# The Deification of Composers



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Bach. Mozart. Beethoven. Brahms. Mahler. Schoenberg. Cage. And so on...

There's something intriguing about the way people react to these names, separate from whether or not they like their music. Part of it is to be found in the common lamentation (or compliment, whichever way you look at it): "There'll never be another Beethoven."

Buried in that comment is, I think, something of deification. It's not just about the fact that _all_ humans are unique - after all, there'll never be another Polednice, no matter how mundane my life may turn out to be! - it's also implicit that there'll never be anyone _as good_ as Beethoven.

However, to say such a thing is to approach the idea that some people are miraculous (a notion that we will discard for the sake of this discussion).

The way I see it, on that list of names, the left-hand side is heavily weighted with Legendary and Mythical status (irrelevant to their actual human achievements). I think one of the biggest reasons that there'll never be another Beethoven is because of globalisation, communication, and improved historical records. We know too much about our contemporaries, and have too much access to all the information we might want about them, for them or their works to become shrouded in the mystery required to become a legend like Beethoven.

I don't think the status of these composers long-dead was attained because they were superhuman. I think it's purely because they're from a period of history so different that it intrigues us, and because there are so many things that we don't know about them.

What do you think?


----------



## Amfibius (Jul 19, 2006)

Quite right - there will never be another Beethoven, or Bach, or Mozart. If someone else came along and started writing music in the style of the great masters, he would be an imitator. 

However - to say that nobody will turn the musical world upside down and revolutionize it in the way of Bach, Beethoven, etc. IMO reflects a failure of imagination on the part of the person making the statement. Most people who enjoy these composers tend to be quite conservative and are not likely to enjoy music by Schoenberg, Part, etc. Given that they already dislike the direction taken by late 20th century composers, it is easy to see why they think this way.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

I, at contrary, belive in their "superhumanity" - if that's how you want to call it. There are two extremes: too much naive beliefs in other people's greatness and laughable cynism of those who belive that Beethoven was same simpleton as Johnny they met in bar recently. Mozart WAS miraculous, next to all legends surrounding him there is still enough historical truth and, first of all, there are his works to prove that his mind and abilities are one of those things that we call wonders. Beethoven's myth is based on the fact that he wrote music after going deaf. It is story that could serve as material for ancient myth yet it was reality - deaf man wrote musical masterpieces. 

Is it possible that such figures will appear in our times? At the break of XVIIIth and XIXth centuries people were reading about Julius Caesar and Alexander Macedonian sighing "the times of titans are behind us... nothing like that could happen these days". And then came Napoleon.


----------



## Amfibius (Jul 19, 2006)

Aramis said:


> Is it possible that such figures will appear in our times? At the break of XVIIIth and XIXth centuries people were reading about Julius Caesar and Alexander Macedonian sighing "the times of titans are behind us... nothing like that could happen these days". And then came Napoleon.


Ahh, Napoleon! That reminds me of a memorable scene from _Yes Prime Minister_ some years back:

_Sir Humphrey Appleby_: I gather he considers himself a candidate for the Napoleon award. 
_Edward Hacker_: What is the Napoleon award? 
_Sir Humphrey Appleby_: It is an annual award for the European leader who has done the most for European unification since Napoleon ... that is, if you discount Hitler.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Aramis said:


> I, at contrary, belive in their "superhumanity" - if that's how you want to call it. There are two extremes: too much naive beliefs in other people's greatness and laughable cynism of those who belive that Beethoven was same simpleton as Johnny they met in bar recently. Mozart WAS miraculous, next to all legends surrounding him there is still enough historical truth and, first of all, there are his works to prove that his mind and abilities are one of those things that we call wonders. Beethoven's myth is based on the fact that he wrote music after going deaf. It is story that could serve as material for ancient myth yet it was reality - deaf man wrote musical masterpieces.
> 
> Is it possible that such figures will appear in our times? At the break of XVIIIth and XIXth centuries people were reading about Julius Caesar and Alexander Macedonian sighing "the times of titans are behind us... nothing like that could happen these days". And then came Napoleon.


I, too, believe in the "superhumanity" of the great composers. Are the god or demi-gods? Probably not. But above the average Joe in the street? Of course.


----------



## jdavid (Oct 4, 2011)

I think the idea of reverence for the past is beyond arguing. The example of the Greeks resonates today in architecture that derives from circa 500-400 B.C.E. Think Washington D.C., the British Museum facade, the Met., etc. It is a mystique that great age confers upon great accomplishments (not upon mediocrity), but this modern age has not the advantage of the past to 'shroud its heroes and their accomplisments in mystery'. - and it is for the reasons _technologique_  that you mentioned. You are right: we know too much. Our present day heroes not only have feet of clay, they're wearing Birkenstocks, and are going to be on Letterman, tonight at 11 p.m., and this will be recorded and available on Youtube until we destroy ourselves. So, no shroud, no mystery.

