I'd argue the fault is with the listener for not taking the opportunity to reach a higher state of existence, choosing instead to scoff. If other people can gain deep meaning and reach a higher existence from such music, maybe it's just that you're not trying hard enough.

As a side note, John Cage was a master of zen, and whether you enjoy his music or not he was a highly spiritually enlightened person. His works are almost all spiritually tied in some way.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

And I meant Handel's Judas Maccabeus, which is music written about the Jewish Holiday of Chanukah...


----------



## Guest

Saul - nobody is questioning your ability or right to categorize and judge music for yourself. The problem is that you pass off so much of your opinions as the gospel truth. You state that Bach is the greatest composer ever, and then declare that as fact. You have represented your opinion as undisputed fact, and that is why so many object to your statements. You aren't merely offering opinion, you are trying to set the rules, then when others challenge you, you fall back on your right to an opinion. Everybody has a right to their own opinions, not their own facts. 

Bach was great, but there is simply no objective way to declare a single greatest composer. What criteria do you use to judge this? Volume of output? Popularity? Ingenuity? Originality? Bach composed a lot. So did Telemann - more, in fact. At the time, Bach was a relatively unknown composer, while Telemann had more fame than him. Bach perhaps represented the pinnacle of the Baroque period (not classical - and by the way, baroque is more characterized by complexity and ornamentation) - but he was no great innovator. He mastered counterpoint, but he was not the only person to use counterpoint. Why can't Beethoven claim the title of the greatest composer ever? Many of his symphonies were revolutionary. His string quartets, particularly the later ones, had a large influence on those after him. His Missa Solemnis is a work of religious and musical beauty.

You know what, if you use only your own skewed, biased definition of classical, then yes, I will agree with you, Mahler and post-1900 composers are not "Saul Classical" composers. But the rest of the classical music world, including classical music scholars, people with formal classical music training, and the large majority of non-Saul classical fans, acknowledges more than just your narrow window, and recognizes that there are different periods, and different styles, that can all be counted as classical. You alone can't redefine these things for everybody - you can only define them for yourself.


----------



## Aksel

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> And I meant Handel's Judas Maccabeus, which is music written about the Jewish Holiday of Chanukah...


Ok. I'm not too familiar with Händel's oratorios. I've just heard Messiah in its entirety. But this does sound rather interesting. I might have to give it a listen.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

DrMike said:


> Saul - nobody is questioning your ability or right to categorize and judge music for yourself. The problem is that you pass off so much of your opinions as the gospel truth. You state that Bach is the greatest composer ever, and then declare that as fact. You have represented your opinion as undisputed fact, and that is why so many object to your statements. You aren't merely offering opinion, you are trying to set the rules, then when others challenge you, you fall back on your right to an opinion. Everybody has a right to their own opinions, not their own facts.
> 
> Bach was great, but there is simply no objective way to declare a single greatest composer. What criteria do you use to judge this? Volume of output? Popularity? Ingenuity? Originality? Bach composed a lot. So did Telemann - more, in fact. At the time, Bach was a relatively unknown composer, while Telemann had more fame than him. Bach perhaps represented the pinnacle of the Baroque period (not classical - and by the way, baroque is more characterized by complexity and ornamentation) - but he was no great innovator. He mastered counterpoint, but he was not the only person to use counterpoint. Why can't Beethoven claim the title of the greatest composer ever? Many of his symphonies were revolutionary. His string quartets, particularly the later ones, had a large influence on those after him. His Missa Solemnis is a work of religious and musical beauty.
> 
> You know what, if you use only your own skewed, biased definition of classical, then yes, I will agree with you, Mahler and post-1900 composers are not "Saul Classical" composers. But the rest of the classical music world, including classical music scholars, people with formal classical music training, and the large majority of non-Saul classical fans, acknowledges more than just your narrow window, and recognizes that there are different periods, and different styles, that can all be counted as classical. You alone can't redefine these things for everybody - you can only define them for yourself.


I never said that Bach was the Greatest composer ever. I said that Mendelssohn was the greatest composer ever. And when we are talking about 'greatest', 'best' and 'most beautiful' we can only use opinions. But this discussion is more philosophical by its nature, then a presentation of facts.

