# How to talk about music



## Guest (Feb 19, 2014)

A cursory glance at classical music threads (on any board, not just TC) will reveal something very curious, people seem only able to talk about music vertically. What is the best...? What is your favorite...? What is the greatest...? What is the most this or that or the other thing?

One can't help wondering--and by one, I mean me. Me can't help wondering about the horizontal. This work has these qualities and has these effects on me and is connected to these other pieces in the following ways. How often do you see that kind of conversation? 

Is it possible to talk about music without doing any sort of ranking? Without arranging things from better to worse?

Might be an interesting thing to try.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

There's some conversation about music in general, which I prefer to the talk about specific pieces. There's often not much people can say about specific pieces, just I like this/ I don't like this, which I'm not sure leads to much conversation.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

some guy said:


> A cursory glance at classical music threads (on any board, not just TC) will reveal something very curious, people seem only able to talk about music vertically. What is the best...? What is your favorite...? What is the greatest...? What is the most this or that or the other thing?
> 
> One can't help wondering--and by one, I mean me. Me can't help wondering about the horizontal. This work has these qualities and has these effects on me and is connected to these other pieces in the following ways. How often do you see that kind of conversation?
> 
> ...


Simple reward seeking behaviour. "This work has these qualities and has these effects on me" - I like the effects and want more of them - I don't want the weaker effects, I want the best. Instead of classical music, you could be talking about single malts - same basic approach.

Ranking is just another way of attempting to describe the effects of music. We can describe red by providing examples. We can say that this is a "better" red than that. It's all part of the descriptive process.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

Why would you say it's curious? I'd think it's natural and even appropriate for an internet forum. Discussing qualities as you propose, I would think, is more insight-driven and end-oriented and more at home in the sphere of academic analyses. Not saying it has no place here, not at all, quite the contrary. But visiting a forum I wouldn't expect a wiki. Plus, it's a refreshing and invigorating thing to see people venting their likes and dislikes so openly. And to do it myself. It's nice to have a place for that, because if I let out my uncensored opinions, say, at work, oh well ...


----------



## Guest (Feb 19, 2014)

Highly personalised assessments of specific works do not tend to appear on boards such as this one because most people realise that there is probably very little that they can say that does not sound either obvious or trite.

In order to provide a well-informed, objective analysis of a particular work [e.g. as in the BBC's Radio 3 "Discovering Music" series] would require a degree of expertise in musical analysis/commentary that is above what is typically found among the membership of discussion boards.

Whilst some members may be capable of doing this kind of thing, there might only be limited interest amongst the general membership. There is also the risk of receiving responses from some quarters which leave a lot to be desired in terms of intelligent reaction, so why bother?


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Partita said:


> Highly personalised assessments of specific works do not tend to appear on boards such as this one because most people realise that there is probably very little that they can say that does not sound either obvious or trite.
> 
> In order to provide a well-informed, objective analysis of a particular work [e.g. as in the BBC's Radio 3 "Discovering Music" series] would require a degree of expertise in musical analysis/commentary that is above what is typically found among the membership of discussion boards.


The existence of resources such as "BBC's Radio 3 'Discovering Music' series" or the online Grove or even Wiki allows even the ordinary listener access to a high level of musical analysis which they can use to inform their enjoyment of music.

Secondly, many active members of this board are instrumentalists at intermediate, advanced or even professional level. Their basic aural training will include things like the identification of cadences, the precise form of the chords forming the cadences; modulations in a piece. They will also have to describe the characteristic features of a piece played by the examiner. After hearing the piece,the candidate should describe any notable features (such as texture, structure, character, style and
period, etc.).