But I do agree with Aramis, regarding super humans: Praxiteles, Michelangelo, Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and many others in other times and disciplines - these individuals were the flowers of their civilization and caught a glimpse of the universe and existence and _were able_ to transform it into sound, or poetry, into carved stone, or a beautiful theorem or other mathematical expression or recipe for soup. 



Polednice said:


> Bach. Mozart. Beethoven. Brahms. Mahler. Schoenberg. Cage. And so on...
> 
> There's something intriguing about the way people react to these names, separate from whether or not they like their music. Part of it is to be found in the common lamentation (or compliment, whichever way you look at it): "There'll never be another Beethoven."
> 
> ...


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Before you folks go banging on about the same redundant point, I did _not_ mean that Beethoven (and crew) are the same as any old Simple Joe!

By saying that they were not superhuman, what I am saying is that, yes, they _were_ geniuses, but they were not unique anomalies in the entire history of mankind. There have been and will be people just as gifted, talented and amazing, albeit uncommon.


----------



## Guest (Oct 21, 2011)

Have you ever been reading along in a thread and starting to think about one or two points being made and formulating your own response to those points only to get to the very last post in the thread and have it be exactly what you were thinking of saying?

Yes. That just happened to me. Again. (Either I have to get some more original--and unique--ideas, or I need to do my posting earlier, before that bird with the worm already in its mouth. The worm? _My_ worm.)



Polednice said:


> Before you folks go banging on about the same redundant point, I did _not_ mean that Beethoven (and crew) are the same as any old Simple Joe!
> 
> By saying that they were not superhuman, what I am saying is that, yes, they _were_ geniuses, but they were not unique anomalies in the entire history of mankind. There have been and will be people just as gifted, talented and amazing, albeit uncommon.


Well, something else did occur to me, and that is that while it helps to have good material to work with, the urge to deify is so strong, it will work on practically anything. (No, I'm not going to mention any names.) There's its counter-urge as well, the urge to find clay in everyone's feet. Neither one will arrive at the truth, whatever that may be (!), but they each do contribute something to the search: some people _are_ more talented than others; everyone has _some_ clay in their feet.

I think it's largely a matter of perspective. Get the perspective right and everything else falls into place. But that means being willing to see the flaws in your heroes as well as the talents of the people you disdain. And who among us has ever been entirely successful at _that_?


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Polednice said:


> There have been and will be people just as gifted, talented and amazing, albeit uncommon.


I don't think so. Indeed, the fact that Mozart could write down some complex piece from memory after hearing it once or that he could play and do stuff at very early age doesn't seem so impressive in our times when we hear daily about 332428747823123 kids from China that are some "wonderful prodigies". But though we get to hear about such incredible talents so often - how many Marriages of Figaro have been written since Mozart? The ability to became what they all became - legendary giants is part of their mystery, not to be separated. 5 years old boy from China who can play some virtuosic piano piece with eyes closed is not equally talented to Chopin. If someone is not able to become as great as Beethoven by all means then he is not as talented as him and even if in all rationally explainable aspects he seems to be musical genius he isn't equal to Beethoven unless he will write something as leasting and titanic as his 5th. Same thing happens with performers. In times of Callas it was big deal that she could sing some special notes of power and stuff. Today you could more or less easily find some "miraculous" soprano to do something as impressive (from technical/physical point of view) with her voice but this singer is still incapeable of performing Norma which will be as dramatically electrifying as this of Callas and making people die from delight like she could.


----------



## Andy Loochazee (Aug 2, 2007)

Some composers do seem to be deified in the minds of some of their supporters. In this regard classical music seems to be unique among the various arts in that no such claims appear to have been made for other kinds of artists like poets, novelists, painters, sculptors etc.

By "deified" I mean that some of their fans consider that the achievements of some composers were so great that they must have been guided by some kind of divine spirit. In the case of Beethoven, who has been mentioned several times so far in this thread, it has been have asked how he managed to create so many fantastic works without being able to hear many of them if he wasn’t inspired by some kind of supernatural power. Even Beethoven himself was reluctant to take full credit for himself for his endeavours and considered that he was divinely inspired. So perhaps it’s not surprising that a kind of divine aura has built up around some composers.

This, I think, is the main source of the deification that exists, rather than the type referred to in the OP which appears to be a kind generated largely out of a mystique of some historical composers arising because their personal history is not documented in quite the detailed manner as exists for more modern-day composers. I would discount that notion almost completely.

