# Why do some People Dislike the Classical Era?



## neoshredder

Beethoven, Mozart, Haydn, and many others. I know some don't like to consider Beethoven Classical. But I think this is a great Era. But anyways, feel free to explain what the reasons are.


----------



## Ramako

It is a great mystery to me. It is such a great style which produced so much great music.


----------



## crmoorhead

Do people hate the Classical Era? I'm on a bit of a Mozart binge ATM, so I'm probably biased. Beethoven's output is almost entirely Classical albeit with some notable exceptions in deviations from style. I also really love Haydn, especially his String Quartets and Masses. And, of course, The Creation. 

If there are people that are tired of the classical era, it is probably because they are such staples of the repertoire and the period is pretty much dominated by the three composers mentioned above. I guess it is also percieved by many as an era that did establish a bit of a dogmatic attitude to form. Some other greats of the Classical era, however, would include the Michael Haydn, Boccerini, Cherubini, Clementi and Hummel. And a raft of less well known names that I am less familiar with. I've really never had any problems accepting music from any period, but I find myself drawn back to music of that era again and again. Moreso than the Romantic Era.


----------



## neoshredder

Yeah I've enjoyed works from CPE Bach, Boccherini, Carl Stamiz, and JC Bach. It's not just the big 3. Though I guess it can be easily overlooked based on how big those 3 were.


----------



## arpeggio

I do not know of any aficionado of classical music who dislike music from the classical period.

Along with many of my music colleagues, including a few clarinet players, we consider the Mozart _Clarinet Concerto _the finest clarinet concerto ever written. When I was a junior in college, I played the first movement in a student recital . It is an amazing piece. The clarinet has an amazing range of sounds. The lower notes, known as the chalumeau register, have a completely different sound than the upper notes. Mozart had a feel of how to take advantage of the wide range of sounds that a clarinet can produce in its various registers.

As an amateur bassoonist I had to learn to an audition piece. The work that I use is the Stamitz _Bassoon Concerto_.


----------



## KenOC

Still waiting for somebody who dislikes the classical period. Too bad it was all downhill from there (see my sig...)


----------



## clavichorder

I agree that the classical era gets singled out negatively quite a lot. I have some ideas:

Some simply need a certain weight of expression to their music, their emotional preference makes them oblivious. Others need to be assured in more intellectual and extramusical reasons; there are a wide variety of those who disdain the workman philosophy so prevalent in those times, and for me that's the most bothersome reason for cited for thinking poorly of classicism and baroque. Well, my opinion is that usually its a combination of both and its hard to tell whether its the chicken or the egg.

I am also sympathetic about how it can be difficult to juggle a taste for opposing styles in classical music. It used to be so for me in the past, I would go back and forth, but now I'm pretty confident in the high level of interest to be found in, for example, both classicism and impressionism.

Also, more than most of us care to admit, we have a strong liking for certain genres of more popular music. I think the genres of popular styles we find ourselves most enjoying has bearing on our classical music tastes.


----------



## BurningDesire

I'm not fond of it because of it is extremely homogenized and boring. There are some exceptions, and there is great music from that period, but it is by far the most formulaic, bland period in all of music.


----------



## ProudSquire

I don't know why, but what I do know is that, I love this era , perhaps slightly more than any other at this particular time in my life. I mean, there are so many other great composers for me to explore, excluding the fairly popular and well known composers from this particular era. Of course, every now and then I do turn to other eras for further discoveries of music that I can relate too, and so far I have not been disappointed.


----------



## Toddlertoddy

Because I don't. (But I do)

(Same answer to "Why don't you like metal?", "Why don't you like folk?", "Why don't you like rock?", "Why don't you like modern music?", "Why don't you like jazz?")


----------



## clavichorder

BurningDesire said:


> I'm not fond of it because of it is extremely homogenized and boring. There are some exceptions, and there is great music from that period, but it is by far the most formulaic, bland period in all of music.


Inflammatory much?


----------



## Toddlertoddy

clavichorder said:


> Inflammatory much?


She's been doing that for awhile, aren't you used to it by now?


----------



## clavichorder

Toddlertoddy said:


> She's been doing that for awhile, aren't you used to it by now?


I certainly should be. I couldn't resist that time...


----------



## BurningDesire

clavichorder said:


> Inflammatory much?


I'm not trying to start a fight or anything. That's genuinely how I feel, and the Classical period gets alot of love, I don't think I'm being cruel voicing my negative view of it.


----------



## aleazk

I have tried many times, but it simply does not catch my attention in any way. I feel the music flat and monochromatic. It's the only era I don't like. I even find more stimulation in medieval music.


----------



## arpeggio

BurningDesire said:


> I'm not fond of it because of it is extremely homogenized and boring. There are some exceptions, and there is great music from that period, but it is by far the most formulaic, bland period in all of music.


In a sense I agree. If one excludes Mozart and Haydn, much of the music is formulaic and bland.

The Stamitz _Bassoon Concerto_ has some weak parts in the "Second Movement". It is not in the same class as the Mozart _Bassoon Concerto_, which I think Mozart composed when he was eighteen, but it is still a pretty solid work.


----------



## Lukecash12

Because they haven't the taste for it?


----------



## Lukecash12

clavichorder said:


> I agree that the classical era gets singled out negatively quite a lot. I have some ideas:
> 
> Some simply need a certain weight of expression to their music, their emotional preference makes them oblivious. Others need to be assured in more intellectual and extramusical reasons; there are a wide variety of those who disdain the workman philosophy so prevalent in those times, and for me that's the most bothersome reason for cited for thinking poorly of classicism and baroque. Well, my opinion is that usually its a combination of both and its hard to tell whether its the chicken or the egg.
> 
> I am also sympathetic about how it can be difficult to juggle a taste for opposing styles in classical music. It used to be so for me in the past, I would go back and forth, but now I'm pretty confident in the high level of interest to be found in, for example, both classicism and impressionism.
> 
> Also, more than most of us care to admit, we have a strong liking for certain genres of more popular music. I think the genres of popular styles we find ourselves most enjoying has bearing on our classical music tastes.


Hmmmm... I had the impression that a portion of us don't have a strong liking towards much popular music.


----------



## clavichorder

BurningDesire said:


> I'm not trying to start a fight or anything. That's genuinely how I feel, and the Classical period gets alot of love, I don't think I'm being cruel voicing my negative view of it.


I don't believe you are being cruel or even argumentative in intention, I perhaps reacted too quickly to the choice of wording like "it is bland and homogenous" and it jumped out as the inflammatory phrase, especially since we haven't been able to find much subtlety in understanding each other over this topic. I now realize that "inflammatory much?" is also a very much potentially inflaming choice of words, so I appreciate your appropriate response. My fault for that, and I don't want to start a fight either, it would not be smart for me to get all worked up on previously treaded territory.

Well, hear is the food for thought part of this message for the thread at large:

Going back on my earlier comment about the popular music connection, I grew up listening to blues and liking it alongside classical music, which is very much based on formulas as well. I see a lot of diversity in blues and classicism that others don't, because I am not bothered by the limitations in chord progressions, and my attention is drawn to variations and instrumental solos. There are lots of differences, like the blue note in blues and the sonata form in classicism, but the similarities seem not too far fetched, I think. I think neoshredder's tastes work in a somewhat comparable way but with metal. Does anyone else see this for themselves? Also, for those that don't like classicism, I'd be curious to know what kinds of popular styles of music you have liked the most.


----------



## KenOC

Ah, the classical age. Haydn and Mozart brought forward the techniques of mass production already pioneered by people like Telemann and Vivaldi and applied them to the new style of music. You weren't anybody unless you wrote at least 50 symphonies (unless you died young of course). Music was produced to a fixed pattern. You can almost hear the machines working -- kachunk kachunk kachunk! Haydn wrote 108 symphonies and still had time for a huge mess of trios, quartets, operas, even baryton sonatas! I mean, how good could this stuff really be?

Then came Beethoven, a real letdown. He not only couldn't match the numbers of Haydn and Mozart, he couldn't even match a hack like Shostakovich. And his music, of course, has a very unpleasant plebian taste. Ptui!

The Romantics cleared the air of all that, but their music was little more than a long-term working forward toward what music should have been all along: The serialism and other types of atonalism that we know and love from the 20th century. A pity that it took so long.


----------



## arpeggio

I have learned that no matter how great a piece of music is there will always be someone who dislikes it. There is also a lot of garbage that some people love.

Although I may disagree, I find the dissenting opinions to be interesting.


----------



## clavichorder

Lukecash12 said:


> Hmmmm... I had the impression that a portion of us don't have a strong liking towards much popular music.


Maybe so, maybe I'm being presumptuous that a sizable number here cares for popular music much. Of course, it depends on how you define it. Maybe I should just say "non classical, non traditional folk" lol. I don't know, it was a thought.


----------



## Lukecash12

clavichorder said:


> I don't believe you are being cruel or even argumentative in intention, I perhaps reacted too quickly to the choice of wording like "it is bland and homogenous" and it jumped out as the inflammatory phrase, especially since we haven't been able to find much subtlety in understanding each other over this topic. I now realize that "inflammatory much?" is also a very much potentially inflaming choice of words, so I appreciate your appropriate response. My fault for that, and I don't want to start a fight either, it would not be smart for me to get all worked up on previously treaded territory.
> 
> Well, hear is the food for thought part of this message for the thread at large:
> 
> Going back on my earlier comment about the popular music connection, I grew up listening to blues and liking it alongside classical music, which is very much based on formulas as well. I see a lot of diversity in blues and classicism that others don't, because I am not bothered by the limitations in chord progressions, and my attention is drawn to variations and instrumental solos. There are lots of differences, like the blue note in blues and the sonata form in classicism, but the similarities seem not too far fetched, I think. I think neoshredder's tastes work in a somewhat comparable way but with metal. Does anyone else see this for themselves? Also, for those that don't like classicism, I'd be curious to know what kinds of popular styles of music you have liked the most.


I think you really strike at the heart of it. People try and look for a bunch of novel chord progressions, as if that is necessarily what you have to look for in terms of expressiveness, but there is so much more to music. So many other elements that are just as valid.


----------



## clavichorder

Lukecash12 said:


> I think you really strike at the heart of it. People try and look for a bunch of novel chord progressions, as if that is necessarily what you have to look for in terms of expressiveness, but there is so much more to music. So many other elements that are just as valid.


That's the nugget that usually sums up why I feel so justified in loving classicism.

Clarification: I did not initially justify liking it in order to like it. Haydn was one of the first classical composers I really loved, and I have a long relationship with his symphonies, early, middle, and late.


----------



## bigshot

The reason people don't like the classical period is because they have no taste.


----------



## bigshot

KenOC said:


> Haydn wrote 108 symphonies and still had time for a huge mess of trios, quartets, operas, even baryton sonatas! I mean, how good could this stuff really be?


Try to find someone today who can do all that as well as Haydn!


----------



## KenOC

bigshot said:


> Try to find someone today who can do all that as well as Haydn!


Yes, well, just a yuk. Who can do *anything* as well as Haydn?


----------



## neoshredder

Good points both ways. I will still enjoy the music but I understand the viewpoints. For me, it is very uplifting similar to Baroque. But I do notice the repetitive dominant to tonic pattern a lot and similar chord progressions used often. Nonetheless, the melodies are quite memorable.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

BurningDesire said:


> I'm not fond of it because of it is extremely homogenized and boring. There are some exceptions, and there is great music from that period, but it is by far the most formulaic, bland period in all of music.


You don't like Classical music. Nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## korenbloem

I love Haydn´s masses and some of the symphonies and praise mozart for his piano concertos and opera´s. Beethoven is an favorite here yet i dont count him in with classical composers but to the romantics. 

Mozart is probably one of the most popular and wide know composers in our decade. Others like Rossini, descendants of J.S. Bach are mostly overseen by the audience. I think you can compare this decade with the popculture of our time. Most of the innovations are not ground breaking and done before, yet the audience loves it! And most of the music is made with the intentions with the knowledge of what the audience wants.