Now I guess you gonna ask me why I believe that Mendelssohn is the Greatest composer that ever walked this earth…


----------



## MJTTOMB

Was it because he was Jewish and you relate to that on a personal level, just as you discredit all other music based on personal feelings rather than well-founded, rational conclusions about their music?


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

MJTTOMB said:


> Was it because he was Jewish and you relate to that on a personal level, just as you discredit all other music based on personal feelings rather than well-founded, rational conclusions about their music?


No, Jewishness is a part of it but not the major part of it. Its like the cherry on top of a beautiful and tasty chocolate cake, but first I have to like the actual cake, and I just do!

My first favorite composers were Bach and Chopin, period. But then my mom who was a piano teacher,(I didnt listened to her, until 15 I didn't want to touch a piano) then I found these cassettes of Bach and Mozart and purchased some Chopin music, and then my love of classical music began. After beginning piano lessons my mom told me to give Mendelssohn a chance and listen to his music.

What can I say, after the first moment I listened, I said that this music speaks to my soul, I felt a strong connection and love to the music, I was and still am very passionate about Mendelssohn's music. Jewishness at that stage made no real impression on me, but I just loved the music itself very very much.

There are plenty of Jewish composers that I don't care for, so Religion is something when it comes to loving a composer's work, but its not everything.


----------



## Guest

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> I think that I have responded generously by now, and I will try to respond to everyone's comments later on, all of this takes time you know...
> 
> And yes, I feel the same about visual arts and also dance.
> 
> Face it, human beings today live in more turbulent times, and their music and art reflects that, but who needs this ? music and art should bring us to a higher state of existence, its supposed to unite us all, in peace, and to bring us closer to our creator, and also give us a measure of peace of mind.
> 
> These are gifts from God, and we are wasting them on nonsense...


Human beings today live in more turbulent times? Yes, the times are turbulent, but more than ever before? When was the last time we had a war of such magnitude that it could be called "Hundred Years War," or "Thirty Years War?" How often do we have the plague wipe out a third of the European population, as it did in the 14th century? 
Think of what faced people in the days of the composers you so revere:
Between his two wives, Bach fathered 20 children - only 10 survived to adulthood. Infant mortality was high in his time. Diseases such as smallpox and the plague were always lurking in the background, and could wipe out huge chunks of the population. Diseases that we are slowly forgetting, thanks to vaccines and antibiotics, were very real. Pneumonia could frequently kill. 
Social safety nets were very rare, if even existent. Starvation was very real in what we now think of as first world nations. 
Beginning just shortly after Bach's death, worldwide revolution broke out. America broke with England. France overthrew the monarchy and established a republic. The Holy Roman Empire and the Ottoman Empire were crumbling. Germany was coming into existence from a series of germanic states and principalities. Christianity was fracturing into more and more denominations and sects.

Your compositions are not necessarily of a kind with the composers you so revere. You, yourself, have said that your music is potentially also drivel. You violate the rules of music (referencing the point that has been made that you seem to have ignored the rule regarding what a mazurka is). By your own definition, you are wasting the gifts of God on nonsense. And for someone who holds these things so dearly, if this is such a difficult thing to do, why do you hold such disdain for others who don't live up to such standards? If God has given you the gifts to compose music, and you are wasting them on nonsense, not writing what is pleasing to Him, why are you writing music at all?


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

DrMike said:


> Human beings today live in more turbulent times? Yes, the times are turbulent, but more than ever before? When was the last time we had a war of such magnitude that it could be called "Hundred Years War," or "Thirty Years War?" How often do we have the plague wipe out a third of the European population, as it did in the 14th century?
> Think of what faced people in the days of the composers you so revere:
> Between his two wives, Bach fathered 20 children - only 10 survived to adulthood. Infant mortality was high in his time. Diseases such as smallpox and the plague were always lurking in the background, and could wipe out huge chunks of the population. Diseases that we are slowly forgetting, thanks to vaccines and antibiotics, were very real. Pneumonia could frequently kill.
> Social safety nets were very rare, if even existent. Starvation was very real in what we now think of as first world nations.
> Beginning just shortly after Bach's death, worldwide revolution broke out. America broke with England. France overthrew the monarchy and established a republic. The Holy Roman Empire and the Ottoman Empire were crumbling. Germany was coming into existence from a series of germanic states and principalities. Christianity was fracturing into more and more denominations and sects.
> 
> Your compositions are not necessarily of a kind with the composers you so revere. You, yourself, have said that your music is potentially also drivel. You violate the rules of music (referencing the point that has been made that you seem to have ignored the rule regarding what a mazurka is). By your own definition, you are wasting the gifts of God on nonsense. And for someone who holds these things so dearly, if this is such a difficult thing to do, why do you hold such disdain for others who don't live up to such standards? If God has given you the gifts to compose music, and you are wasting them on nonsense, not writing what is pleasing to Him, why are you writing music at all?