We have, of course, been on similar (I won’t say identical) ground to this before on previous threads, some of which ended rather abruptly after much heated debate about the existence of a divinity, as some of us who have been around these parts long enough will recall.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Andy Loochazee said:


> We have, of course, been on similar (I won't say identical) ground to this before on previous threads, some of which ended rather abruptly after much heated debate about the existence of a divinity, as some of us who have been around these parts long enough will recall.


Indeed, and I'll ask this train of discussion to end here and now. No divinity brought into it please! By the way, the OP made more sense and is more convincing than your point. Cheers, thanks, bye.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Many were genuises or extremely talented as far as artistic creativity for composing and performing music were concerned. But to say they were "superhuman" - what does that mean? They wore red tight underwear and a red cape, and could fly like Clark Kent?

Those of us who actually bothered to read about the lives in the context of the period these folks belonged to, often quickly realised they were as human as Joe Blog sitting next to you in the bus, or your best friend, or your partner, or your parents, or your country's voted leader  .


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Polednice said:


> I don't think the status of these composers long-dead was attained because they were superhuman. I think it's purely because they're from a period of history so different that it intrigues us, and because there are so many things that we don't know about them.


Spot on. I call it overtly-romanticised. Do a search of that ridiculous thread (last year?) about "who do you think was the most humble composer" or some buffalo excretum idea of that sort.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Those of us who actually bothered to read about the lives in the context of the period these folks belonged to, often quickly realised they were as human as Joe Blog sitting next to you in the bus, or your best friend, or your partner, or your parents, or your country's voted leader  .


Absolutely! Just yesterday I was riding a bus and I started chatting with guy-next-to-me, he said: "and do you agree with me, that the first condition of an artist should be to bear respect towards what is great, and to bow to it and acknowledge it, and not attempt to extinguish great flames for the sake of making his own rushlight burn more brightly?". Or my sister. Today I've asked her about what she was doing in kitchen and she suddenly gazed through the window in very profound way and exclaimed: "the soup must be like a world... it must embrace everything..."


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Polednice said:


> Bach. Mozart. Beethoven. Brahms. Mahler. Schoenberg. Cage. And so on...


The first three are Gods as far as most people on this forum are concerned. & also in real life. On this forum, the ancient Brahms-Wagner split seems to be alive and well for some people, but in "real life" he belongs with the first three names, pretty high up on most people's lists. The last three I'm not sure. I've had friends say Mahler was like emotional wankery. & if you were around on this forum like 2 years ago, Schoenberg and the atonalists were the whipping boys (along with the minimalists). As for John Cage, I don't think he's deified, quite honestly. It's the opposite, he's quite controversial. I've liked most of his music that I've heard. Then again, I'm more flexible with these things because I don't deify any composer.



> ...We know too much about our contemporaries, and have too much access to all the information we might want about them, for them or their works to become shrouded in the mystery required to become a legend like Beethoven.
> 
> I don't think the status of these composers long-dead was attained because they were superhuman. I think it's purely because they're from a period of history so different that it intrigues us, and because there are so many things that we don't know about them.
> 
> What do you think?


This is true. I'm not joking, I met one of Australian's most well known composers in a shopping mall a few weekends back. I just saw him, recognised him, and had a brief chat about his music, etc. This is why I think people who like contemporary classical tend not to deify composers of now or yesteryear. Because music is the focus, not deification or building monuments. That's all bullsh*t, imo. All monuments eventually bite the dust. There were 7 wonders of the world before, now only 1 of them are left (the pyramids of Egypt). The monuments to these composers are not their God-like status, or lack of it, but their music is their monument and legacy. & many others things like their teachings, writings, thoughts, philosophies, etc. Mozart's body is nowhere to be found, but his music survives as testament to his contribution to music and the arts beyond...


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

> Bach. Mozart. Beethoven. Brahms. Mahler. Schoenberg. Cage.


Right, I'm a member of each respective cult. We wore white robes until they confused us with racists, so now we wear spandex with neon lights.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Polednice said:


> Before you folks go banging on about the same redundant point, I did _not_ mean that Beethoven (and crew) are the same as any old Simple Joe!
> 
> By saying that they were not superhuman, what I am saying is that, yes, they _were_ geniuses, but they were not unique anomalies in the entire history of mankind. There have been and will be people just as gifted, talented and amazing, albeit uncommon.


Which makes me think that, at least a good number of the people who deify do it in a way that shows they maybe don't know, or don't want to know, the context of each of these composers-as-Gods. Eg. where they came from, the times they lived in, who taught them, what were the artistic/political/philosophical currents of their times, where did they travel, etc.