I would suggest, therefore, that there are a number of active members of this board who are more than capable of a high "degree of expertise in musical analysis/commentary" and that there are many who are capable of reading such posts with delight and enjoyment.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Just in case some newcomers to the forum haven't noticed them yet, I thought I'd mention that there are some very substantive and insightful posts in the blog section of the forum, sometimes including images of scores and analytical commentary. One could engage in measured and informed discussion of complex issues there in a way that's comparatively difficult in the rapidly changing main board.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

If you have no trouble communicating your feelings to your spouse or close friends, then you should have no trouble communicating what music means to you. I'm assuming that's what talking about music means. I could be wrong. Wouldn't be the first time.


----------



## Guest (Feb 19, 2014)

Just a little note (!), I was not wondering why people don't contribute academic treatises to the board. I was wondering only why the focus was almost always vertical.

I think the horizontal could be equally personal and down-to-earth and non-technical.

Vertical adds an element that is foreign to the music itself, adds a layer that detracts from looking at each work for what it is.

Venting likes and dislikes is also looking away from the music.

That's what I find curious. All the various and ubiquitous strategems for looking away from the music in circumstances where one could reasonably (I'm obviously wrong here) expect looking _at_ the music.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Over the past half year or so I've searched for a post by an old member, Elgarian, that discussed how to talk about music. I thought it was one of the wiser posts on TC. Unfortunately I have not been able to find it. If I remember that post correctly, Elgarian was attempting to describe what he wished to accomplish in discussing a work or composer. He wanted to give others a sense of how a work made him feel such that the reader could imagine feeling that way herself. Instead of simply saying that he enjoyed the work or that the work was mysterious, he essentially wanted to the reader to know what it was like to be Elgarian listening to that work. 

That is actually remarkably difficult. Finding the right words and phrases to properly describe one's specific feelings and mental states or combinations of states without sounding trite, writing nonsense, or producing confusion requires careful thought and precise writing. Those who can could do others a great service by opening up new world's of music appreciation. Of course, one can always just listen, but reading about a clear, powerful, and enticing experience makes one want to experience that for oneself. I personally view that challenge as rather daunting.

One area where discussion of music could be more "horizontal" could be more contributions to the Composer Guestbooks. I think many might view the older guestbooks as threads which have been explored and don't need rehashing. Maybe people could bump older guestbooks and start new discussions of specific music. 

Another possibility, as always, would be to start more threads asking people specific questions rather than just "What do you think...?" I do believe most members would not feel comfortable trying to delve into this more "horizontal" approach, but certainly some would.


----------



## GioCar (Oct 30, 2013)

The meta-thread "Sid's contrasts and connections" is doing something similar, and VPS (Very Personally Speaking ) I enjoy it a lot. 
Much more than the nth "ranking" thread... (don't shoot me please )

Ok, the "ranking" threads are very good for playing, but there must be something "beyond" as well... without being "academic"...


----------



## Berlioznestpasmort (Jan 24, 2014)

I think this is a potentially valuable discussion. Do you think Classical listeners might be more prone - say, then Jazz or Pop aficionados - to think 'vertically' as some guy words it? I hope not, but I admit to being suspicious. There was once a sense of superiority Classical fans carried about with them and 'vertical thinking' would logically be both cause and effect (!) of that mind-set. I see far less of it now but wonder if 'vertical thinking' might be vestigial.


----------



## Guest (Feb 19, 2014)

I think you're probably right, Berlioznespasmort. Coining of the phrase "classical music" in the early nineteenth century was congruent with if not a cause of the new vertical thinking about music.

Otherwise, I really miss Elgarian. A lot.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

some guy said:


> I think you're probably right, Berlioznespasmort. Coining of the phrase "classical music" in the early nineteenth century was congruent with if not a cause of the new vertical thinking about music.


Vertical thinking long predates the 19th century. The books of early theorists of music like Zarlino, Vincenzo Galilei, etc. are filled with all kinds of hierarchies: of composers, harmonic ratios, instruments, and you name it! The main difference between then and now in this regard is that as kinds of music-making proliferate, it becomes possible for increasingly subtle gradations of judgment--and incessant forum chatter, thank God!