----------



## Arsakes

Somedays I like to listen exclusively to classical era. Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Boccherini etc.

Answering this topic, Disliking something old, great and also popular is a Modernist fashion I think


----------



## violadude

Arsakes said:


> Answering this topic, Disliking something old, great and also popular is a Modernist fashion I think









...................


----------



## Chrythes

I don't hate it, but I find it boring. As it was mentioned before, it's very homogenized. I don't like the trills, and the other structural elements that feel very ornamental. Most of what I heard sounds like a delightful, shiny nature, this is not what I'm looking for in music. For me, It lacks the human part of the Romantic era or the "mysticism" of the Baroque era.


----------



## moody

BurningDesire said:


> I'm not fond of it because of it is extremely homogenized and boring. There are some exceptions, and there is great music from that period, but it is by far the most formulaic, bland period in all of music.


In your humble opinion Of course??


----------



## quack

Another attempt at a discussion devolved into factional fighting already, way to go.


----------



## jani

The Classical era?!!? Too mainstream its not cool to like it.
Listen to this avant-garde recording, the composer recorded some fly hum and auto tuned it.
I guess that you haven't heard it, but only me and few other people have.


----------



## Ravndal

Not a big fan. That type of sound doesn't interest me I'm afraid. The things i like are some of the music written for *solo *piano.

But that is because i primarily like piano.


----------



## arpeggio

quack said:


> Another attempt at a discussion devolved into factional fighting already, way to go.


What infighting? I am probably one of the most overly sensitive ones here and I do not see any real infighting. I see some honest disagreements.

I like music from the classical period, particularly late Mozart.

As I have stated earlier, I may disagree but I find the observations of those who do not like the classical period interesting. They are not saying that this music is bad. They just do not happen to like it. I can dig it.


----------



## BurningDesire

clavichorder said:


> Maybe so, maybe I'm being presumptuous that a sizable number here cares for popular music much. Of course, it depends on how you define it. Maybe I should just say "non classical, non traditional folk" lol. I don't know, it was a thought.


I adore alot of music designated by some as "popular music". I personally don't see why alot of its artists aren't worth the same kind of artistic respect that is afforded to classical composers (well certain classical composers) or classical musicians. I also think the distinction of high art and low art is a load of crap. (I do believe in subjective levels of quality in art, but the way these are divided by the distinction of art music vs. pop music makes no sense, and wreaks of stupid elitism)

Want me to list bands/solo musicians I like in the various "popular music" idioms? XD


----------



## BurningDesire

Arsakes said:


> Somedays I like to listen exclusively to classical era. Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Boccherini etc.
> 
> Answering this topic, Disliking something old, great and also popular is a Modernist fashion I think


It's so modernist that many of the most famous (infamous?) modernists were huge fans of great composers of the past. Schoenberg adored Mozart and Brahms and Wagner. Stravinsky adored Mozart and Bach. Ives adored Beethoven and Bach. Boulez likes and respects Mozart, Wagner, Beethoven, Mahler, and Bruckner. Stockhausen respected and performed (in his years as a student) the music of Mozart and Beethoven and Chopin and others. I'm a modern composer (not that I'm anywhere near as awesome as Ives or Stravinsky or Schoenberg) and Beethoven, Chopin, Tchaikovsky, and Debussy are among my biggest heroes as composers.

I find making the assumption that anything new is bad is a conservative fashion. Whether the new music is tonal or atonal, consonant or dissonant, conservative listeners don't care because they are closed-off to new experience.


----------



## Vaneyes

I think the "bookends" of Early Music and Contemporary are kicked to the curb much more than Classical, so I can't drum up enough enthusiasm for this topic. Sorry.


----------



## Zauberberg

Why do some People dislike what I like? Why aren't our tastes the same? Why aren't the rest like me? Why all these "I and you and they"? It would be easier if everybody would be like me! mum I found this world hard to live in! nobody told me about it! I feel so depressed right now... what a cruel world full of evil people.


----------



## millionrainbows

neoshredder said:


> ...For me, it is very uplifting similar to Baroque. But I do notice the repetitive dominant to tonic pattern a lot and similar chord progressions used often...


If we are talking about "art" here, then the Classical era, as well as the Baroque, are both "pre-art." It was only during Beethoven's later period that "art" began to be created, which is why many listeners are drawn to that era, because it is music designed _for them_ as art.

The Sistine Chapel frescoes are magnificent, but were not intended and did not function as "art" as we know it. They were intended as a visual manifestation of the power of God, and specifically, God's earthly power manifest in the Della Rovere Papacy. To call them "art" is to sever them from their context. The fresco images seep into the very walls of the sacred papal chapel. We have historical limitations. We see them as art today, as tourist attractions.

Leonardo da Vinci saw his drawing & painting as only one aspect of his quest for knowledge. His anatomical drawings were means of understanding the world. See, observe, record...there ain't no photography yet. Medical illustration, engineering drawing, but not "art."

Likewise, many of Bach's Chorales were sold as scrap paper, since they had already served their purpose. Haydn's symphonies were to feature players of the court orchestra, and to entertain the court. While some of these, the London, caught on as sensations, his output is largely workman-like and straightforward, not intended as "artistic expression." _He was a software engineer, a programmer for the "noble video game arcade."_

Many people want art that has some sort of "artistic purpose," which was intended to speak directly to them and the human condition. Bach was expressing his love for God; we can relate to that, but by proxy. Its intent was not for our artistic enjoyment.

This is why some people do not like the Classical era, but are drawn to the Romantic.


----------



## moody

jani said:


> The Classical era?!!? Too mainstream its not cool to like it.
> Listen to this avant-garde recording, the composer recorded some fly hum and auto tuned it.
> I guess that you haven't heard it, but only me and few other people have.


I guess it will remain like that because it's not there!
But it's OK to like Beethoven though,he's not too mainstream??


----------



## jani

moody said:


> I guess it will remain like that because it's not there!
> But it's OK to like Beethoven though,he's not too mainstream??


Classical era is one of the most listened era's on classical music, also i was trying to make a caricature from a hardcore modernist.
A.k.a it was a joke.
I don't care how popular/unpopular music is, i listen to it if i like it.


----------



## neoshredder

millionrainbows said:


> If we are talking about "art" here, then the Classical era, as well as the Baroque, are both "pre-art." It was only during Beethoven's later period that "art" began to be created, which is why many listeners are drawn to that era, because it is music designed _for them_ as art.
> 
> The Sistine Chapel frescoes are magnificent, but are not "art" as we know it. They were intended as a visual manifestation of the power of God, and specifically, God's earthly power manifest in the Della Rovere Papacy. To call them "art" is to sever them from their context. The fresco images seep into the very walls of the sacred papal chapel. We have historical limitations. We see them as art today, as tourist attractions.
> 
> Leonardo da Vinci saw his drawing & painting as only one aspect of his quest for knowledge. His anatomical drawings were means of understanding the world. See, observe, record...there ain't no photography yet. Medical illustration, engineering drawing, but not "art."
> 
> Likewise, many of Bach's Chorales were sold as scrap paper, since they had already served their purpose. Haydn's symphonies were to feature players of the court orchestra, and to entertain the court. While some of these, the London, caught on as sensations, his output is largely workman-like and straightforward, not intended as "artistic expression." He was a software engineer, a programmer for the "noble video game arcade."
> 
> Many people want art that has some sort of "artistic purpose," which was intended to speak directly to them and the human condition. Bach was expressing his love for God; we can relate to that, but by proxy. Its intent was not for our artistic enjoyment.
> 
> This is why some people do not like the Classical era, but are drawn to the Romantic.


So Baroque and Classical music isn't Art? Just because it isn't bombastic and overdramatic doesn't make any less art imo. Btw have you heard CPE Bach's music? He is sort of the rebel of his day. Very moody music. What about Sturm und Drang? Sorry I don't agree with your comments.


----------



## crmoorhead

neoshredder said:


> So Baroque and Classical music isn't Art? Just because it isn't bombastic and overdramatic doesn't make any less art imo. Btw have you heard CPE Bach's music? He is sort of the rebel of his day. Very moody music. What about Sturm und Drang? Sorry I don't agree with your comments.


Neither do I. Art is the act of creating something from nothing, IMO, usually in an attempt to communicate or illustrate something to another person for the purposes of mutual enjoyment/mental stimulation. Bach, with his chorales, was trying to communicate something as much as Liszt was. Music speaks as much to the soul in the Baroque or Classical Eras as any of the others.

A question: What is the difference between a very skilled craftsman and an artist?


----------



## KenOC

neoshredder said:


> So Baroque and Classical music isn't Art?


"Art" is what we say it is, nothing more. It's a concept used to define and enforce superiority. But it's handy that way, of course!


----------



## Renaissance

The idea that art is defined by the intention/purpose and not by its content is what really ruined art. Because by these criteria, everything designed to be art is art, regardless its value and content. Actually, this idea was highly used by modernists to promote their stuff. 

I do like some classical era composers, but I usually don't listen much to this style of music, unless you consider Beethoven a classic.


----------



## Petwhac

crmoorhead said:


> A question: What is the difference between a very skilled craftsman and an artist?


I was re-reading some pages from Schoenberg's book 'Style and Idea' and he puts it this way:
"The craftsman _can_ but the artist _must_. Which is quite a good way of looking at it. Other things he said also struck me as true such as, you can teach the craftsman but artists only learn from themselves. This seems to me quite true in that _craft_ is what composers get from their teachers- Beethoven from Salieri, Haydn, Albrechtsberger for example. But _art_ comes from within.

This has little to do with the OP!


----------



## KenOC

Perhaps the difference between an artisan and an artist is that the artisan produces something useful.


----------



## bigshot

I went to design school. That means that I've had my fill of "what is art?" discussions. I eagerly await the moment when we start discussing classical music again.


----------



## Guest

I'm coming around to it, especially Mozart's few minor key pieces. My main issues are I don't care for Alberti bass (I prefer counterpoint) and the rather rule-based, predictable chord progressions--I prefer more surprising harmonic turns. So, "dislike" is too strong of a word--the Classical era just isn't my favorite. It's still better than rap, though.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

BurningDesire said:


> I adore alot of music designated by some as "popular music". I personally don't see why alot of its artists aren't worth the same kind of artistic respect that is afforded to classical composers (well certain classical composers) or classical musicians. I also think the distinction of high art and low art is a load of crap. (I do believe in subjective levels of quality in art, but the way these are divided by the distinction of art music vs. pop music makes no sense, and wreaks of stupid elitism)
> 
> Want me to list bands/solo musicians I like in the various "popular music" idioms? XD


Well, I am almost sure that there are discussion forums elsewhere dedicated to the respective popular musicians that you speak of and enjoy. At those forums, there would be high praise for such music. At those forums, people would share the same interest as you do with regards to the music of such artist. At those forums, there would probably be little/no negative opinion expressed about popular music in general. At those forums, you might even enjoy it there more than here, where there would be no high arto and low art distinction etc.


----------



## Lukecash12

millionrainbows said:


> If we are talking about "art" here, then the Classical era, as well as the Baroque, are both "pre-art." It was only during Beethoven's later period that "art" began to be created, which is why many listeners are drawn to that era, because it is music designed _for them_ as art.
> 
> The Sistine Chapel frescoes are magnificent, but were not intended and did not function as "art" as we know it. They were intended as a visual manifestation of the power of God, and specifically, God's earthly power manifest in the Della Rovere Papacy. To call them "art" is to sever them from their context. The fresco images seep into the very walls of the sacred papal chapel. We have historical limitations. We see them as art today, as tourist attractions.
> 
> Leonardo da Vinci saw his drawing & painting as only one aspect of his quest for knowledge. His anatomical drawings were means of understanding the world. See, observe, record...there ain't no photography yet. Medical illustration, engineering drawing, but not "art."
> 
> Likewise, many of Bach's Chorales were sold as scrap paper, since they had already served their purpose. Haydn's symphonies were to feature players of the court orchestra, and to entertain the court. While some of these, the London, caught on as sensations, his output is largely workman-like and straightforward, not intended as "artistic expression." _He was a software engineer, a programmer for the "noble video game arcade."_
> 
> Many people want art that has some sort of "artistic purpose," which was intended to speak directly to them and the human condition. Bach was expressing his love for God; we can relate to that, but by proxy. Its intent was not for our artistic enjoyment.
> 
> This is why some people do not like the Classical era, but are drawn to the Romantic.