I don't write atonal music, or modern.
True, I don't always follow the rules 100 percent, but I try as much as I can to compose music that sounds and feels classical/romantic.

People back then lived a more spiritual life, they were not exposed to the thousands of detrimental things that technology has to offer...

Remember that technology has a bad side to it as well.


----------



## MJTTOMB

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> I don't write atonal music, or modern.
> True, I don't always follow the rules 100 percent, but I try as much as I can to compose music that sounds and feels classical/romantic.
> 
> People back then lived a more spiritual life, they were not exposed to the thousands of detrimental things that technology has to offer...
> 
> Remember that technology has a bad side to it as well.


Beethoven lived in a run-down apartment and was well-known for leaving his human waste lying around his room.

In their day people commonly threw their own excrement in the street.

If that's a spiritual life, then the apes must be saints.


----------



## Guest

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> Well, in my opinion Bach is one of the greatest composers ever, and this is just a fact.


Do you not see your own contradiction in this statement? First you say that Bach is one of the greatest composer ever, and that is your opinion. But then you elevate your opinion to fact, simply by stating so. I may have misquoted you in saying you declared Bach THE greatest, but the flaw is there, nonetheless. You can't state something as opinion and then declare it as fact. If it is a fact, then your opinion is irrelevant. A fact exists outside of opinion. Facts are testable, verifiable. Water is composed of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. That is a fact. It doesn't matter whether your opinion is that water is 2 hydrogens and 1 oxygen, or 15 carbons, 20 heliums, and 32 lithiums. Opinions are subjective, and dependent on the person sharing the opinion. They aren't necessarily reproducible. Any number of opinions can exist of a particular topic, and all be real to the person, whether they are shared by 1, or many. In my opinion, wheat bread tastes better than white bread. I can say that. I can't say that it is a fact that wheat bread tastes better than white bread because taste is not universal, and different people have different tastes. Water will always be H20. Wheat bread will not taste better than white bread to every single person.

You too often confuse your opinions for facts. Declaring a "winner" or "winners" for the title of best classical music composer is simply absurd. A large percentage of the global population, from the first person until now, has never heard Bach. Would they all have the same opinion? People from non-western cultures have their own musical styles that have huge differences with the "rules" of western classical music that you somehow think are universal. What of Asian music? They might find Bach unlistenable. They might despise him as much as you despise Mahler. Perhaps fundamentalist Muslim cultures might despise Bach for his overt Christian themes in much of his music - just as you despise Wagner for his anti-semitic attitudes and overt German nationalism.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

DrMike said:


> Do you not see your own contradiction in this statement? First you say that Bach is one of the greatest composer ever, and that is your opinion. But then you elevate your opinion to fact, simply by stating so. I may have misquoted you in saying you declared Bach THE greatest, but the flaw is there, nonetheless. You can't state something as opinion and then declare it as fact. If it is a fact, then your opinion is irrelevant. A fact exists outside of opinion. Facts are testable, verifiable. Water is composed of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. That is a fact. It doesn't matter whether your opinion is that water is 2 hydrogens and 1 oxygen, or 15 carbons, 20 heliums, and 32 lithiums. Opinions are subjective, and dependent on the person sharing the opinion. They aren't necessarily reproducible. Any number of opinions can exist of a particular topic, and all be real to the person, whether they are shared by 1, or many. In my opinion, wheat bread tastes better than white bread. I can say that. I can't say that it is a fact that wheat bread tastes better than white bread because taste is not universal, and different people have different tastes. Water will always be H20. Wheat bread will not taste better than white bread to every single person.
> 
> You too often confuse your opinions for facts. Declaring a "winner" or "winners" for the title of best classical music composer is simply absurd. A large percentage of the global population, from the first person until now, has never heard Bach. Would they all have the same opinion? People from non-western cultures have their own musical styles that have huge differences with the "rules" of western classical music that you somehow think are universal. What of Asian music? They might find Bach unlistenable. They might despise him as much as you despise Mahler. Perhaps fundamentalist Muslim cultures might despise Bach for his overt Christian themes in much of his music - just as you despise Wagner for his anti-semitic attitudes and overt German nationalism.