Also, ordinary men do extraordinary things in the "right" circumstances, and so too do "geniuses." Eg. would Messiaen have composed his _Quartet for the End of Time _- a masterpiece of c20th chamber music by any standard - had he _not_ been taken as prisoner of war by the Germans? What about Brahms, would he have given us all those wonderful string works had he never known Remenyi or Joachim? Those two guys were not only great violinists, but Hungarians, accounting (in a good part) to those "Hungarianisms" that so many of us so love in Brahms' music. What about Berlioz - would he have composed _Symphonie Fantastique_ without seeing Harriet Smithson act in that Shakespeare play? Many others had "muses" like this - either in the form of friends or lovers, or other musicians, or they were responding to the times they lived in.

So what I'm saying it's easy to deify, but much harder to truly engage with & understand how these guys contributed to music in a very _real,_ no bullsh*t monument building way. As the saying goes, some people who build these monuments & Gods "can't see the forest for the trees"...


----------



## jdavid (Oct 4, 2011)

Gotta agree with you, Aramis - it is a fact...Where Have All The Compositional Prodigies Gone? Prodigies in the performance area are still common as is well known, but the full musical education including playing instruments, singing, counterpoint, harmony during the tender years is virtually a lost practice. I have never heard of a child prodigy composer in my lifetime. If I missed one, please let me know.



Aramis said:


> I don't think so. Indeed, the fact that Mozart could write down some complex piece from memory after hearing it once or that he could play and do stuff at very early age doesn't seem so impressive in our times when we hear daily about 332428747823123 kids from China that are some "wonderful prodigies". But though we get to hear about such incredible talents so often - how many Marriages of Figaro have been written since Mozart? The ability to became what they all became - legendary giants is part of their mystery, not to be separated. 5 years old boy from China who can play some virtuosic piano piece with eyes closed is not equally talented to Chopin. If someone is not able to become as great as Beethoven by all means then he is not as talented as him and even if in all rationally explainable aspects he seems to be musical genius he isn't equal to Beethoven unless he will write something as leasting and titanic as his 5th. Same thing happens with performers. In times of Callas it was big deal that she could sing some special notes of power and stuff. Today you could more or less easily find some "miraculous" soprano to do something as impressive (from technical/physical point of view) with her voice but this singer is still incapeable of performing Norma which will be as dramatically electrifying as this of Callas and making people die from delight like she could.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

jdavid said:


> Gotta agree with you, Aramis - it is a fact...Where Have All The Compositional Prodigies Gone? Prodigies in the performance area are still common as is well known, but the full musical education including playing instruments, singing, counterpoint, harmony during the tender years is virtually a lost practice. I have never heard of a child prodigy composer in my lifetime. If I missed one, please let me know.


Umm, most of the big names in composition today still start their musical education (many times at conservatory level) around 6 or 7


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I don't really see what child prodigies have to do with this topic. Saint-Saens was one, so was Prokofiev. Yet nobody deifies them as they do Mozart. Do they sell Saint-Saens and Prokofiev chocolates as they do in Mozart ones in Salzburg? Funny how it's become a kind of cult-business, yet when Mozart was alive he was basically trying to get out of Salzburg, he saw it as a backwater, he was happier by far in Vienna or Prague. But now the tourist buses roll into Salzburg and worship Mozart, at the very place he kind of hated in a way, he saw it as a pretty restrictive & even negative place, as far as I can tell. Doesn't gell with the marketing/hype/distortion, does it? That's what all these things are, not really close to reality...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I agree with HC in that reading about the "demi-gods" of history leads you to recognize that they were indeed just human beings like anyone else. At the same time, individuals such as Shakespeare, Rubens, Michelangelo, Mozart, Bach, Dante, etc... were extraordinary. I think it is important to recognize that the two are not mutually exclusive: the genius may just be your next door neighbor... in most ways not any different from any other human being. At the same time, the individual human being is capable of great things... and some are capable of achieving the extraordinary. 

Some may begrudge the deification of those who have achieved the extraordinary. I often suspect that this peculiar modern need to pull down all idols and heroes is rooted in an inferiority complex. Rather than appreciating the heights that humanity can aspire to and achieve... and perhaps build upon this, there is a desire to pull these figures down into the mud: Wagner is a Nazi. Michelangelo was gay. Shakespeare was bisexual. Caravaggio was a pedophile and a murderer. Mozart was immature. Beethoven a grumpy curmudgeon. Picasso a misogynist, etc...

Of course there is a danger in excessive hero-worship. I leaves us blind to the real possibility of the brilliant achievements in or own time and place. Edgar Allen Poe... living in what was at that time, a rather provincial United States, wrote of the fact that genius was quite often unrecognized in its own time and place. Poe did not refer directly to himself, but he undoubtedly sensed the notion that nothing of real merit could come from this new, provincial, back-water nation. But then again, J.L. Borges noted that Shakespeare did not live in the "Age of Shakespeare". Shakespeare was a writer for the nascent English theater. His work was in no way thought of as "serious" literature or ART. He was akin to a Hollywood scriptwriter in the 1940's in terms of respect and recognition. Even after his retirement from the stage, he did not see fit to even attempt to publish his work.