This definition of art assumes that art is made for the express purpose of communicating something from the UOD (universe of discourse) of humanistic philosophy. Simply because other art has a different philosophical underpinning, does not mean that it isn't expressive and representative of it's author(s). Art hasn't even the need to be conceived of as art, for it to function as such.


----------



## Lukecash12

KenOC said:


> "Art" is what we say it is, nothing more. It's a concept used to define and enforce superiority. But it's handy that way, of course!


It's important to mention here it is a concept used for that function, but not specifically conceived for that function.


----------



## Lukecash12

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Well, I am almost sure that there are discussion forums elsewhere dedicated to the respective popular musicians that you speak of and enjoy. At those forums, there would be high praise for such music. At those forums, people would share the same interest as you do with regards to the music of such artist. At those forums, there would probably be little/no negative opinion expressed about popular music in general. At those forums, you might even enjoy it there more than here, where there would be no high arto and low art distinction etc.


Precisely, and the tired red herring and argumentum ad hominem that is the distinction of elitism, does not actually work as a criticism of the view that there is "high and low" art. It also builds up this straw man of egotism as the basis for viewing some art as high and other art as low, because the actual reasons given for such delineations rarely are argued for on the basis of egotism. It's a pretty weak display of logic that people can't just argue against it on grounds like "it's subjectivity", as opposed to just repeating again and again this label of elitist. But of course, it's just all too easy to blame character qualities and say that their basis for their arguments is those character qualities, as opposed to actually interacting with the arguments they give.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Lukecash12 said:


> Precisely, and the tired red herring and argumentum ad hominem that is the distinction of elitism, does not actually work as a criticism of the view that there is "high and low" art. It also builds up this straw man of egotism as the basis for viewing some art as high and other art as low, because the actual reasons given for such delineations rarely are argued for on the basis of egotism. It's a pretty weak display of logic that people can't just argue against it on grounds like "it's subjectivity", as opposed to just repeating again and again this label of elitist. But of course, it's just all too easy to blame character qualities and say that their basis for their arguments is those character qualities, as opposed to actually interacting with the arguments they give.


Nice, general philosophical reasoning (you must have read philosophy). In practice though, it solves nothing.


----------



## KenOC

Lukecash12 said:


> Precisely, and the tired red herring... But of course, it's just all too easy to blame character qualities and say that their basis for their arguments is those character qualities, as opposed to actually interacting with the arguments they give.


Well, reasoned arguments on the subject seem in short supply here. Please tell me (again, if necessary) how to reliably recognize "art" from among its imitators and other constructs that might seem to be art but are not.


----------



## Lukecash12

KenOC said:


> Well, reasoned arguments on the subject seem in short supply here. Please tell me (again, if necessary) how to reliably recognize "art" from among its imitators and other constructs that might seem to be art but are not.


I have a pretty accommodating definition of art, so I view things as art that a lot of others might not. That is because I look at pretty much anything that at least can have the function of being representative and/or expressive of it's creator, as a piece of art. Intent doesn't factor in as much for me.


----------



## Lukecash12

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Nice, general philosophical reasoning (you must have read philosophy). In practice though, it solves nothing.


Hahahaha, you're right, of course. All that reasoning did was to level at someone else and similar people how that they solve nothing with their arguments, all the while solving nothing myself.


----------



## KenOC

Lukecash12 said:


> I have a pretty accommodating definition of art, so I view things as art that a lot of others might not.


Well, earlier I posted: "Art" is what we say it is, nothing more. Sorry for thinking you disagreed with that!


----------



## presto

I actually prefer the Classical era to the Romantic.
Eighteenth century works by Mozart and Haydn were more compact, concise and somehow more satisfying in their form. 
Many romantic works get very overblown and padded out.


----------



## Lukecash12

KenOC said:


> Well, earlier I posted: "Art" is what we say it is, nothing more. Sorry for thinking you disagreed with that!


Well, I do believe that there are examples of art that are more than just what we say they are. And of course "art" cannot just be what we say it is, because that would entail it being a logical contradiction, seeing as two different claims about it can often result in a non sequitor. Really, I think what you are getting at is how loosely defined the word is, and how trivial are the arguments over it's definition. But I do think that it can be a useful term if rationally defined, as opposed to the emotional and/or half baked definitions that abound.


----------



## clavichorder

BurningDesire said:


> Want me to list bands/solo musicians I like in the various "popular music" idioms? XD


No obligation to list, but you are welcome to reference them, particularly if you think the music has elements in common that you also enjoy the most in the classical music genre.


----------



## SottoVoce

millionrainbows said:


> If we are talking about "art" here, then the Classical era, as well as the Baroque, are both "pre-art." It was only during Beethoven's later period that "art" began to be created, which is why many listeners are drawn to that era, because it is music designed _for them_ as art.
> 
> The Sistine Chapel frescoes are magnificent, but were not intended and did not function as "art" as we know it. They were intended as a visual manifestation of the power of God, and specifically, God's earthly power manifest in the Della Rovere Papacy. To call them "art" is to sever them from their context. The fresco images seep into the very walls of the sacred papal chapel. We have historical limitations. We see them as art today, as tourist attractions.
> 
> Leonardo da Vinci saw his drawing & painting as only one aspect of his quest for knowledge. His anatomical drawings were means of understanding the world. See, observe, record...there ain't no photography yet. Medical illustration, engineering drawing, but not "art."
> 
> Likewise, many of Bach's Chorales were sold as scrap paper, since they had already served their purpose. Haydn's symphonies were to feature players of the court orchestra, and to entertain the court. While some of these, the London, caught on as sensations, his output is largely workman-like and straightforward, not intended as "artistic expression." _He was a software engineer, a programmer for the "noble video game arcade."_
> 
> Many people want art that has some sort of "artistic purpose," which was intended to speak directly to them and the human condition. Bach was expressing his love for God; we can relate to that, but by proxy. Its intent was not for our artistic enjoyment.
> 
> This is why some people do not like the Classical era, but are drawn to the Romantic.


If you look at the historical conditions of art, this is completely correct. It went from Greeks thinking that "art" is a sort of craft, a technique built to arouse the emotions, and in some cases, explain technical knowledge. Greeks at that time went to Homer from everything from pleasure to how to ride a charriot (I'm not kidding, it's in The Republic). Now, it is obvious that art is a product meant for consumption as well, but this wasn't the case in primitive and religious art of the Middle Ages, which was not meant for earthly consumption but to respect a divine being; the African masks can't be considered art because they weren't built with an artistic intent.

Of course, you can enjoy them aesthetically, because they're beautiful. But they were far away from the definition we know called art. Hell, even art doesn't mean what we mean; Art comes from the latin word ars, which means craft. Renaissance painters saw themselves as either artisans or God-bearers, not making products that were meant for self-contemplation, which is now normally our definition of art.

Collingwood's Principles of Art explains this all. Anyone who has studied Greek and Renaissance aesthetic theory would see that art in the modern day is used in a such a loose definition that no one knows what it really means now or meant in the past. We still don't know what it really means, but we have a better insight of what it meant in the past. So, yes, I would agree; if we're talking about strict definition, the frescoes are not art, and neither are some of Bach's work. But they are indeed very beautiful, and very aesthetic, and so we can still enjoy them aestehtically. I agree with millionrainbows.


----------



## crmoorhead

SottoVoce said:


> If you look at the historical conditions of art, this is completely correct. It went from Greeks thinking that "art" is a sort of craft, a technique built to arouse the emotions, and in some cases, explain technical knowledge. Greeks at that time went to Homer from everything from pleasure to how to ride a charriot (I'm not kidding, it's in The Republic). Now, it is obvious that art is a product meant for consumption as well, but this wasn't the case in primitive and religious art of the Middle Ages, which was not meant for earthly consumption but to respect a divine being; the African masks can't be considered art because they weren't built with an artistic intent.
> 
> Of course, you can enjoy them aesthetically, because they're beautiful. But they were far away from the definition we know called art. Hell, even art doesn't mean what we mean; Art comes from the latin word ars, which means craft. Renaissance painters saw themselves as either artisans or God-bearers, not making products that were meant for self-contemplation, which is now normally our definition of art.
> 
> Collingwood's Principles of Art explains this all. Anyone who has studied Greek and Renaissance aesthetic theory would see that art in the modern day is used in a such a loose definition that no one knows what it really means now or meant in the past. We still don't know what it really means, but we have a better insight of what it meant in the past. So, yes, I would agree; if we're talking about strict definition, the frescoes are not art, and neither are some of Bach's work. But they are indeed very beautiful, and very aesthetic, and so we can still enjoy them aestehtically. I agree with millionrainbows.


Well, you call into question what we really mean by 'art' by suggesting that what ancient Greeks meant by art was different to our own and by references the Middle Ages using art solely as a means of dedication to God. This is debatable firstly because there are many forms of secular art in the Middle Ages. Frescoes, paintings and pottery are all counted as 'art'. This brings us to the Latin definition of 'craft', which leads to the question I posed at the end of the last reply. This position, which you suggest, is the opposite of millionrainbows' one. I would be glad if you could reconcile this difference.

Secondly, this perspective is one that is very narrow. Even if one accepted that medieval art is different from our own ideas, how about anything from the Renaissance onwards? There is no reason why we should change the meaning of art to fit with an archaic mode of thought. None of us are ancient Greeks or medieval monks. Whether people thought differently then does not have much bearing on how it has been thought of in the last, say, 400 years. There are many words that have changed definition since the middle ages. All music that we are talking about here lies within this later time period. What about Bach's 'Art of Fugue'?

As for no one quite knowing what is meant by art today or was meant in times past, wiki quotes Encyclopaedia Britannica in saying:

The Encyclopædia Britannica Online defines art as "the use of skill and imagination in the creation of aesthetic objects, environments, or experiences that can be shared with others".

Which is remarkably close to how I put it in a previous post. How exactly do you disagree with this definition? Do you think it too loose a definition? If so, I fail to see why it needs to be narrowed down. Wide definitions exist when concerning such a wide range of activities.


> Renaissance painters saw themselves as either artisans or God-bearers, not making products that were meant for self-contemplation, which is now normally our definition of art.


Care to elaborate on this? How exactly did Renaissance painters not produce works mean for self-contemplation? How exactly do paintings concerning classical mythology fit in with this? They aren't Christian, by any means, but they do have meaning. What about portraits? I ask because I am interested.


----------



## Lukecash12

SottoVoce said:


> If you look at the historical conditions of art, this is completely correct. It went from Greeks thinking that "art" is a sort of craft, a technique built to arouse the emotions, and in some cases, explain technical knowledge. Greeks at that time went to Homer from everything from pleasure to how to ride a charriot (I'm not kidding, it's in The Republic). Now, it is obvious that art is a product meant for consumption as well, but this wasn't the case in primitive and religious art of the Middle Ages, which was not meant for earthly consumption but to respect a divine being; the African masks can't be considered art because they weren't built with an artistic intent.
> 
> Of course, you can enjoy them aesthetically, because they're beautiful. But they were far away from the definition we know called art. Hell, even art doesn't mean what we mean; Art comes from the latin word ars, which means craft. Renaissance painters saw themselves as either artisans or God-bearers, not making products that were meant for self-contemplation, which is now normally our definition of art.
> 
> Collingwood's Principles of Art explains this all. Anyone who has studied Greek and Renaissance aesthetic theory would see that art in the modern day is used in a such a loose definition that no one knows what it really means now or meant in the past. We still don't know what it really means, but we have a better insight of what it meant in the past. So, yes, I would agree; if we're talking about strict definition, the frescoes are not art, and neither are some of Bach's work. But they are indeed very beautiful, and very aesthetic, and so we can still enjoy them aestehtically. I agree with millionrainbows.