I dont know why you had to write all that, but I have said it already a number of times, very clearly that these are my opinions.

Trust me I really mean it!


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

MJTTOMB said:


> Beethoven lived in a run-down apartment and was well-known for leaving his human waste lying around his room.
> 
> In their day people commonly threw their own excrement in the street.
> 
> If that's a spiritual life, then the apes must be saints.


Beethoven was a little crazy ( no secret by any standard).

We never bring an example from people like that to a general state of the spirituality of all the people of that time. But even he lived in a time where spirituality had a stronger hold and place in people's lives. You just need to imagine what he would have composed if he did clean himself...


----------



## Guest

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> I dont know why you had to write all that, but I have said it already a number of times, very clearly that these are my opinions.
> 
> Trust me I really mean it!


Then don't state them as fact.

As for people living a more spiritual life in the past, well, that is debatable. They may have live a more religious life, but spirituality is a hard thing to measure. Hence the whole reason behind why God will judge us. He can look on our hearts - man hasn't been given that ability.

They had more religion in their lives because they had to. Religion dominated everything. Nations were split upon religious boundaries. Kings believed they were ordained by God. For a significant period of time, speaking ill of the dominant religion could bring upon you all sorts of calamities, up to and including death. Compulsion is a really good way to influence actions - but it is less successful at influencing thought.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

The biggest evidence that the people of the past were more genius and more talented and more capable even though they didn’t have the things we have today is because the world was more spiritual.
Wisdom is rooted in spirituality, its not something that humanity created out of its own power, its a gift from God. Also you didn’t have all this crazy music that we have today. Pop music , rap and this sort is nothing but a reflection of a society that has kissed spirituality and religion goodbye.

Today the world is filled with heretic ideas that wage a direct war on religion and spirituality. Today people believe that they came from animals, some even think they came from the oceans. So this is the lowest of the low, so in this sense its not debatable, today the world is much less spiritual.

This is a fact and not an opinion.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> The biggest evidence that the people of the past were more genius and more talented and more capable even though they didn't have the things we have today is because the world was more spiritual.


:lol: I await for your next words of wisdom, with more eagerness than my new year's eve party tonight.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> :lol: I await for your next words of wisdom, with more eagerness than my new year's eve party tonight.


Thanks.

Here Im playing Beethoven's Moonlight...


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Performing Mendelssohn's Song without Words Op.19, No. 1

Regards,

Saul


----------



## Guest

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> The biggest evidence that the people of the past were more genius and more talented and more capable even though they didn't have the things we have today is because the world was more spiritual.
> Wisdom is rooted in spirituality, its not something that humanity created out of its own power, its a gift from God. Also you didn't have all this crazy music that we have today. Pop music , rap and this sort is nothing but a reflection of a society that has kissed spirituality and religion goodbye.
> 
> Today the world is filled with heretic ideas that wage a direct war on religion and spirituality. Today people believe that they came from animals, some even think they came from the oceans. So this is the lowest of the low, so in this sense its not debatable, today the world is much less spiritual.
> 
> This is a fact and not an opinion.


Do you actually have any historical knowledge?

What about all the various religions of the past? The Romans and Greeks and their pantheons of Gods? In the Middle East, you had numerous religions - some required human sacrifice. Romans had bath houses. There was a great deal of debauchery. The Romans would watch men kill each other, or watch animals kill people, for entertainment. Human sacrifice took place in a number of cultures. You talk about how belief in evolution has brought us to a spiritual low. Have you studied Norse mythology and their explanation for how man was created? A cow is involved.