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

The best way to encourage this other way of discussing music I think would be to start a thread doing just that - in other words lead by example. From my experience people seem to generally respond more positively to this approach than they do to being criticized, or talked down to or to people being generally preachy or self-righteous etc. 

Might be a fun thing to try. 

But then I suspect if everyone started discussing music this way, some other way of "correcting" their behavior would surface, because the correcting itself I suspect is what some actually enjoy doing the most.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Berlioznestpasmort said:


> Do you think Classical listeners might be more prone - say, then Jazz or Pop aficionados - to think 'vertically' as some guy words it?


I don't think so. Yet somehow it seems even more pointless doing it with classical music when there is so much good stuff that can be found quite easily.


----------



## Berlioznestpasmort (Jan 24, 2014)

mmslbs and some guy - Is this the thread you were looking for from Elgarian?

http://www.talkclassical.com/3460-sentimentality-music.html


----------



## Guest (Feb 20, 2014)

Blancrocher said:


> Vertical thinking long predates the 19th century.


Well, yes and no. Sure, one can find hierarchies if one looks for them. But if you look at the standard concert make-up pre-nineteenth century, you find heterogeneity, collegiality, miscellany, hodge-podge. Bits and pieces of everything, serious or popular (only a vague sense of this in the 18th century--much sharpened in the nineteenth).

Yeah, vertical thinking predates the 19th century, but it's in the 19th century that you see, in music, the idea of verticality really taking hold and coming to dominate the discussion.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Berlioznestpasmort said:


> mmslbs and some guy - Is this the thread you were looking for from Elgarian?
> 
> http://www.talkclassical.com/3460-sentimentality-music.html


That wasn't the actual thread, but I think it gives a good example of how Elgarian attempted to talk about music in a way that gives insight to others about his experience. I half think that the actual post I'm thinking of does not truly exist since I've searched on and off for what I thought was the content. Maybe my memory conflated several ideas from various posts and members. Maybe someday I will find the post. If I do, I hope I'm not disappointed by the actual words (i.e. perhaps I've inflated my recollection to an ideal that surpasses the reality).

Still any post by Elgarian is a post well worth reading IMO.


----------



## Berlioznestpasmort (Jan 24, 2014)

Some of this, surely, is human nature - our brains are programmed to identify, measure, define. This is why we know as much about the world as we do. How effective these vaunted "analytical skills" are in relation to art is open to question, though I'm certainly not prepared to abandon them. Jazz and pop aficionados among others compile lists of greats. Still, if I am reading some guy correctly, _we may be doing this in TC more than one might reasonably expect_ and may have overrated both the value and efficacy of The Lists. What do those Lists and the effort to compile them say about us? How effective are value-based judgments _really_ in maturing our understanding, appreciation of music, and ability to discuss it? Most of all, why not consider alternative discourses?, such as the honestly subjective, perhaps even phenomenological approach "_Elgarian_" endorsed. I think all of this is healthy and interesting, perhaps innovative.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

tdc said:


> The best way to encourage this other way of discussing music I think would be to start a thread doing just that - in other words lead by example. From my experience people seem to generally respond more positively to this approach than they do to being criticized, or talked down to or to people being generally preachy or self-righteous etc.
> 
> Might be a fun thing to try.
> 
> But then I suspect if everyone started discussing music this way, some other way of "correcting" their behavior would surface, because the correcting itself I suspect is what some actually enjoy doing the most.


tdc, this is a very insightful post.

I don't know how seriously anyone takes "verticality" between musical works, but between people, that's what it's all about!


----------



## Guest (Feb 20, 2014)

Taggart said:


> Partita said:
> 
> 
> > Highly personalised assessments of specific works do not tend to appear on boards such as this one because most people realise that there is probably very little that they can say that does not sound either obvious or trite.
> ...


Regards your last paragraph, unfortunately your comment misquotes me.

I fully recognise the point that there are some such members. You evidently did not see the extra text that I included in my post before any other posts had been made on the board. The last paragraph was put in precisely because I anticipated the kind of comment you made.