That the word has this Latin base, does not necessarily mean that it has to be compared to it definition-wise, as if the base is a benchmark. And I would argue that the more modern definitions of art are relative to it because art is considered a type of craft. The idea that something is a craft, doesn't preclude it from being humanistic. Craft often involves itself with humanism.


----------



## KenOC

Lukecash12 said:


> That the word has this Latin base, does not necessarily mean that it has to be compared to it definition-wise, as if the base is a benchmark. And I would argue that the more modern definitions of art are relative to it because art is considered a type of craft. The idea that something is a craft, doesn't preclude it from being humanistic. Craft often involves itself with humanism.


I imagine that the designer of a fine sailing ship might consider it "art." So might its owner and crew. Ditto cabinet-making and...you name it!


----------



## Lukecash12

KenOC said:


> I imagine that the designer of a fine sailing ship might consider it "art." So might its owner and crew. Ditto cabinet-making and...you name it!


And who is to say it isn't, when it is made with a particular aesthetic in mind?


----------



## KenOC

Lukecash12 said:


> And who is to say it isn't, when it is does in with a particular aesthetic in mind?


There are those here who would refuse it the title of "art." I was actually agreeing with you (I think!)


----------



## Lukecash12

KenOC said:


> There are those here who would refuse it the title of "art." I was actually agreeing with you (I think!)


Sure, we are in agreement.


----------



## Ukko

So... now you guys are saying that it's art if the creator has/had an _aesthetic_ in mind? Isn't that a firm definition?


----------



## KenOC

Hilltroll72 said:


> So... now you guys are saying that it's art if the creator has/had an _aesthetic_ in mind? Isn't that a firm definition?


No. I'm only saying I'll smile and nod. But "art" remains only what we say it is (yes, each of us individually) and no more than that.

If we want to say "It's art if 80% or more of people consider it art," then that's fine. We've defined the word "art." But then it's only art for the day; the popular vote is of course fickle! (Yes, even for Bach...)


----------



## Lukecash12

Hilltroll72 said:


> So... now you guys are saying that it's art if the creator has/had an _aesthetic_ in mind? Isn't that a firm definition?


I do think so. Without our constructing aesthetics, we can't anthropomorphize the things around us in order to represent our thoughts. And people can be represented without this idea of self contemplation being part of the equation. I think that is a bit too firm, because it rules out earlier periods of music that can accomplish some of the same ends.

Where Ken (if he minds me calling him that) and I seem to differ, is in my want for a more utilitarian and universal definition, as opposed to his being content to see art as whatever we say it is.


----------



## millionrainbows

Hilltroll72 said:


> So... now you guys are saying that it's art if the creator has/had an _aesthetic_ in mind? Isn't that a firm definition?


If that is so, we still must concede that this aesthetic is the result of cultural and social conditioning.


----------



## millionrainbows

crmoorhead said:


> Neither do I. Art is the act of creating something from nothing, IMO, usually in an attempt to communicate or illustrate something to another person for the purposes of mutual enjoyment/mental stimulation. Bach, with his chorales, was trying to communicate something as much as Liszt was. Music speaks as much to the soul in the Baroque or Classical Eras as any of the others.


No, Bach did not write to entertain an audience, but as part of a Church service, to glorify God. That was its only purpose.


----------



## Lukecash12

millionrainbows said:


> If that is so, we still must concede that this aesthetic is the result of cultural and social conditioning.


You act as if that is so much of a concession. Is that supposed to rob those who have used aesthetics of some of their art's meaning, or somehow trivialize it? I don't mean to imply that this is your meaning, although it is a possible interpretation. And almost everything involving people is primarily or at least partly cultural (by the way, saying "social" after "cultural" is redundant unless you are referring to sociology which heavily overlaps with ethnography and other studies of culture).

It's not my intention to condescend or sound intelligent here, so much as it is my intention to ask for some clarity on your part.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

millionrainbows said:


> No, Bach did not write to entertain an audience, but as part of a Church service, to glorify God. That was its only purpose.


Bach did write music to glorify his religion/God. But in doing so, he also wanted to celebrate God's creations; this universality of his music - God and creation - made his music especially appealing. And I am no Christian, along with billions of others throughout history and today, are testament that we non-Christians are able to identify it. The music speaks for itself.


----------



## crmoorhead

millionrainbows said:


> No, Bach did not write to entertain an audience, but as part of a Church service, to glorify God. That was its only purpose.


What about a sizeable church congregation excludes it from being an audience? This also ignores the large number of secular works that Bach also produced:



> Leopold, Prince of Anhalt-Köthen hired Bach to serve as his Kapellmeister (director of music) in 1717. Prince Leopold, himself a musician, appreciated Bach's talents, paid him well, and gave him considerable latitude in composing and performing. The prince was Calvinist and did not use elaborate music in his worship; accordingly, most of Bach's work from this period was secular,[33] including the Orchestral Suites, the Six Suites for Unaccompanied Cello, the Sonatas and Partitas for Solo Violin, and the Brandenburg Concertos.[34] Bach also composed secular cantatas for the court such as the Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht, BWV 134a.


Regardless of whether or not they were used or intended for religious purposes, this still falls within what is generally understood as 'musical arts' under the greater umbrella of art. And my original wording was that it was created for mutual enjoyment. Are you saying that Bach did not intend his works to be enjoyed and admired by other human beings?


----------



## Renaissance

What has Classical Era to do with Bach ?:angel:


----------



## millionrainbows

Renaissance said:


> What has Classical Era to do with Bach ?:angel:


That's right; so I won't answer the above queries.

But seriously, the thread question was "Why do some People Dislike the Classical Era?" and I'm saying that, similar to the Baroque period, the Classical era was not produced as "art" for the individual, which did not happen until the Romantic period.

Therefore, in many instances, in Classical and Baroque we see "workmanship" with specific function, which does not have the full artistic intent of the Romantic period. There is a certain "detachment" and failure to connect with the individual, because it was intended to entertain certain royal factions, cater to power, or to function as Church music. We see Bach's _Mass in B minor_ as art now, but that was not its original intent, and I say there is a "residue" of this detachment which some people sense intuitively, and that's why "some People Dislike the Classical Era."

So I'm considering "art" to be an intrinsic quality, put there by the artist's intent, moreso than something we perceive as an "audience" to it, because that audience's cultural context is not a constant, but changes through time.


----------



## crmoorhead

Renaissance said:


> What has Classical Era to do with Bach ?:angel:


Quite right sir, quite right. I'll stick to the subject at hand. I already put in my two cents earlier, so I'll just reiterate that I love the Classical Era (just as I love music from all eras) and suggest perhaps that it is the dominance of certain composers and certain rigid types of form that might put some people off. I don't see this as a logical reason to dislike it but it is, nonetheless, a viable theory on explaining why someone might be turned off by it.


----------



## KenOC

millionrainbows said:


> So I'm considering "art" to be an intrinsic quality, put there by the artist's intent...


"Ah, my symphony is almost finished! Now where did I put that can of art?" 

After all, they say the last step in designing an airplane is to "add lightness."


----------



## Ukko

millionrainbows said:


> If that is so, we still must concede that this aesthetic is the result of cultural and social conditioning.


It seems to me more significant to note that this definition is completely one-sided. Nobody but the creator can know about that aesthetic unless informed that there was one. We are back to that welded-up conglomeration in the art gallery.


----------



## xuantu

I am so out of my depth here , retreat!


----------



## SottoVoce

Thanks so much for the thoughtful reply.



crmoorhead said:


> Well, you call into question what we really mean by 'art' by suggesting that what ancient Greeks meant by art was different to our own and by references the Middle Ages using art solely as a means of dedication to God. This is debatable firstly because there are many forms of secular art in the Middle Ages. Frescoes, paintings and pottery are all counted as 'art'. This brings us to the Latin definition of 'craft', which leads to the question I posed at the end of the last reply. This position, which you suggest, is the opposite of millionrainbows' one. I would be glad if you could reconcile this difference.


I'm not sure that Middle Age artists would consider something like ballades and bard music "art", in the sense of it being reverence to God. It has slowly creeped up into our definition of art because we use the term so loosely these days we will call anything with an aesthetic appeal art. These are aesthetic objects, but they are not art, as in our definition of art meaning "self-contemplation". They weren't considered to be aesthetic objects in their time, which is why some Middle Ages composers would add notes that could not be heard without any distinct preparation; it was meant for God, not for humanity. This came with the Enlightenment.



> Secondly, this perspective is one that is very narrow. Even if one accepted that medieval art is different from our own ideas, how about anything from the Renaissance onwards? There is no reason why we should change the meaning of art to fit with an archaic mode of thought. None of us are ancient Greeks or medieval monks. Whether people thought differently then does not have much bearing on how it has been thought of in the last, say, 400 years. There are many words that have changed definition since the middle ages. All music that we are talking about here lies within this later time period. What about Bach's 'Art of Fugue'?
> 
> As for no one quite knowing what is meant by art today or was meant in times past, wiki quotes Encyclopaedia Britannica in saying:
> 
> The Encyclopædia Britannica Online defines art as "the use of skill and imagination in the creation of aesthetic objects, environments, or experiences that can be shared with others".


What I am saying is that the definition of art for Renaissance, Classical, etc. "artists" was not nearly the same they were now. In the modern definition of "art", which is the Britannia Encyclopedia definition, I would not consider them art. I still call them art in the very loose sense, just things made artificially by humans. But I wouldn't consider the modern definition to be applicable. For example, the Britannia one I disagree with when applying to modern art, art of that after the Classical era. If given this definition, we would also have to consider carpentry, shipbuilding, etc. as art, and this is clearly not the case; the definition of fine arts is distinct and formulated in the modern era, unlike in the past.



> Which is remarkably close to how I put it in a previous post. How exactly do you disagree with this definition? Do you think it too loose a definition? If so, I fail to see why it needs to be narrowed down. Wide definitions exist when concerning such a wide range of activities.


Yeah, I feel like it is too loose of a definition, because anyone can see anything aesthetically, and so they can see anything as art, which I find semi-absurd. The whole conception of "art" (in the broad sense) has changed so much over the past 2,000 years, I find it ridiculous to call them by the same name. I would like to have a more narrow definition, but I don't control how people use language, nor should I. I just think it doesn't say much about what art is, etc. Collingwood feels the same as me.



> Care to elaborate on this? How exactly did Renaissance painters not produce works mean for self-contemplation? How exactly do paintings concerning classical mythology fit in with this? They aren't Christian, by any means, but they do have meaning. What about portraits? I ask because I am interested.


It wasn't focused in any way for private consumption as art is now; or even for contemplation of human existence, etc. It was meant either as technique, such as da Vinci's paintings ( to find out things about the world), or religious reverence, as it is with Michelangelo's paintings. Which is why they are in such private places; there was no "concert hall" where the mass public can go during their time off and love these works of art. It was reverence, not consumption.

Hope I answered your questions semi-well, as they were very reasonable points and I'm not sure if that answers them fully. But what I think, like I said before, art is used in such a loose definition that it doesn't tell us much what it is, and since the conception of art has changed so much over the past 2,000 years, I find it silly to use the same word to label such divergent modes of thinking about what we make aesthetically. So what do I think? I don't think Bach meant people to see 'The Art of Fugue', which is why it's in open score. I don't think he really cared whether anyone saw any of his music, except the commissioned ones. He said himself he was writing for the Glory of God. So it's not art (in the modern sense of the word). But it's also very beautiful, so I can enjoy it aesthetically. There are many things that are beautiful (nature for example) that are not art (they can't be, they weren't created by artificial means), but are still very beautiful. Mozart was sat with the cooks, remember that. But I disagree with millionrainbows slightly in the fact that I think Mozart did see himself as an artist. His time was when the definition of art was changing. But the Baroque downwards didn't think themselves as artists in the modern sense of the word.