Again, religion and spirituality are not one and the same. The crusades were religious in nature - to call them spiritual would be a stretch. The same with the Inquisition of the Catholic Church. The Salem witch trials were perpetrated by a group of people who felt they were very pious and religious - would you call that a spiritual reaction from people deeply connected to God? I could go on.

The sins of today are not so different than those of the ancients - the technology only is different. Adultery? Fornication? Murder? Theft? Again, you make a strong assertion, and shut down debate claiming that it is accepted knowledge, fact. Spiritually, is believing that you are descended from lesser life forms so much more depraved that worshipping the god Molech and sacrificing your children to him? Or is being an atheist that believes in evolution and enjoys rap music more spiritually depraved than some religious leader who tortures people into confessing sins, then putting them to death?

And then is all post-1900 music the result of debauchery and belief in evolution, or just the atonal stuff? What about composers like Arvo Part? Certainly his earlier stuff was atonal, but his newer works, particularly his choral works, have beautiful tonality, and also are very spiritual in nature. And yet he has been able to write this in an atmosphere of atheism and rampant belief in evolution. Mahler was spiritual - his 2nd symphony revolves around the very religious concept of resurrection. Messiaen was devoutly religious. Frank Martin? I highly doubt that Part or Messiaen were highly influenced by rap.


----------



## Rasa

That is such a great rendition of the mondscheinsonata. I especially liked the Messiaenesce rythm value additions on every 8th. 16th pattern. A great reinterpretation.


----------



## Yoshi

Nice work with the Caprice, I liked it. I have the same opinion as others about the left hand chords, but overall I enjoyed the piece. 

I didn't like moonlight sonata sorry. I do respect your interpretation, everyone should have their own but there are reasons why I couldn't enjoy it. There are a few wrong notes and I found that the madly slow tempo made it less interesting. You changed some dynamics too near the end that didn't make much sense to me.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Generally an interpretation doesnt involve adding or removing notes where one pleases.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

DrMike said:


> Do you actually have any historical knowledge?
> 
> What about all the various religions of the past? The Romans and Greeks and their pantheons of Gods? In the Middle East, you had numerous religions - some required human sacrifice. Romans had bath houses. There was a great deal of debauchery. The Romans would watch men kill each other, or watch animals kill people, for entertainment. Human sacrifice took place in a number of cultures. You talk about how belief in evolution has brought us to a spiritual low. Have you studied Norse mythology and their explanation for how man was created? A cow is involved.
> 
> Again, religion and spirituality are not one and the same. The crusades were religious in nature - to call them spiritual would be a stretch. The same with the Inquisition of the Catholic Church. The Salem witch trials were perpetrated by a group of people who felt they were very pious and religious - would you call that a spiritual reaction from people deeply connected to God? I could go on.
> 
> The sins of today are not so different than those of the ancients - the technology only is different. Adultery? Fornication? Murder? Theft? Again, you make a strong assertion, and shut down debate claiming that it is accepted knowledge, fact. Spiritually, is believing that you are descended from lesser life forms so much more depraved that worshipping the god Molech and sacrificing your children to him? Or is being an atheist that believes in evolution and enjoys rap music more spiritually depraved than some religious leader who tortures people into confessing sins, then putting them to death?
> 
> And then is all post-1900 music the result of debauchery and belief in evolution, or just the atonal stuff? What about composers like Arvo Part? Certainly his earlier stuff was atonal, but his newer works, particularly his choral works, have beautiful tonality, and also are very spiritual in nature. And yet he has been able to write this in an atmosphere of atheism and rampant belief in evolution. Mahler was spiritual - his 2nd symphony revolves around the very religious concept of resurrection. Messiaen was devoutly religious. Frank Martin? I highly doubt that Part or Messiaen were highly influenced by rap.