The full text of what I actually wrote was (extra text which you excluded is underlined):



Partita said:


> Highly personalised assessments of specific works do not tend to appear on boards such as this one because most people realise that there is probably very little that they can say that does not sound either obvious or trite.
> 
> In order to provide a well-informed, objective analysis of a particular work [e.g. as in the BBC's Radio 3 "Discovering Music" series] would require a degree of expertise in musical analysis/commentary that is above what is typically found among the membership of discussion boards.
> 
> Whilst some members may be capable of doing this kind of thing, there might only be limited interest amongst the general membership. There is also the risk of receiving responses from some quarters which leave a lot to be desired in terms of intelligent reaction, so why bother?"


My point is that I recognise that there are such members who could possibly supply a technical analysis but would they be able to do so in an interesting and well-presented manner such that a significant number of other members might find it interesting? I doubt it.

P.S. I see that your post was made 19 minutes after my amended post. I suspect that what have happened is that you picked up my original 2-paragraph post, held it for quite a while whilst you framed your comments, and then posted yours, not realising that I had changed my post in the meanwhile by adding a third paragraph that deals with the kind of comment you made. Definitely, at the time I re-posted there were no other comments on the board after mine, so I presumed that it would be safe to make the amendment. Selectively quoting someone in the way you have done, and then making a bit of an issue out of something that is actually dealt with in the post being commented is a little frustrating, as I'm sure you would appreciate if it happened to you


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

I think talking horizontally takes a lot of things the average music lover does not possess readily. You need to be a relative expert, need to be endlessly passionate about music, the making of it, the production of it, the history of it, the future of it. All of these things are not gained easily - and you need a lot of time and effort to even grow interested enough. Most music lovers are merely very avid listeners, they know what they like and do not like, perhaps one or two will be more informed about what it really is that they actually like - they might know terms like cadenza, staccato, ostinato, tutti, ripieno, modulation, etc. - and use these oddities to describe their experience. Unless you know these things, you will not gain much from a horizontal conversation. You might be gushing about how much you love a particular piece of music, which might really bore the other people.

Till then, I think we are doing good enough exchanging recommendations, sharing pieces which others might not know yet. Just like a weekend tea-party for the ladies, where they show each other their new acquisitions from the flea market, etc. The experts should concentrate on becoming better experts and leave the ignoramuses alone.


----------



## Guest (Feb 20, 2014)

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


----------



## GioCar (Oct 30, 2013)

shangoyal said:


> I think talking horizontally takes a lot of things the average music lover does not possess readily. You need to be a relative expert, need to be endlessly passionate about music, the making of it, the production of it, the history of it, the future of it. All of these things are not gained easily - and you need a lot of time and effort to even grow interested enough. Most music lovers are merely very avid listeners, they know what they like and do not like, perhaps one or two will be more informed about what it really is that they actually like - they might know terms like cadenza, staccato, ostinato, tutti, ripieno, modulation, etc. - and use these oddities to describe their experience. Unless you know these things, you will not gain much from a horizontal conversation. You might be gushing about how much you love a particular piece of music, which might really bore the other people.
> 
> Till then, I think we are doing good enough exchanging recommendations, sharing pieces which others might not know yet. Just like a weekend tea-party for the ladies, where they show each other their new acquisitions from the flea market, etc. *The experts should concentrate on becoming better experts and leave the ignoramuses alone*.




Should we then divide the forum in two? One for the experts, one for the others?