We need to remember that Shakespeare did not live in the "Age of Shakespeare" when we look at the artists of our time. The "genius" of Shakespeare and Mozart and Bach and Michelangelo has grown over the expanse of time as subsequent artists, critics, etc... built upon their work. Today phrases by Shakespeare such as "Neither a borrower nor a lender be" are as much a part of our literary culture as certain phrases from the Bible. "The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want..." This would not have been true during Shakespeare's lifetime. 

I also laugh to myself when I hear someone raise the usual moan: "Where are all the _________________________ (Shakespeares, Dantes, Michelangelos, Bachs, Mozarts, etc... of today?" There are undoubtedly giants walking among us. No period in history was devoid of artistic achievements of real merit. The reality is that we would most likely not recognize them. The giant composers of today is not going to look (or sound) like Bach or Mozart (and how many recognized them when they were alive?)... It will only be after the passing of time that most artistic giants will ever be recognized. In the past century, perhaps only Picasso stood out as clearly a towering artistic figure... an almost universally recognized living mythic figure. Where are the artistic geniuses of today? I can give you a list of names of individuals that I think have truly achieved something extraordinary... but only time will tell.


----------



## Amfibius (Jul 19, 2006)

Sid James said:


> Do they sell Saint-Saens and Prokofiev chocolates as they do in Mozart ones in Salzburg?


Would you buy Prokofiev branded chocolate?  I might buy a Prokofiev branded power tool perhaps ... but not chocolate!


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Some may begrudge the deification of those who have achieved the extraordinary. I often suspect that this peculiar modern need to pull down all idols and heroes is rooted in an inferiority complex.


I can reverse that. The need to pull down those who are seen as inferior or not being like the "real" idols of the past is rooted in a SUPERIORITY COMPLEX. I see it all the time here. The Xenakis & John Cage "jokes" or more recent times, the same with pulling down Schoenberg or Philip Glass for various spruious reasons. It's all based on rubbish ideology.

As I said, the deifiers have a corresponding need to push down and rubbish others, once you elevate something you have to devalue another. That's their "logic."



> Rather than appreciating the heights that humanity can aspire to and achieve... and perhaps build upon this, there is a desire to pull these figures down into the mud: Wagner is a Nazi. Michelangelo was gay. Shakespeare was bisexual. Caravaggio was a pedophile and a murderer. Mozart was immature. Beethoven a grumpy curmudgeon. Picasso a misogynist, etc...


I don't think people criticise those creators/geniuses for those reasons you say, or I think caricature. At least not those I've come across. Apart from Wagner (yes, he was racist, and of course the controversy attached to that & how he was idolised by the Nazis, etc.) & Picasso (yes, he had "issues" with women, I think at least 2 - or 3? - of his wives/girlfriends suicided or died in very mysterious similar circumstances)...


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Although people obviously mention things for different reasons, I like being aware of whether or not a composer was a murderer or a pedo because it makes them more human!


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I can reverse that. The need to pull down those who are seen as inferior or not being like the "real" idols of the past is rooted in a SUPERIORITY COMPLEX.

That's a bit of a stretch. If I greatly admire Bach or Wagner it says nothing about me. My admiration is for Bach and Wagner... not myself. Unless I presume an air of superiority in that I am above those who love bluegrass or Brahms or Philip Glass or Miles Davis... and it is quite possible to love... deify all of them.

I see it all the time here. The Xenakis & John Cage "jokes" or more recent times, the same with pulling down Schoenberg or Philip Glass for various spruious reasons. It's all based on rubbish ideology.

I don't see a dislike of Xenakis and Cage and Schoenberg and Glass as rooted in a sense of superiority. More likely it is simply rooted in a sense of disappointment... disgust... or dislike for the music. It's no different than feeling disinterested toward or even disliking Bach, Mozart, or Wagner. The only difference is when this "dislike" is not based upon the experience of the music but rather some external issue such as "X is too popular", "I don't like Y's politics", "Q had a rather ****** personality" or the usual meaningless criticism: "Z isn't Y". If you love Y to the exclusion of everything else that may be well and fine for you but surely not a legitimate critique of everything else that isn't Y.

As I said, the deifiers have a corresponding need to push down and rubbish others...