You make the error of thinking that been religious or spiritual involves perfection. We are not angels, but human beings subject to human limitations. For example the Talmud says that not believing in anything (atheism) is worst then idol worship, for the idol worshipper at least believes in something. Remember that the whole atheist and progressive movements that don't believe in God are rather very recent developments, back then all of humanity, and I say all of it believed in some kind of a Master Creator, that created everything, of course there are many variations of these beliefs, different types of pagans, different types of gods, and of course the famous monotheism of the Jews, and then some Jewish ideas about religion, spirituality and faith have influenced Christianity and Islam, the vast majority of the people on planet earth.

Today, the universities , the scientists, the most progressive thinkers and intellectuals publicly and shamelessly are proud of not believing in God, and they are educating the masses of the world towards that end, therefore the world today with the invention of atheism and evolution is in lower state of spirituality, because this is just a simple fact, people don't want to believe in God, and they are also waging a war against him, like never before.

Also remember that after the destruction of the Second Temple of Jerusalem, prophecy has ended. The Temple of Jerusalem was the medium where God has channeled all the great blessings and spiritual benefits from himself to all the people of the world. Famously, when King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon found out the great significance, power, and awesomeness of the Temple, he executed those advisors that encouraged him to destroy it. Had he known its power before hand, he would have never disrespected the Temple, let alone destroy it. Also, the location of the Temple is the same location where God had created Adam. Adam the first human being was created from the soil of the future Temple of Jerusalem, and now that the temple is no longer with us, humanity has lost many of its spiritual benefits. As you know if you're a bible reader, that King Solomon didn't care only about his people, the Jews, but in the temple he offered 70 sacrifices each year corresponding to the 70 nations of the world, praying to God to bring for humanity blessings, peacefulness and harmony. Many nations in the time of King Solomon came to visit the Temple for it was a 'house of all the nations of the earth'.

Now to music,

To *emiellucifuge* and *Rasa and Jan,*

There are no wrong notes in this recording, perhaps one or two missed notes, but its entirely possible, I was playing this from memory, I didn't have the score in front of me, and its not a piece of music that I practiced alote. Interestingly, on the other classical website that I posted it, some music lovers have called this interpretation 'Great', I kid you not.

If you want I can guide you to the direct quotes, so I guess its a matter of opinion and taste, some people will like this particular interpretation, and some will not, and I accept it. To be clear, I don't believe that this interpretation is great, I just played it the way I think it should be played, and the way I feel about it.

As for the Caprice, I'm really glad that you have enjoyed it, Jan, and I do accept what you said too.

Regards,

Saul


----------



## Guest

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> You make the error of thinking that been religious or spiritual involves perfection. We are not angels, but human beings subject to human limitations. For example the Talmud says that not believing in anything (atheism) is worst then idol worship, for the idol worshipper at least believes in something. Remember that the whole atheist and progressive movements that don't believe in God are rather very recent developments, back then all of humanity, and I say all of it believed in some kind of a Master Creator, that created everything, of course there are many variations of these beliefs, different types of pagans, different types of gods, and of course the famous monotheism of the Jews, and then some Jewish ideas about religion, spirituality and faith have influenced Christianity and Islam, the vast majority of the people on planet earth.
> 
> Today, the universities , the scientists, the most progressive thinkers and intellectuals publicly and shamelessly are proud of not believing in God, and they are educating the masses of the world towards that end, therefore the world today with the invention of atheism and evolution is in lower state of spirituality, because this is just a simple fact, people don't want to believe in God, and they are also waging a war against him, like never before.


Sorry, your Jewish theology may tell you these things, but I don't buy it. Not as an attack on your beliefs. But I don't believe that an evil "religious" person is better than a good atheist. Evil is evil. And evil has been ever-present. I'm not talking about flawed people honestly trying to be good. I'm talking about people that were just bad, regardless of what religious belief they professed. A person worshipping an idol to which they sacrifice their children is not somehow higher than an atheist who believes in evolution. That just begs incredulity.

And again, all of that is irrelevant. As I said, you have modern composers that are very devout. Religious themed music is still being written. I mentioned the works of Arvo Part and Frank Martin and Messiaen. I think you are drawing in your religion to give you some way to rationalize why you don't like other forms of classical music. It isn't enough for you to simply not like it. You have to feel that your appreciation of music is superior, and therefore you denigrate anything outside of your appreciation as not only bad, but morally inferior and the result of a loss of your definition of spirituality. You demagogue music you don't like. You don't like Mahler, so therefore he must have written bad music. And he must have written bad music because he was under the influence of godlessness and the evils of Darwinism. That is not musical criticism - that is religious bigotry.