----------



## millionrainbows

Hilltroll72 said:


> It seems to me more significant to note that this definition is completely one-sided. Nobody but the creator can know about that aesthetic unless informed that there was one. We are back to that welded-up conglomeration in the art gallery.


No, because to be "pure" art, it must be produced as a _spiritual act of intent._ Bach's music seems to meet this criteria to a large extent, because of its quality and spiritual nature, but confusingly, the Church was also a _utilitarian_ source of power at that time. In that context, we have to recognize and identify which elements have transcended their utilitarian purpose to become art.



KenOC said:


> "Ah, my symphony is almost finished! Now where did I put that can of art?"


In Bach's case, after examining the "musical craftsmanship," it is obvious that Bach was one of the greatest _musicians_ of all time, but he was not an "artist" and did not produce "art" in any context, because _*"cans of art" did not exist.*_

Aesthetics-that is, the theoretical counterpoint to art-did not exist before the late eighteenth century. An artist creates art, and he does this intentionally, *in a cultural context in which the notion of art exists.*

If we perceive Bach's music as "art," this is something _we put there,_ and perceive as an "audience" _after the fact of its creation,_ because it was not intended to be, nor did it function in its original context, as "art."

Audience member: "Ahh, this Mass, created years ago in another context, is really entertaining. Now I have to spray it down with this can of Art."


----------



## crmoorhead

@SottoVoce I still disagree with that definition of art, but thanks for taking the time to make an appropriate response. Much appreciated.


----------



## millionrainbows

SottoVoce said:


> ...These are aesthetic objects, but they are not art, as in our definition of art meaning "self-contemplation". They weren't considered to be aesthetic objects in their time...it was meant for God, not for humanity...It wasn't focused in any way for private consumption as art is now...It was reverence, not consumption...So it's not art (in the modern sense of the word)....There are many things that are beautiful (nature for example) that are not art...


Aesthetics-that is, the theoretical counterpoint to art-did not exist before the late eighteenth century. Doesn't this fact alone prove many of our points?


----------



## millionrainbows

Lukecash12 said:


> You act as if that is so much of a concession. Is that supposed to rob *those who have used aesthetics *of some of their art's meaning, or somehow trivialize it? I don't mean to imply that this is your meaning, although it is a possible interpretation. And almost everything involving people is primarily or at least partly cultural (by the way, saying "social" after "cultural" is redundant unless you are referring to sociology which heavily overlaps with ethnography and other studies of culture)....It's not my intention to condescend or sound intelligent here, so much as it is my intention to ask for some clarity on your part.


Aesthetics-that is, the theoretical counterpoint to art-*did not exist before the late eighteenth century.* Yet, you want to use aesthetics to "convert" things into art after the fact, when they were not intended as art in the first place?

No, an _artist_ creates _art,_ and he does this _intentionally,_ in a cultural context in which the notion of art _exists._


----------



## neoshredder

millionrainbows said:


> That's right; so I won't answer the above queries.
> 
> But seriously, the thread question was "Why do some People Dislike the Classical Era?" and I'm saying that, similar to the Baroque period, the Classical era was not produced as "art" for the individual, which did not happen until the Romantic period.
> 
> Therefore, in many instances, in Classical and Baroque we see "workmanship" with specific function, which does not have the full artistic intent of the Romantic period. There is a certain "detachment" and failure to connect with the individual, because it was intended to entertain certain royal factions, cater to power, or to function as Church music. We see Bach's _Mass in B minor_ as art now, but that was not its original intent, and I say there is a "residue" of this detachment which some people sense intuitively, and that's why "some People Dislike the Classical Era."
> 
> So I'm considering "art" to be an intrinsic quality, put there by the artist's intent, moreso than something we perceive as an "audience" to it, because that audience's cultural context is not a constant, but changes through time.


And for it to be entertaining to royal factions, it has to be pretty good. The individual probably would have to think highly of his work as well.


----------



## Lukecash12

millionrainbows said:


> Aesthetics-that is, the theoretical counterpoint to art-*did not exist before the late eighteenth century.* Yet, you want to use aesthetics to "convert" things into art after the fact, when they were not intended as art in the first place?
> 
> No, an _artist_ creates _art,_ and he does this _intentionally,_ in a cultural context in which the notion of art _exists._


The term may not have existed, but the idea itself was pretty prevalent, and has been prevalent for quite some time. Here's a relevant question: Why do we see the concept of dissonance as early as the ancient Greeks? What is dissonance?

You are referring to aesthetics in it's philosophical context, and yes it wasn't a formal field of study for philosophers until fairly recently. However, the basic idea has been around since the Pythagoreans.

Our very tuning systems reflect that an aesthetic has been present. Some intervals were beautiful, mathematically perfect, harmonious (here we start at none other than the "harmony of the spheres"), etc. Others were dissonant and ugly.

And the art that you are thinking of is a movement in philosophy of humanity and self contemplation. "The life not contemplated is not worth living." While I observe many of the same end results in previous efforts not called art, simply because of different intent. Also, I find it strange that anyone secular would think of religious music as anything other than self contemplation. Their gods are imaginary, right?


----------



## millionrainbows

neoshredder said:


> And for it to be entertaining to royal factions, it has to be pretty good. The individual probably would have to think highly of his work as well.


There may have been restrictions placed on it...after all, didn't Mozart have to overcome obstacles in dealing with royals, such as "forbidden" subjects, banned books? It was still good music, but you can't look at it as "art" produced under no restriction.
Some of it might have been for dinner music, or purposely downplayed so as not to "disturb" anything at public functions. There's no telling what music of this period would have been like if it were produced "freely."

*Like I said, sure it was good music...but was it art? No.*

Here's another instance of how music, being related to mathematics and being a "craft," is separate from poetics and rhetoric & language. "Art" as we now see it, usually has some sort of reference to the Human condition. Bon-bons for royalty do not fit the bill.


----------



## neoshredder

Welll I like ambient music. So table music isn't so far from that in the Classical Music sense. Telemann the master of table music. Baroque wouldn't be Baroque without those certain conditions they worked in. It's still art to me even though certain sounds or subjects were banned. But that would be interesting if they made the Baroque form with modern times. Schnittke being a possible good example of that.


----------



## Petwhac

millionrainbows said:


> We see Bach's _Mass in B minor_ as art now, but that was not its original intent, and I say there is a "residue" of this detachment which some people sense intuitively, and that's why "some People Dislike the Classical Era."
> 
> So I'm considering "art" to be an intrinsic quality, put there by the artist's intent, moreso than something we perceive as an "audience" to it, because that audience's cultural context is not a constant, but changes through time.


If you consider 'art' to be a an intrinsic quality, put there by the artist's intent, then if you are unaware of the artists intent you presumably cannot know if it is art.

Here is a scenario...

There was no JS Bach, he never existed. Remove all traces of his music from our knowledge.
A manuscript is discovered. It is a setting of a mass in B minor but there is no name on it or dedication or any information about it's composer's origin or intent.

Is it art? 
I would say so.
Where is it written that a work cannot be both functional _and_ art of the highest order?


----------



## SottoVoce

Petwhac said:


> Where is it written that a work cannot be both functional _and_ art of the highest order?


Right here


----------



## PetrB

KenOC said:


> Still waiting for somebody who dislikes the classical period. Too bad it was all downhill from there (see my sig...)


Your [notbySchubert*] quote is passé! 

... and after Brahms, nobody

... and after Berg, nobody

... and after Bartók, nobody

... and after Berio, nobody.

There you have it, "The Three B's;" Berg, Bartok & Berio."

*A bit edited to fit, but it seems to have been said by Mahler:
For Mahler, Beethoven, along with Wagner, was one of the only two Gods of Music. *"Now I stick to Beethoven. There are only he and Richard -- and after them, nobody.* Mark that!," Mahler wrote to his young wife Alma (1879 -1964) in the summer of 1904. 
~ _The Changing Image of Beethoven - A Study in Mythmaking; Alessandra Comini (2008)_


----------



## StevenOBrien

Because people have subjective tastes, and that's absolutely fine. End of discussion .


----------



## KenOC

PetrB said:


> Your Schubert quote is passé!


Not a Schubert quote. At least that I know of!


----------



## PetrB

crmoorhead said:


> Quite right sir, quite right. I'll stick to the subject at hand. I already put in my two cents earlier, so I'll just reiterate that I love the Classical Era (just as I love music from all eras) and suggest perhaps that it is the dominance of certain composers and certain rigid types of form that might put some people off. I don't see this as a logical reason to dislike it but it is, nonetheless, a viable theory on explaining why someone might be turned off by it.


I think the dislike is more fundamental and the source non-musical: 
In early school, too many young people are 'brought' to classical aggressively presented as 'the height of the western civilization,' the Gods to which one should unquestioningly genuflect, etc. That is just the approach some teen is going to warm to readily, of course. It is the same for many a neophyte in many a terribly taught music appreciation class, or anyone exposed to the well meaning music lover who also lays down the 'height of Western Civ.' gauntlet as their opener on the subject.

Too, along with such presentations almost immediately follows the 'dictate' that one could not possibly enjoy the classical repertoire without a firm understanding of form. Alrighty, then... all I need is at least a year of theory and study prior to being able to enjoy listening to (or 'understanding') a ditty by Mozart, Beethoven -- symphony or other?

No wonder so many people are instantly turned off before they even have a chance, with open mind and open ears, to 'just listen' and perhaps enjoy.... and we wonder why more people are not flocking to the classical repertoire 

The second 'division,' I swear, is a matter of temperament and that which triggers specific sentiment in people. The romantics, those after Schumann and up til the 1900's, are the first wave big-time 'emo' composers... a take on music which speaks to me almost not at all, and interests me even less. But it is wildly popular, placing, for example, Tchiakovsky in very high favor with the general public.


----------



## millionrainbows

Petwhac said:


> Here is a scenario...There was no JS Bach, he never existed. Remove all traces of his music from our knowledge. A manuscript is discovered. It is a setting of a mass in B minor but there is no name on it or dedication or any information about it's composer's origin or intent....Is it art?


I don't do scenarios. Too general. My theory only works with real cases, in real time. We see how music occupies this "grey area" between craft and art, between mathematics and music, between physical phenomena and physics. This makes it very difficult to simply look at music from its formal, surface characteristics and know if it is "this or that" when it is divorced from its context, because it is not the carrier of "ideas" in itself, unless there is text with singing.



Petwhac said:


> Where is it written that a work cannot be both functional _and_ art of the highest order?


 But, yes, you can _look_ at some past work and _say_ it's art. We do that all the time. But Bach would not claim that he was creating "art."

If you wish to claim that a work can be both functional _and_ art of the highest order, then you must accept that, both in retrospect and in real time, that _anything_ can transcend its ostensible function and become art, including popular music, etc.


----------



## millionrainbows

PetrB said:


> The second 'division,' I swear, is a matter of temperament and that which triggers specific sentiment in people. The romantics, those after Schumann and up til the 1900's, are the first wave big-time 'emo' composers... a take on music which speaks to me almost not at all, and interests me even less. But it is wildly popular, placing, for example, Tchiakovsky in very high favor with the general public.


Again, we see how music occupies this "grey area" between craft and art, between mathematics and music, between physical phenomena and physics. This makes it very difficult to simply look at music from its formal, surface characteristics and know if it is "this or that" when it is divorced from its context, because it is not the carrier of "ideas" in itself, unless there is text with singing.