Seriously, I don't see this. Of course there is a tongue-in-cheek joking that occurs when the Wagnerian and the Brahmsian meet... but for the most part this is all in jest. I doubt that most Wagnerians dislike Brahms or have a pathological need to tear him down... or vis-versa. The problem when using Modern and Contemporary artists in this discussion of "deification" or "canonization" is that almost none of these artists can be seen as having been "canonized". They are too recent. They have yet to have been absorbed into the tradition and the culture to an extent where we can say with certainty who is or is not an artistic giant. Even among those well-versed in a given artistic genre there are heated debates as to the merits of a given artist. There's no debate as to the merit of Shakespeare or Mozart or Bach or Michelangelo. They are unquestionably giant figures... whether we personally like or dislike them. To exclaim that Mozart or Wagner or Michelangelo sucks is a worthless criticism. There may be discussions as to the relative strengths and weaknesses of Rembrandt and Raphael or Bach and Handel... but their reputations are all secure. This is not necessarily true of Glass or Xenakis or Golijov or Peter Lieberson (and you will note that I am personally quite fond of three of these composers). I think that anyone who is deeply engaged with Contemporary art recognizes that virulent debates are par for the course. One need only read of the nearly violent disputes that broke out in the cafes among the Impressionists... whom rarely strike us as the violent type... to recognize that when it comes to discussion and debate concerning contemporary art one needs to develop a a tough skin.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> ...My admiration is for Bach and Wagner... not myself. Unless I presume an air of superiority in that I am above those who love bluegrass or Brahms or Philip Glass or Miles Davis... and* it is quite possible to love*... deify *all of them* ...


Agree with what you say there. I think musicians don't deify the composers they play, they just love the music. In terms of recent albums, there has been a trend to put together newer and "classic" composers. I recently got two of these albums and have enjoyed both composer's music (or arrangments of their music) on them. Pianist Francesco Tristano's BachCage album is one, cellist Sonia-Wieder Atherton's Vita album, with music by Monteverdi and Scelsi is another. Listening to these, I honestly can't tell you which composer's music I enjoy more. I don't care about pedestals and monuments, it's irrelevant when I listen to this music, and it's probably similarly not on these musician's minds when they are playing the music. Indeed, in terms of marketing, they are plugging for people like myself, quite in the middle of the listener spectrum, giving less of a hoot about the "status" or "Godliness" of a composer & more for the actual music itself. That's what it's all about, the music, not these irrelevant external factors, canons, either personal or real or based on history or what's in (or out) of the repertoire, etc...


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> ...
> I don't see a dislike of Xenakis and Cage and Schoenberg and Glass as rooted in a sense of superiority. More likely it is simply rooted in a sense of disappointment... disgust... or dislike for the music. It's no different than feeling disinterested toward or even disliking Bach, Mozart, or Wagner....


Well, funnily enough, I won't go into specifics, but on this forum, during a 'conversation' a few weeks back about John Cage, a certain member suggested something strongly to the effect that because I haven't heard Bach's mass in B minor, and because I don't like Wagner's operas on steroids, my opinion or insight, whatever, on that unrelated issue (John Cage) was not worth much, or even worthless. Forgive me, I don't recall a similar thing happening here during exchanges referring to the "Gods" Wagner, Bach, etc., it seems that it's the deifiers who tend to throw egg on another person's face who isn't a deifier. Remember JTech?...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Agree with what you say there. I think musicians don't deify the composers they play, they just love the music.

I think that goes without saying. I don't love Bach, I love his music. Bach the man I barely know... and only through second-hand sources. I quite suspect I would have found Picasso to be a real prick, and from I have read concerning Michelangelo I may have wished to follow suit with another artist who knew him well... and saw fit to break his nose.:lol: The artist is not the art. I bristle at continual attempts to analyze the artist based upon Freudian interpretations of the artwork... and attempts to interpret the art work wholly in response to the artist's biography. Indeed, I am greatly against the "cult of personality". It leads to the reduction of the work of art to a product in which that which matters most is the "name brand": It's a Gucci, Versace, Picasso, Mozart, Brahms, etc... thus it is inherently better than any product by a lesser name-brand.


----------



## DavidMahler (Dec 28, 2009)

i never found any of those stories about Mozart to be particularly amazing....i was doing similar things as a kid....i never took a single music lesson in theory or instruction...it just came to me. i was once asked to tune an entire piano by ear without a pitchfork or any electronic equipment and when i was done.... it matched up to A442 which was the request of the person whom i tuned it for.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Polednice said:


> Although people obviously mention things for different reasons, I like being aware of whether or not a composer was a murderer or a pedo because it makes them more human!