And spare us another trite dismissal as this is only you expressing your opinion. You make so many absolutist statements, that nobody really believes you are presenting these merely as your opinion.


----------



## MJTTOMB

Saul, what era did Beethoven write in? It seems your "interpretation" has placed him somewhere in the midst of the syrupy, saccharine, disgustingly shallow over-romanticized drivel you seem to complain about so often.

Beethoven was a classicist. Strictly speaking, this means: Clear articulation, clear phrasing, not drowning it in pedal, and very little rubato, if any. You have so much rubato in your "interpretation" that you add a full extra beat to every single measure. It's horrendous. That's not Beethoven, that's the sound of some ignorant 14-year old girl dreaming about shallow love.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

DrMike said:


> Sorry, your Jewish theology may tell you these things, but I don't buy it. Not as an attack on your beliefs. But I don't believe that an evil "religious" person is better than a good atheist. Evil is evil. And evil has been ever-present. I'm not talking about flawed people honestly trying to be good. I'm talking about people that were just bad, regardless of what religious belief they professed. A person worshipping an idol to which they sacrifice their children is not somehow higher than an atheist who believes in evolution. That just begs incredulity.
> 
> And again, all of that is irrelevant. As I said, you have modern composers that are very devout. Religious themed music is still being written. I mentioned the works of Arvo Part and Frank Martin and Messiaen. I think you are drawing in your religion to give you some way to rationalize why you don't like other forms of classical music. It isn't enough for you to simply not like it. You have to feel that your appreciation of music is superior, and therefore you denigrate anything outside of your appreciation as not only bad, but morally inferior and the result of a loss of your definition of spirituality. You demagogue music you don't like. You don't like Mahler, so therefore he must have written bad music. And he must have written bad music because he was under the influence of godlessness and the evils of Darwinism. That is not musical criticism - that is religious bigotry.
> 
> And spare us another trite dismissal as this is only you expressing your opinion. You make so many absolutist statements, that nobody really believes you are presenting these merely as your opinion.


Well sacrificing your children to the Moloch or sending them to hell by teaching them that there is no God, is more or less the same thing. One is physical murder, and the other is spiritual murder, and since the physical bodies that we have are temporary, and the spiritual soul lives forever, destroying that spiritual soul is by far worse then destroying the temporary 'clothing' of the soul.

But anyways, you missed the entire point.

Back then, and even now, people who committed crimes were not 'religious', they were corrupt people who had no values, and I don't consider those who offered their children to Moloch as a people of spirituality and religion, that was a cult of death, not everything that is organized and has a name and has followers should be considered as a religion.

Religion must be based on a rule of law, compassion, and respect for human life, without these very basic requirements, one cant associate spirituality and religion to it.

The Greeks and the Romans had some fine qualities, they were talented musicians, artists and intellectuals, precisely because the world was more spiritual back then, the gates of heaven were open for spiritual wisdom , and understanding. But been smart, and talented, and able means nothing in the long run, if you don't follow the true form of spirituality. None of the ancient People of the world remain with us today, all of them were destroyed, overran, vanquished, eliminated, and put in the chapters of history. The Jews are the only ancient people in the world, that remained from that forgotten world. Why?

Because they held to the correct spirituality, the one that God wanted them to follow. Now Greece, Rome and Ancient Egypt, Babylon, and the other ancient Kingdoms didn't have to convert to Judaism in order to survive. Their sole requirement was to uphold the 7 Laws of Noah , that are designed for all of the gentile world to follow, after the Revelation of Mount Sinai. I wont list all of them but they include, the belief in the God of Israel, refraining from stealing, murder, and setting up judicial institutions to judge the people, that means creating a legal system.