----------



## millionrainbows

Here's a question: What did Glenn Gould do that made us suddenly see The Goldberg Variations as some of Bach's best music? The Goldbergs were at one time seen as "ho-hum," something Bach just "churned out." So how did Glenn Gould make us see this as "art?" Or is it?


----------



## KenOC

PetrB said:


> Your Schubert quote is passé!


Found the source of the quote. It's given variously on the web.

"There is only Beethoven and Wagner; after them, nobody." -- Gustav Mahler

Re Glenn Gould and the Goldbergs, I'm really looking forward to reading the answers to that one!


----------



## PetrB

millionrainbows said:


> Again, we see how music occupies this "grey area" between craft and art, between mathematics and music, between physical phenomena and physics. This makes it very difficult to simply look at music from its formal, surface characteristics and know if it is "this or that" when it is divorced from its context, because it is not the carrier of "ideas" in itself, unless there is text with singing.


I think there is some agreement here: music is nothing but dots on paper until it is actively sounding, and then it is nothing without the listener, who inevitably will bring their semiotic baggage with them. I doubt if even a wolf-raised wilding does not have some semiotic baggage.

In more layman like terms, I've always maintained that absolute music is for any listener about as specific as to 'meaning' as a Rorschach blot is to the individual viewer.


----------



## Cnote11

I don't have the time to read this thread so.... has anybody in here actually stated a dislike for Classical-era music?


----------



## xuantu

millionrainbows said:


> Here's a question: What did Glenn Gould do that made us suddenly see The Goldberg Variations as some of Bach's best music? The Goldbergs were at one time seen as "ho-hum," something Bach just "churned out." So how did Glenn Gould make us see this as "art?" Or is it?


... he hummed?


----------



## PetrB

xuantu said:


> ... he hummed?


Those recordings are insanely LIVELY compared to others in existence at the time. They have an immediacy devoid of a rather typical prior approach to Bach, where many a performance sounded more 'reverent' than musical

In the same era another 'revelatory' transition took place:
Ancient music, those scores of medieval and renaissance music, were played off the score, and were deadly dull on the rhythmic front. Musicology came into its own, ca. 1960, and with that it began to be understood the older scores were 'a map' but not concrete directions, especially in the notation of the rhythm.

People were outraged that Gould was practically 'swinging' some of that Bach -- others heard it as for the first time as lively, vital, and 'speaking to us,' one review I recall said 'this is Bach as the old man himself must have played it.' (!)

Too, there is just an ethos which was present:
The whole era was a time of relative financial security in the West, making more people likely to be generally 'adventurous' -- try new things, travel further outside their normal habits, meet people completely outside their defined socio-demographic 'place' -- be open to 'other interpretations and ways of doing things.'

Historically, those periods come and go, often a more depressed economy being one of caution and anxiety, at which point people go for the tried, true and old familiar. That was the opposite of the times when Gould's "radical" approach in performance took the stage.


----------



## Lukecash12

SottoVoce said:


> Right here


And yet we have "applied art" on the same blasted site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_arts

Reading your own link, music is *included in the list*, without periods in music being differentiated from one another. And we see architecture included, which is an art very restricted by practicality and the desires of the commissioner. Yet it is art which uses aesthetics and represents it's author.


----------



## millionrainbows

Lukecash12 said:


> ...Reading your own link (Fine Art), music is *included in the list*, without periods in music being differentiated from one another. And we see architecture included, which is an art very restricted by practicality and the desires of the commissioner. Yet it is art which uses aesthetics and represents it's author.


Music is used to enhance the telling of stories, as in opera and cinema. Perhaps the Greeks were right in not separating music from drama.

Representational art (replaced by photography) is used to create a dramatic story, narrative, or event, and we can easily relate to it because it is connected with "meaning" in those senses.

Music (sound) in itself is not narrative (unless you're a Foley artist)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foley_(filmmaking)

In this sense, "music itself" is not a natural occurrence, but is contrived from singing, via instruments. Singing is the source of music; and rhythm, beating on things. Not natural until we do it.

Music was always used to accompany voices, as well; only later did it separate into "music by itself," devoid of possible meaning provided by a voice.

Are we then applying "residual gestures" of drama when we hear "Pure" music? Beethoven's "classical" symphony No. 1 sounds about like Hadyn or Mozart, but as we go into the 6th ("Pastoral"), dramatic elements (storm, birds, thunder) begin to assert themselves.

I think part of the problem is music has been severed from its origins, as part of drama, as most opera fans would agree. The Mass is a "liturgical drama" in that it is depicting the events of Christ. Now we see that Bach's Mass in B minor must be seen as part of the Mass, otherwise, we are missing something. How many of us have seen it in this context?

Visual art which is not representational, but "abstract," came much later, after all the narrative elements were discarded. Why should visual art, painting and drawing, (except court reporting and presidential portraits) be used as it used to be, to tell a story, when photography can now do that?

The same with music; it is now being used like modern painting, to express "inner feelings" or comment on its own history, not to "narrate" a drama. But, it can still do that, as cinema has shown.


----------



## Petwhac

millionrainbows said:


> I don't do scenarios. Too general. My theory only works with real cases, in real time. We see how music occupies this "grey area" between craft and art, between mathematics and music, between physical phenomena and physics. This makes it very difficult to simply look at music from its formal, surface characteristics and know if it is "this or that" when it is divorced from its context, because it is not the carrier of "ideas" in itself, unless there is text with singing.
> 
> But, yes, you can _look_ at some past work and _say_ it's art. We do that all the time. But Bach would not claim that he was creating "art."


I'm sure Bach wouldn't have considered himself an 'artist' in the modern sense of the word but that doesn't mean he wasn't one. He just didn't know it because the concept wasn't around. In much the same way that he wouldn't consider himself a descendant of an ape because the concept of evolution wasn't around.



millionrainbows said:


> If you wish to claim that a work can be both functional _and_ art of the highest order, then you must accept that, both in retrospect and in real time, that _anything_ can transcend its ostensible function and become art, including popular music, etc.


Perhaps anything _can_ become art in that way but when you say 'popular music' you cast too wide a net.
There are many popular _songs_ from Gershwin and Porter through Bacharach, Paul Simon, David Bowie,
Lennon and McCartney, Stevie Wonder and a host of others which could be described as 'art' songs but their purpose or function was never anything else. The songwriters of Tin Pan Alley and before probably did not see themselves as artists but with the coming of Rock and Dylan etc I think many popular songwriters would have considered themselves 'artists'.

There is a difference between art that is functional and an art which is subservient (film music). The B minor Mass served a function that could have been served by any setting by any composer. A Mass could have been, and no doubt was, intoned in a simple monodic and unremarkable manner in many churches throughout Europe but it took a great artist, Bach to elevate it to a great artwork _regardless_ of it's function.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

Cnote11 said:


> I don't have the time to read this thread so.... has anybody in here actually stated a dislike for Classical-era music?


It doesn't do much for me. Yeah it's well crafted, but if I want something so formal I'd rather just listen to Bach.

No matter how much I try to appreciate the Classical era I just can't shake the feeling it was designed for sensibilities I have absolutely no context for understanding, whereas a lot of Romantic (or Baroque, or even Medieval, can't explain that) stuff just clicks with me like *that*.


----------



## PetrB

Lukecash12 said:


> And yet we have "applied art" on the same blasted site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_arts
> 
> Reading your own link, music is *included in the list*, without periods in music being differentiated from one another. And we see architecture included, which is an art very restricted by practicality and the desires of the commissioner. Yet it is art which uses aesthetics and represents it's author.


You really can NOT depend on Wiki for 'authoratitive' information, "like ever"


----------



## millionrainbows

Petwhac said:


> I'm sure Bach wouldn't have considered himself an 'artist' in the modern sense of the word but that doesn't mean he wasn't one. He just didn't know it because the concept wasn't around. In much the same way that he wouldn't consider himself a descendant of an ape because the concept of evolution wasn't around.


Then you must know what Bach's intent was. Was he expressing his inner feelings? In the _B minor Mass_ he was depicting a liturgical drama.

The instrumental music? The Church organ music, I think was meant to inspire awe of God. It does this very well, and it builds up to a climax, and we are inspired and uplifted, which is one of the purposes of art now. As music, it is the apex of technique and drama. If taken out of its context, it is still effective, and we call it art. But, we agree, Bach did not consider his work to be "art" because art did not yet exist. But is it art because it represents the highest qualities of its craft? Yes, but after the fact.



Petwhac said:


> Perhaps anything _can_ become art in that way but when you say 'popular music' you cast too wide a net.
> There are many popular _songs_ from Gershwin and Porter through Bacharach, Paul Simon, David Bowie,
> Lennon and McCartney, Stevie Wonder and a host of others which could be described as 'art' songs but their purpose or function was never anything else. The songwriters of Tin Pan Alley and before probably did not see themselves as artists but with the coming of Rock and Dylan etc I think many popular songwriters would have considered themselves 'artists'.


So modern media is overlapping into areas we once deemed exclusive to art. Therfore, the distinction between "high" and "low" is becoming more tenuous and artificial.



Petwhac said:


> There is a difference between art that is functional and an art which is subservient (film music). The B minor Mass served a function that could have been served by any setting by any composer. A Mass could have been, and no doubt was, intoned in a simple monodic and unremarkable manner in many churches throughout Europe but it took a great artist, Bach to elevate it to a great artwork _regardless_ of it's function.


True, there is no functional difference. The Mass music is subservient to the "drama" of the liturgy depicted. The fact that Bach elevated it causes it to "transcend" its function and become "art" in our eyes.
Still, in this case, we are torn between seeing it as art on its own terms and as functional.


----------



## millionrainbows

One of the members here said that it was impossible to really "get" sacred music on the same level, unless you are a believer.

Now here's a person who does not separate functionality from art. What does this tell us about Bach's original intent? Would Bach agree?

And if I appreciate Bach as "art" instead of its original intent, is my appreciation of it somehow "inferior"?

Lukecash12 said:

_"And why must we observe it purely as art first? It's not as if it's a problem that I primarily enjoy religious music using a religious frame of mind, is it? *And in so many cases it actually isn't art first, it's religion first. That was the case with Bach, his Lutheran predecessors, whole schools of music in France as well *(and when the musicologists call a musical group a "school", they mean that there were quite a few members of that group). So many composers who emphasized religion primarily."

"It isn't a superior position. It's just a position that by it's very nature can't be shared with those not in it. There is no vicarious substitute that can communicate the substance of it all that well. *The difference is that people who aren't Christian have to play pretend, while Christians are genuinely serious about it. I don't agree with it's sentiment for the sake of art. It resounds within me.* Unlike all kinds of other art I could listen to, this art illustrates for me the truth. Referring back to the point I made before: can you really fathom what it's like to be strong and confident in the fact of Revelation?"

*"But you are playing pretend if you try to share in the Christian religious sentiment. You may very well have your own religious sentiment, and it sounds positive and joyful enough, but it just isn't the same. *That's all I meant to express. I don't mean to diminish the views of others. I mean to point out that *it just isn't the same, what they get from that music."*

"You seem to have misinterpreted me. Of course, being a Christian, I believe that anyone can come into God's family. *But the simple truth is that if they aren't they aren't. They can be, but they currently aren't."*

"But if you aren't strong and confident in Revelation (just an example), then there is no being in it in the same way. Y*ou can't possibly be praying the same prayer, because you don't share in the necessary sentiments to do so.* That is, under the assumption that you aren't a Christian."_


----------



## BurningDesire

millionrainbows said:


> Here's a question: What did Glenn Gould do that made us suddenly see The Goldberg Variations as some of Bach's best music? The Goldbergs were at one time seen as "ho-hum," something Bach just "churned out." So how did Glenn Gould make us see this as "art?" Or is it?
> 
> View attachment 10012


He created the proto-type for how MIDI playback would sound in the future?


----------



## KenOC

BurningDesire said:


> He created the proto-type for how MIDI playback would sound in the future?