I think in the case of Carlo Gesualdo, him doing what he did ("snapping" when he found his wife in bed with her lover, and killing them both on the spot) has kind of worked in his favour in some ways. There's a tendency to "sex up" and psycho-biographise his music, not only related to the murder, but how he was forced into exile as a result (I have read that his last books of madrigals, written during that time, get darker and darker as he met his own "end," dying in his forties, in exile and not in a good situation). Anyway, I'm not sure how the thing works with paedophile composers, I think that's kind of brushed under the carpet. Anyway, it's better we not go there, in some ways...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I don't care about pedestals and monuments, it's irrelevant when I listen to this music, and it's probably similarly not on these musician's minds when they are playing the music.

Of course. I am listening to Haydn's piano sonatas right now. I'm not comparing them in my mind to Mozart and Beethoven and everyone else. I am enjoying them for what they are. I would also suggest that even when discussing a work of art in critical terms one does not make excessive comparisons except in terms of analogy... suggesting how artist X may have built upon artist Y or inverted ideas of artist Q. Regardless, as T.S. Eliot noted... there is a canon of art which simply is. It is the result of history... the collective opinions of those well-informed individuals active within a given art over the course of time. Eliot also suggested, and I believe this to be equally true, that each of us who are serious about a given art form carry something of a idealized canon in our mind... one that continues to change... if only ever so slightly... every time we are exposed to something new.

Unfortunately, from my experience on music, art, and literary forums, the threads involving "X vs Y" are legion... for the simple reasons that they are fun, a good ice-breaker of sorts (We imagine we can discern quite a bit about a person from how they respond to a thread asking you to name your "10 Favorite Artists", "Your 10 favorite Writers" etc... ). But the reality is that discussing what we like about a given artist/composer/writer as opposed to simply stating "He's great" or "He sucks" involves a great deal more effort... probably more effort than many are willing to put forth on an internet forum where they simply gather to pass away a few moments.

I agree that the blanket statements concerning Xenakis or Cage or contemporary music in general are useless... but unfortunately... with few exceptions... those who are taking the defensive position don't do much better. When a certain "some" member who takes the continual position of the champion of Modern and Contemporary music spends the majority of his time engaged in debates with regard to any negative comment concerning Modern and Contemporary music... arguing the finer points of philosophy, semantics, and proper debate protocol... but almost never posting anything discussing a composer he admires... and why... well what is one to think?

I am quite pleased with the Modern/Contemporary music thread that has really taken on a life of its own with many members posting discussions of contemporary works and their responses to the same, along with links. There are other similar threads involving opera, favorite older singers, admired DVDs of operas, favorite French melodies, etc... Ultimately, I realize that if there is something you imagine is missing from a forum such as this, you have to take ownership and start a thread yourself... and quite often this will be a bit demanding until it catches on. Look at what Almaviva and a few others achieved with regard to opera in the short time they have been active here. Opera was something largely ignored until someone or a few someones with the passion for it spelled out why it was important to them... and began to intrigue others.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> ...But the reality is that discussing what we like about a given artist/composer/writer as opposed to simply stating "He's great" or "He sucks" involves a great deal more effort... probably more effort than many are willing to put forth on an internet forum where they simply gather to pass away a few moments...


I agree about this, there's always more nuance/detail than just black and white statements. It's actually not that bad here on TC (apart from some at extreme ends of the spectrum). I resigned earlier in the year from another forum where dissing musicians, composers, anyone from Mozart to Beethoven to von Karajan to Argerich, Xenakis, Cage, Schnittke, you name it, they were targets. It was turned into an artfrom itself, I saw it as pure drivel and wankery. I couldn't stand the bile any more, although there were some more balanced members there for sure.

Funnily enough, there were certain "deity" or "God" "untouchable" "sacred cow" composers, who if you said simply "I don't like his music (or a certain piece) for whatever reason..." you were jumped on and mauled to death by these tigers. & you guessed it, the BIG sacred cow was J.S. Bach. These high priests of this composer's music didn't serve the cause one bit, they actually turned me off. It's only given about 5 months since that I've listened to Bach again without the anti-rabid mob bias. I still lean toward Bach's solo instrumental, I should have a right to say that I don't like his choral/sacred things based on my experience. & as I said, knowing a good many musicians, I'm the odd one out, they all like Bach more than me. But they don't throw it in my face or say I don't know how to appreciate music if I don't like certain works by him. That is exclusionary, negative and absurd, imo.



> ...
> I agree that the blanket statements concerning Xenakis or Cage or contemporary music in general are useless... but unfortunately... with few exceptions... those who are taking the defensive position don't do much better. When a certain "some" member who takes the continual position of the champion of Modern and Contemporary music spends the majority of his time engaged in debates with regard to any negative comment concerning Modern and Contemporary music... arguing the finer points of philosophy, semantics, and proper debate protocol... but almost never posting anything discussing a composer he admires... and why... well what is one to think?
> ...