Rome, Greece and all these ancient Kingdoms, did have some sense of spirituality, but it was backward. For example the story of Chanukah tells of how Greek Hellenism wanted to supplement Judaism and force Jews to leave their centers of Learning the word of God, and join them in their coliseums of Sports. They really believed that their form of 'spirituality' that worshiped the physical, and the human body, was superior to the Word of the Living God of Israel, and Jewish intellectualism. These two great Kingdoms, had to collide and fight, and the story of Chanukah tells of how Judaism and Jewish ideals and spirituality finally won the Greek way of life. But the Talmud says that the Greeks had a way out and a chance to survive and not perish, the way out was to bring their intellectualism and gifts to the Tents of Jacob, and accept the Superiority of Jewish Spiritualism, and use their Greek gifts to benefit the Torah, to use art, music, philosophy to better understand God and to better serve him. The Greeks chose a different path, they wanted to place their own way of life to be above Judaism, that's when they found their doom, for no one can be above the Torah, for its the wisdom of God himself, and if you go against him, then there are consequences.

Ultimately , the only reason why human beings can merit living in this world, is to accept God in their lives. Most of the people of ancient history, didn't want to accept it, and that's why they couldn't continue to exist, just read what happened to the people of the Great Flood recorded in Genesis as an example.

So in general terms, people back then had some forms of spirituality, though very twisted and misguided, but they had it, you cant take it away from them. But today many people don't even want to have any kind of spirituality, (belief in God). One can just imagine what awaits people like that, for if the spiritual people of the ancient world couldn't hold on to this world even if they had some kind of Spirituality, just think what kind of doom awaits people who don't want to believe in any kind of God.

The revelation of mount Sinai was famous and all the nations of the world knew about it, but they chose out of their own free will to ignore the Thunders of Sinai and continue with their pagan twisted beliefs, had they listened and followed the 7 Laws of Noah, and believed in the God of Israel, the Greeks, and the Romans and the Persians would have been with us today, just like the Jews.

Regards,

Saul


----------



## emiellucifuge

Now Saul, 
Am I right in assuming that you were raised with these beliefs and that your parents taught you to read and believe in the Jewish Scriptures?

What then of the billions of people who have been raised in the same manner but in a different religion. They have the exact same determination and they all 'know' that what they believe is true. How do you know you are right and they are not?


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

emiellucifuge said:


> Now Saul,
> Am I right in assuming that you were raised with these beliefs and that your parents taught you to read and believe in the Jewish Scriptures?
> 
> What then of the billions of people who have been raised in the same manner but in a different religion. They have the exact same determination and they all 'know' that what they believe is true. How do you know you are right and they are not?


Because Judaism is the only religion that requires 'National Revelation'. That means that we don't believe stories of a single individual who tells us to follow him. All the other religions of the world are human made void of anything divine, because they don't insist on National Revelation and are happy to believe a single human being.

All of the Jewish people, millions of them, together with Moses standing with them, have witnessed God speak to them directly, with no one in between. And this Revelation was also witnessed by other people who came out with the Jews from Egypt, and its reverberations were spread all over the world, everyone knew about it.

The nations of the world , didn't want to listen to the Voice of Sinai, and they wanted to follow their own ways. Had they listened, the world would have been perfected and saved, no wars, no hate only love and harmony.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

MJTTOMB said:


> Saul, what era did Beethoven write in? It seems your "interpretation" has placed him somewhere in the midst of the syrupy, saccharine, disgustingly shallow over-romanticized drivel you seem to complain about so often.
> 
> Beethoven was a classicist. Strictly speaking, this means: Clear articulation, clear phrasing, not drowning it in pedal, and very little rubato, if any. You have so much rubato in your "interpretation" that you add a full extra beat to every single measure. It's horrendous. That's not Beethoven, that's the sound of some ignorant 14-year old girl dreaming about shallow love.


A written score is a suggestion, I'm not a robot.


----------



## Rasa

I like to think Beethoven didn't suggest Claydermannerism


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Rasa said:


> I like to think Beethoven didn't suggest Claydermannerism


I don't think, I know he didnt.

He never met the dude...

TIME was between them little dolly...


----------



## Krummhorn

Again ... we have strayed wayyyyyy off topic here ... This thread has fulfilled its purpose and usefulness and is now closed to further postings. 

To Rasa ... on behalf of the entire forum, I apologize for the insulting remark from another member ... I can assure you, it will not happen again.


----------