Not nice! Anyway, when Gould's recording appeared in 1955, a large part of the musical public still considered Bach's clavier works to be "sewing machine music." Gould seems not to have reinforced that view but to have exploded it. Since his approach was (true enough) metrically severe, it's interesting to consider why it had that effect.


----------



## brianwalker

Sid James said:


> You know how this goes. Elevate one thing to the heavens and correspondingly put the other down the toilet. The two things being 'compared' may have little or nothing to do with eachother. Its often is just to do with someone driving an agenda.
> 
> More importantly than preaching, I think I've played this 'game' myself in the past here, to my great shame (but now I try to avoid doing it).
> 
> Of course in the history of music, its a perennial preoccupation, doing various 'turf wars' in order to use the good o'l 'divide and conquer' tactic. Then, the usual mudslinging and 'argy bargy.' Most people though are in the middle (or maybe they just don't give a toss either way), but we have to make some 'holy' cause to win them over to the extremes. A related issue is some people treating music like some religion, but maybe we should not go there?
> 
> So answer the poll (but its confidential/anonymous) and let's talk about this!


Haydn is inexorable proof that you can write great music using conventional norms that also appeals to the general public; this doesn't mesh well with the modernist narrative that the old forms are dead, so Haydn and Mozart has to be denigrated. Beethoven gets a pass since he was a "bridge" to Wagner, Wagner a "bridge" to Schoenberg, Schoenberg a bridge to Webern, and Webern a bridge to whatever undoubtedly underrated, misunderstood, obscure masterpieces are being written right now by the people denigrating Hadyn and Mozart that will surely be universally exalted by humanity hundreds of years from now after laying dormant in oblivion as per many of Bach's masterpieces.



Couchie said:


> I admire your naivete.
> 
> In a battle for the limited resources catering unprofitably to a fringe of society, we are of course... _at war_.
> 
> ie. While I'm enjoying myself at one of the many performances of Wagner's complete cycle next year, do take time to enjoy not being at Stockhausen's.


It's really simple, contemporary composers want more money. They want an IRCAM in every city on earth. They want autonomous agencies funded by taxpayers that cannot be influenced by taxpayer opinion in any way whatsoever. They want taxpayers to be slaves to their "art". They also want more audiences. What they're hoping for is that eventually your children and your children's children will be forced to listen to their music in nursery homes (since all common practice period music will be outlawed for falling under "hate speech") to socialize the nationalist/racist/religious instincts out of them and zombify them into Symphony Op. 21 loving sheep.

*If Boulez had Hitler's powers he surely would have really burned down the opera houses. 
* He didn't because he couldn't. If he had tried he would have gotten arrested before even half of one opera house burned down. He didn't do it because he couldn't do it. There was on virtue or constraint on his part.

They think that by denigrating Haydn and Mozart they'll get a little bit closer to achieving their master plan.

And they are getting closer to achieving their master plan, just like I'm getting closer to the moon when I tiptoe in my ballerina exercises.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

holy cow man


----------



## violadude

regressivetransphobe said:


> holy cow man


I second this sentiment.


----------



## BurningDesire

brianwalker said:


> Haydn is inexorable proof that you can write great music using conventional norms that also appeals to the general public; this doesn't mesh well with the modernist narrative that the old forms are dead, so Haydn and Mozart has to be denigrated. Beethoven gets a pass since he was a "bridge" to Wagner, Wagner a "bridge" to Schoenberg, Schoenberg a bridge to Webern, and Webern a bridge to whatever undoubtedly underrated, misunderstood, obscure masterpieces are being written right now by the people denigrating Hadyn and Mozart that will surely be universally exalted by humanity hundreds of years from now after laying dormant in oblivion as per many of Bach's masterpieces.
> 
> It's really simple, contemporary composers want more money. They want an IRCAM in every city on earth. They want autonomous agencies funded by taxpayers that cannot be influenced by taxpayer opinion in any way whatsoever. They want taxpayers to be slaves to their "art". They also want more audiences. What they're hoping for is that eventually your children and your children's children will be forced to listen to their music in nursery homes (since all common practice period music will be outlawed for falling under "hate speech") to socialize the nationalist/racist/religious instincts out of them and zombify them into Symphony Op. 21 loving sheep.
> 
> *If Boulez had Hitler's powers he surely would have really burned down the opera houses.
> * He didn't because he couldn't. If he had tried he would have gotten arrested before even half of one opera house burned down. He didn't do it because he couldn't do it. There was on virtue or constraint on his part.
> 
> They think that by denigrating Haydn and Mozart they'll get a little bit closer to achieving their master plan.
> 
> And they are getting closer to achieving their master plan, just like I'm getting closer to the moon when I tiptoe in my ballerina exercises.


Do you know nothing of the views of modern composers? Most of the composers you like to bash never denigrated Mozart nor Haydn, especially not Mozart. Many of them admired Mozart as much as you do. It is possible for people to have very different opinions on somethings and agree on others.

Also, serialism isn't the only thing going on in modern music, but I wouldn't expect modern-music bashers to actually know a thing or two about the vast subject they constantly insult.


----------



## violadude

I'm sorry, I know you aren't supposed to make personal comments. But Brainwalker, I feel like you've gotten into the shrooms recently and now you are having paranoia relapses. It's ok man, just walk it out or take a nap. One or the other should do the trick.


----------



## Lukecash12

PetrB said:


> You really can NOT depend on Wiki for 'authoratitive' information, "like ever"


I agree heartily.


----------



## Arsakes

One does not simply dishonour/insult Mozart or Haydn and keeps his respect!
I myself ended my friendship with someone who was a Metalhead and had offended Beethoven! lol


----------



## BurningDesire

Arsakes said:


> One does not simply dishonour/insult Mozart or Haydn and keeps his respect!
> I myself ended my friendship with someone who was a Metalhead and had offended Beethoven! lol


Haydn is awesome. Mozart is pretty good too, but is definitely over-rated, not better than all other composers, and too prissy for my tastes.


----------



## poconoron

_*Why do some people dislike the Classical Era?*_

Because they are elitists who believe that the Classical era produced oh-so-simple music which can't possibly compare to the "more complex" forms since that era.


----------



## arpeggio

BurningDesire said:


> Do you know nothing of the views of modern composers? Most of the composers you like to bash never denigrated Mozart nor Haydn, especially not Mozart. Many of them admired Mozart as much as you do. It is possible for people to have very different opinions on somethings and agree on others.
> 
> Also, serialism isn't the only thing going on in modern music, but I wouldn't expect modern-music bashers to actually know a thing or two about the vast subject they constantly insult.


I remember reading an interview of Elliott Carter where he stated that one of his favorite composers was Schumann. He was particularly fond of the Symphonies and wished that they were more frequently performed.

I also checked Archive Music and found recordings of Boulez conducting Haydn and Mozart.

There are over seven billion people on this planet. I am sure we can find nut jobs who believe that giant jellyfish live on Jupiter and that music from the classical period should be banned from the concert hall. (There are many who believe music from the classical period should only be performed on period instruments.)

In reality most mature, rational adults do not believe in such nonsense.


----------



## jani

Arsakes said:


> One does not simply dishonour/insult Mozart or Haydn and keeps his respect!
> I myself ended my friendship with someone who was a Metalhead and had offended Beethoven! lol


When someone badmouths Beethoven i ignore them because they don't know what they are missing, it's their loss, not Beethovens/his music/ his fans.
If it comes from a person who i respect, i of course listen what they have to say because they can usually explain very well why they feel that way.
The world would be a boring place if everyone would be the same.


----------



## neoshredder

Arsakes said:


> One does not simply dishonour/insult Mozart or Haydn and keeps his respect!
> I myself ended my friendship with someone who was a Metalhead and had offended Beethoven! lol


Seriously? Wow. Taking music too seriously my friend.


----------



## jani

neoshredder said:


> Seriously? Wow. Taking music too seriously my friend.


I take music very seriously too but i can accept differences in taste of music.


----------



## neoshredder

Same here. But I don't go as far as tell someone you can't be my friend if you don't like my music. I find that ridiculous.


----------



## BurningDesire

jani said:


> I take music very seriously too but i can accept differences in taste of music.


Rock on :3


----------



## KRoad

Yet another thread has ended in an exchange of disparaging remarks. I think certain people round here need to "get a life".


----------



## neoshredder

Though I am surprised that a Metalhead doesn't like Beethoven. Beethoven is usually the springboard for Metalheads into Classical Music imo. We used to have a Metalhead here who talked about the similiarities of the 2 genres. Too bad I wasn't around during that time.


----------



## neoshredder

KRoad said:


> Yet another thread has ended in an exchange of disparaging remarks. I think certain people round here need to "get a life".


I don't know who you are talking to but I see nothing wrong with the comments made. Though this comment offends me a little. The last sentence that is.


----------



## Renaissance

Too many discussions on what art is and what art is not. I don't think that one dislikes Classical era for simply not be called "art". It is ridiculous. These are only subtle strategies, Classical era produced art as well as baroque and romanticism. Such philosophies are only good for those who can't feel for their own whether a piece is "art" or not.


----------



## millionrainbows

Well, it doesn't surprise me that people take classical music so seriously; after all, Western music started in the Church as an extension of religion, and this continued for several centuries. I think the "religious connection" is a major factor in why people are drawn to this stuff, and is the source of much of the animosity these listeners feel towards the "secular hi-jacking" of the classical tradition by "atheistic modernists" and Eastern-influenced composers like John Cage and the minimalists.
You saw the quotes I posted earlier; according to that person, I can't "legitimately" appreciate Gregorian chant and Bach's B-minor Mass if I am not a believer in the accompanying religious dogma. Sheesh!


----------



## Renaissance

millionrainbows said:


> Well, it doesn't surprise me that people take classical music so seriously; after all, Western music started in the Church as an extension of religion, and this continued for several centuries. I think the "religious connection" is a major factor in why people are drawn to this stuff, and is the source of much of the animosity these listeners feel towards the "secular hi-jacking" of the classical tradition by "atheistic modernists" and Eastern-influenced composers like John Cage and the minimalists.
> You saw the quotes I posted earlier; according to that person, I can't "legitimately" appreciate Gregorian chant and Bach's B-minor Mass if I am not a believer in the accompanying religious dogma. Sheesh!


Your strategies are really cleaver, but really, do you think that people will forgot classics for modernists only because of what you say ?  They take classical music seriously.  So what ? Is this dangerous ? It's only their choice. I actually do find more hatred in modernism and post-modernism than I find in classical/romantic period. Those harsh noises expresses hatred and alienation more than anything Mozart ever wrote, for example. You, "modern" guys want to change the human nature, but this is not possible. Religious music is taken seriously for one reason : because it's serious, because it does have something to say, even to the most frustrated atheists. You don't have to believe any dogma or crap, just let the music speak for itself and leave aside prejudices about religion, art, and other things. Music is an objective reality, doesn't have limits, boundaries and it's not concerning race, education, age, culture. Only with our philosophies we deafen ourselves to the power of music... too bad. You can see "limits" in techniques, but music itself, what you feel is not limited. A simple medieval composition can tell you much more than any sophisticated music out there. There are things beyond experiment and conceptual ideas, you just have to taste them.


----------



## neoshredder

And btw Schnittke is religious last I heard. I guess he doesn't fit in with the 'atheist modernists'.


----------



## KenOC

jani said:


> When someone badmouths Beethoven i ignore them because they don't know what they are missing, it's their loss, not Beethovens/his music/ his fans.


Well, of course it's OK to dislike the music of any composer. But dissing Beethoven? Even a tolerant society can't allow that. Where I live, in fact, there are laws against it!


----------



## millionrainbows

neoshredder said:


> And btw Schnittke is religious last I heard. I guess he doesn't fit in with the 'atheist modernists'.


No; he's a neo-Romanticist now. He went through a serial phase, but "graviated back." He is centered, now.