Funnily enough, the two people who I've had a bit of a tussle with, ending up ignoring one, are at what I see as the opposite extreme ends of the listening spectrum. Far conservative and far or ultra progressive/radical. I'm just staking the middle ground but I think I'll just leave it at my "solution," ignore one fully, and as for the other, read what he says but not respond to it with a "rant" as I end up regretting that. So just stay cool is my aim now, focus on the music, not these extreme ideologies...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

i never found any of those stories about Mozart to be particularly amazing....

Ummm.............. yeah. You already had a number of fully scored original symphonies and a couple of operas composed by the time you had reached puberty, and by the time you had reached the ripe old age of 17 you had already written one of the most beloved choral works in the repertoire:











:lol:


----------



## DavidMahler (Dec 28, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> i never found any of those stories about Mozart to be particularly amazing....
> 
> Ummm.............. yeah. You already had a number of fully scored original symphonies and a couple of operas composed by the time you had reached puberty, and by the time you had reached the ripe old age of 17 you had already written one of the most beloved choral works in the repertoire:
> 
> ...


I'm just saying... the prodigious nature of composers doesn't really impress me...... I don't think its any more impressive to be 14 or 40 .....i also dont think its impressive to be able to transcribe what you hear note for note....it doesn't amaze me.

Mozart's compositions on the other hand.... impress me.

Other than that, how'd did you know I composed one of the most beloved works in the repertoire?


----------



## Guest (Oct 23, 2011)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> When a certain "some" member who takes the continual position of the champion of Modern and Contemporary music spends the majority of his time engaged in debates with regard to any negative comment concerning Modern and Contemporary music... arguing the finer points of philosophy, semantics, and proper debate protocol... but almost never posting anything discussing a composer he admires... and why... well what is one to think?


You miss those good old days when you could disdain all those obscure composers I know for being obscure, don't you, St? Sorry to have given you practically no fresh material now for the past two years. But you seem perfectly able (and content) to slash away at "some" windmill, regardless of whether it spins its sails at you or not, so you can't really complain.

And mentioning cool composers so that HC can make fart jokes just doesn't have the same thrill for me that it used to. Gosh. I'm just no fun any more.:lol:


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^ I agree with you that I don't like things thrown back in my face, based on what I don't or do like, etc. That I find very rude and intolerable.

However, I think that what stlukes says in terms of "taking ownership" on this forum is very true. It's better to actually focus on what you think is good rather than bad. In terms of things one is "middling" or unsure about, discussion of people's views of that can be interesting in terms of breaking down barriers as well. It's better to have a positive vibe than a negative one for sure, building things, not laying them to ruin like in the bad old days here when I joined, it was quite a mess in some ways...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

You miss those good old days when you could disdain all those obscure composers I know for being obscure, don't you...?

You give yourself too much credit. In case you haven't noticed, which you probably haven't... considering the only threads that interest you are those that allow you to parade your time-worn arguments concerning contemporary music and how anyone who doesn't "get it' or "like it" simply doesn't know how to listen properly... but there has been a thread devoted to modern and contemporary music that has been thriving here for quite some time. I don't recall anyone "disdaining" any of the works or composers posted there... although I suspect that nearly anyone feels the same as I do: they like some more than others. :tiphat:


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^ I agree that it's not good to be lectured about anything, whether it be the "classics" or "contemporary" music. By the same token I agree with some guy's last line, I'm sick of the fart "jokes," they're old and stale. Ok to those people who don't like electronic music, etc. we know that now, GOT THAT OUT OF YOUR SYSTEM??? Good, now we can move on...


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Sid James said:


> ...to those people who don't like electronic music, etc. we know that now, GOT THAT OUT OF YOUR SYSTEM??? Good, now we can move on...


But I thought this is a classical music forum, not electronic music forum. In any case, it's quite fun making fart jokes anyway. And speaking about "getting that out of your system", I can feel one coming along soon ...


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> But I thought this is a classical music forum, not electronic music forum. In any case, it's quite fun making fart jokes anyway. And speaking about "getting that out of your system", I can feel one coming along soon ...


Ya but, electronic music can be considered a sub-genre of classical in a lot of cases. And then we get into the argument of what exactly is "classical music" and then that turns into a big fight!  Then we all just throw our hands up in the air and say ITS ALL JUST MUSIC DAMMIT! Now let's get back to listening to it.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

violadude said:


> Ya but, electronic music can be considered a sub-genre of classical in a lot of cases. And then we get into the argument of what exactly is "classical music" and then that turns into a big fight!  Then we all just throw our hands up in the air and say ITS ALL JUST MUSIC DAMMIT! Now let's get back to listening to it.


Yeah, I know. There will always be these fringe end of the entire repertoire that makes this board more interesting to come visit, like these big fights you mention. Don't take it too seriously, like some do, judging by their daily cries.


----------