----------



## millionrainbows

KenOC said:


> Well, of course it's OK to dislike the music of any composer. But dissing Beethoven? Even a tolerant society can't allow that. Where I live, in fact, there are laws against it!


You can't _really _appreciate Beethoven unless you're a Mason.:lol:


----------



## KRoad

neoshredder said:


> I don't know who you are talking to but I see nothing wrong with the comments made. Though this comment offends me a little. The last sentence that is.


No offence was intended. It's just that sometimes the discussion around here seems to degenerate into petty squabbling and factionalism. I like to read (and sometimes even add my two cents to) the topics under discussion, both as a serious music consumer, and contributor. But, when the bickering starts, it kind of knocks the wind out of my sails that's all. 'Nuff said.


----------



## Lukecash12

millionrainbows said:


> Well, it doesn't surprise me that people take classical music so seriously; after all, Western music started in the Church as an extension of religion, and this continued for several centuries. I think the "religious connection" is a major factor in why people are drawn to this stuff, and is the source of much of the animosity these listeners feel towards the "secular hi-jacking" of the classical tradition by "atheistic modernists" and Eastern-influenced composers like John Cage and the minimalists.
> You saw the quotes I posted earlier; according to that person, I can't "legitimately" appreciate Gregorian chant and Bach's B-minor Mass if I am not a believer in the accompanying religious dogma. Sheesh!


You can't "legitimately" appreciate it? For god's sake, I may as well not even explain for myself when I say something that can be mistaken, because apparently even if I explain it for the umpteenth time someone will completely disregard that. People sure are smart nowadays, but their reading comprehension and their ability to understand and take basic cues, has gone south. And this is coming from the guy who was diagnosed with a social disability when he was young.


----------



## Lukecash12

millionrainbows said:


> You can't _really _appreciate Beethoven unless you're a Mason.:lol:


Well, I guess you can't appreciate it as if you were more like *Beethoven himself*.


----------



## Petwhac

Renaissance said:


> . You, "modern" guys want to change the human nature, but this is not possible. Religious music is taken seriously for one reason : because it's serious, because it does have something to say, even to the most frustrated atheists.


Frustrated atheists? A curious phrase. What would an atheist have to be frustrated about?

Sorry- off topic.


----------



## KenOC

millionrainbows said:


> You can't _really _appreciate Beethoven unless you're a Mason.:lol:


Of course there's no strong evidence that Beethoven was ever a mason. But perhaps a member of the Illuminati?

http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Blog/?p=1362


----------



## regressivetransphobe

KRoad said:


> No offence was intended. It's just that sometimes the discussion around here seems to degenerate into petty squabbling and factionalism. I like to read (and sometimes even add my two cents to) the topics under discussion, both as a serious music consumer, and contributor. But, when the bickering starts, it kind of knocks the wind out of my sails that's all. 'Nuff said.


Sometimes you see factionalism where you want to see it. This thread's not so bad.

Chill. Good vibes, man.


----------



## Renaissance

Petwhac said:


> Frustrated atheists? A curious phrase. What would an atheist have to be frustrated about?
> 
> Sorry- off topic.


Don't take that out of the context. I said "even". There are all kinds of atheists, my example was just meant to be extreme.


----------



## millionrainbows

KenOC said:


> Of course there's no strong evidence that Beethoven was ever a mason. But perhaps a member of the Illuminati?


Let's hope not; the Masons were clandestine at the time Beethoven arrived in Vienna in late 1792. Freemasonry was outlawed in 1793.

From Maynard Solomon's _*Late Beethoven:*_

[Nevertheless, there are substantial indications that Beethoven was favorably disposed toward Freemasonry, was familiar with its language, shared some of its main intellectual interests, and, on occasion, seems to identified himself as a Masonic sympathizer. Certainly many of his friends, teachers, patrons, and associates were connected with the Masonic movement, and many had formerly been actual members of Masonic organizations and especially of the Order of Illuminati.]

In fact, an entire chapter of Solomon's biography is devoted to Beethoven's connection to this, _*Chapter 8: The Masonic Imagination.*_

Why anyone would contest this is anybody's guess. Perhaps this erodes the conservative vision of Beethoven as a _"regular good ol' boy WASP._:lol:


----------



## Renaissance

So what ? Masonry was a whole different thing back then.


----------



## millionrainbows

Oh, that tells us a lot.


----------



## BurningDesire

Okay, I hope this doesn't signal me as some idiot, but what the heck is freemasonry? Is it just like... a thing for architects or something?


----------



## Renaissance

millionrainbows said:


> Oh, that tells us a lot.


Actually not. Back then they served different purposes. Now they are only for power and control. Anyway, doesn't matter. They are and were a bunch of freaks, but I have no problem with Beethoven because of his sympathy for them.


----------



## Renaissance

BurningDesire said:


> Okay, I hope this doesn't signal me as some idiot, but what the heck is freemasonry? Is it just like... a thing for architects or something?


Just some guys which give themselves too much self-importance and replaced God with some sort of "Great" Architect. They seem like normal atheists in their philosophy if you ignore this stuff. Anyway, they are organized in "orders" (36 maybe ? I don't know) and they are said to have people infiltrated in all social areas. This is what I understood from this story, I don't know how complete is it.


----------



## KenOC

Lots of freemasonry running around in the USA, in the early days and even now. Look at the back of any dollar bill...


----------



## Lukecash12

millionrainbows said:


> Let's hope not; the Masons were clandestine at the time Beethoven arrived in Vienna in late 1792. Freemasonry was outlawed in 1793.
> 
> From Maynard Solomon's _*Late Beethoven:*_
> 
> [Nevertheless, there are substantial indications that Beethoven was favorably disposed toward Freemasonry, was familiar with its language, shared some of its main intellectual interests, and, on occasion, seems to identified himself as a Masonic sympathizer. Certainly many of his friends, teachers, patrons, and associates were connected with the Masonic movement, and many had formerly been actual members of Masonic organizations and especially of the Order of Illuminati.]
> 
> In fact, an entire chapter of Solomon's biography is devoted to Beethoven's connection to this, _*Chapter 8: The Masonic Imagination.*_
> 
> Why anyone would contest this is anybody's guess. Perhaps this erodes the conservative vision of Beethoven as a _"regular good ol' boy WASP._:lol:


Actually, FYI for all of you guys, the dominant trend in Freemasonry is Christianity. The Masons that we see today in America, come from a Scottish tradition of stone masons who built cathedrals for the Church. It has always been the dominant trend, that Masons either attend church or even heavily involve themselves with church. Their symbols have more to do with their fascination with history, than conspiracy. Symbolism seems to be lost on the modern day person, like some sort of cultic practice. But symbols are simply a way to share in common meaning. And the symbols of the Masons represent freedom, intellectualism, a love for the Church, pride in shared history, etc.

So, that Beethoven sympathized with the Freemasons, would actually strengthen the idea that he was one of "the good ole boys".


----------



## millionrainbows

Lukecash12 said:


> Actually, FYI for all of you guys, the dominant trend in Freemasonry is Christianity. The Masons that we see today in America, come from a Scottish tradition of stone masons who built cathedrals for the Church. It has always been the dominant trend, that Masons either attend church or even heavily involve themselves with church. Their symbols have more to do with their fascination with history, than conspiracy. Symbolism seems to be lost on the modern day person, like some sort of cultic practice. But symbols are simply a way to share in common meaning. And the symbols of the Masons represent freedom, intellectualism, a love for the Church, pride in shared history, etc.
> 
> So, that Beethoven sympathized with the Freemasons, would actually strengthen the idea that he was one of "the good ole boys".


From Maynard Solomon's *Late Beethoven:* 
_[Masons who took the symbolic system seriously were empowered to follow Isis and Brahma, Mohammed and Zoroaster, but without renouncing Jehovah or Jesus Christ.]
_


----------



## clavichorder

BurningDesire said:


> Okay, I hope this doesn't signal me as some idiot, but what the heck is freemasonry? Is it just like... a thing for architects or something?


There are some publicly available definitions out there that seem pretty uninteresting. Beyond that, you have to be a member to know, I think.


----------



## Lukecash12

millionrainbows said:


> From Maynard Solomon's *Late Beethoven:*
> _[Masons who took the symbolic system seriously were empowered to follow Isis and Brahma, Mohammed and Zoroaster, but without renouncing Jehovah or Jesus Christ.]
> _


It is fallacious of you to rely so heavily on an expert's opinion, without providing any account of your own. And it is fallacious because we are being expected to take this expert's opinion at face value, to take it while not being privy to the historical data that this expert is using. I imagine that you own this book, given your references to it, and I am unable to just go out and buy books right now, so why don't you share with us the actual arguments this expert has made for that view and why you agree with them? At the rate you are at, while you just refer to us an expert's opinion at it's face value, it can be invalidated the moment another expert is quoted who has a different opinion, because without actual knowledge of their positions we are left with two opposites cancelling each other out.

It seems most likely to me that he is referring to older orders of Masonry, which are not necessarily connected with the Scottish Freemasons. Freemasons, and the Masons of Egypt who worshiped Isis, are not necessarily the same group.


----------



## Arsakes

A scientific fact(!):
This unhealthy use of instruments in atonal classic music, lowers the lifespan of player, listener and the instument itself!


----------



## Lukecash12

Arsakes said:


> A scientific fact(!):
> This unhealthy use of instruments in atonal classic music, lowers the lifespan of player, listener and the instument itself!


??????????


----------



## neoshredder

Lukecash12 said:


> ??????????


He doesn't like atonal music.


----------



## moody

KenOC said:


> Lots of freemasonry running around in the USA, in the early days and even now. Look at the back of any dollar bill...


They still have great power. Masons flourish across the board and are found within local government,the police force (altho not allowed I believe). Contracts,jobs,etc. are fixed though their contacts across the world. If there are some masons within TC expect somebody to appear to inform us that this is all nonsense.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

BurningDesire said:


> I'm not fond of it because of it is extremely homogenized and boring. There are some exceptions, and there is great music from that period, but it is by far the most formulaic, bland period in all of music.


Just like integral serialism.


----------



## Lukecash12

moody said:


> They still have great power. Masons flourish across the board and are found within local government,the police force (altho not allowed I believe). Contracts,jobs,etc. are fixed though their contacts across the world. If there are some masons within TC expect somebody to appear to inform us that this is all nonsense.


I love this last sentence. So I'm a Freemason, eh?


----------



## moody

Lukecash12 said:


> I love this last sentence. So I'm a Freemason, eh?


Maybe your avatar is you in your freemason's costume--why, are you saying it's all nonsense?


----------



## moody

Lukecash12 said:


> Actually, FYI for all of you guys, the dominant trend in Freemasonry is Christianity. The Masons that we see today in America, come from a Scottish tradition of stone masons who built cathedrals for the Church. It has always been the dominant trend, that Masons either attend church or even heavily involve themselves with church. Their symbols have more to do with their fascination with history, than conspiracy. Symbolism seems to be lost on the modern day person, like some sort of cultic practice. But symbols are simply a way to share in common meaning. And the symbols of the Masons represent freedom, intellectualism, a love for the Church, pride in shared history, etc.
> 
> So, that Beethoven sympathized with the Freemasons, would actually strengthen the idea that he was one of "the good ole boys".


I didn't know he was from Texas.


----------



## Renaissance

moody said:


> They still have great power. Masons flourish across the board and are found within local government,the police force (altho not allowed I believe). Contracts,jobs,etc. are fixed though their contacts across the world. If there are some masons within TC expect somebody to appear to inform us that this is all nonsense.


It's all nonsense ! There are no masons at all.  Just kidding, pointless post.


----------



## millionrainbows

moody said:


> They still have great power. Masons flourish across the board and are found within local government,the police force (altho not allowed I believe). Contracts,jobs,etc. are fixed though their contacts across the world. If there are some masons within TC expect somebody to appear to inform us that this is all nonsense.


It's a good idea to have your house de-Masoned once a year. Once they get in the walls, there's no getting rid of them.


----------