Again:


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Partita said:


> My point is that I recognise that there are such members who could possibly supply a technical analysis but would they be able to do so in an interesting and well-presented manner such that a significant number of other members might find it interesting? I doubt it.
> 
> P.S. I see that your post was made 19 minutes after my amended post. I suspect that what have happened is that you picked up my original 2-paragraph post, held it for quite a while whilst you framed your comments, and then posted yours, not realising that I had changed my post in the meanwhile by adding a third paragraph that deals with the kind of comment you made. Definitely, at the time I re-posted there were no other comments on the board after mine, so I presumed that it would be safe to make the amendment. Selectively quoting someone in the way you have done, and then making a bit of an issue out of something that is actually dealt with in the post being commented is a little frustrating, as I'm sure you would appreciate if it happened to you


Absolutely correct. You completed your edit at 20:51 and I posted at 20:52 as did Blancrocher. (All times local) As you say I picked up your original post and worked with it, you edited, I "cross-posted" - so apologies for the confusion. I completely understand your concerns, when you took care to present and amend your post to cope with all arguments.

Now taking your extra text:



Partita said:


> Whilst some members may be capable of doing this kind of thing, there might only be limited interest amongst the general membership. There is also the risk of receiving responses from some quarters which leave a lot to be desired in terms of intelligent reaction, so why bother?


I think I addressed the first sentence directly. We also have to consider the lurkers as well. Over the last 24 hours, we have had only 103 members logged in but 5600 guests. The fact that we attract so many means that we must be doing something right and we do have a lot of advanced stuff in the blogs and composer guest books. The second sentence misses the point of a community like this. If we wish to develop in others and in ourselves a love of classical music, then we must realise that *our *responses will sometimes "leave a lot to be desired in terms of intelligent reaction". By realising *our *faults, and developing our responses we progress. So with others, we must tolerate their failings too and encourage them to help them see how they can progress. *That's* why we bother.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Those who avoid ranking tend to be those who cannot see the fun in casual ranking/discussion, in a casual discussion forum open to all, and they also tend to suspect that their favorite music types would be ranked last/criticised anyway. Kinda sad.


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

GioCar said:


> Should we then divide the forum in two? One for the experts, one for the others?
> 
> Again:


Not at all. We should fight it out. It's still an excellent environment, with some flaws.


----------



## Guest (Feb 20, 2014)

Taggart said:


> Absolutely correct. You completed your edit at 20:51 and I posted at 20:52 as did Blancrocher. (All times local) As you say I picked up your original post and worked with it, you edited, I "cross-posted" - so apologies for the confusion. I completely understand your concerns, when you took care to present and amend your post to cope with all arguments.


I did indeed cover the point which your commented upon. At the time I first posted, I didn't actually think that it was necessary to include anything further by way of clarification, but decided to do so after a few minutes in case of possible misunderstanding from some quarters, which was well anticipated by the look of it. I note that you didn't bother to revise what you wrote in the light of my actual comments.



> I think I addressed the first sentence directly. We also have to consider the lurkers as well. Over the last 24 hours, we have had only 103 members logged in but 5600 guests. The fact that we attract so many means that we must be doing something right and we do have a lot of advanced stuff in the blogs and composer guest books. The second sentence misses the point of a community like this. If we wish to develop in others and in ourselves a love of classical music, then we must realise that *our *responses will sometimes "leave a lot to be desired in terms of intelligent reaction". By realising *our *faults, and developing our responses we progress. So with others, we must tolerate their failings too and encourage them to help them see how they can progress. *That's* why we bother.


The point you are picking me up here seems to based on a misunderstanding. I am not interested in the concerns of lurkers, and I wasn't referring to innocent inquiries of the intelligence gathering variety.

Again I thought that my intended meaning was clear enough. I meant that some [active] members might be put off posting their more personal feelings about music if they face the risk of receiving not very intelligent comments from others, by which I meant either silly or derisory comments, not genuinely inquisitive comments that you appear to be basing your comments upon.

As a victim myself of quite a few comments of the flippant and misconceived variety, I can only say that I wouldn't bother writing anything that I thought might be a further magnet for such attention.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

some guy said:


> Just a little note (!), I was not wondering why people don't contribute academic treatises to the board. I was wondering only why the focus was almost always vertical.
> 
> I think the horizontal could be equally personal and down-to-earth and non-technical.
> 
> ...


I think you're assuming / expecting / and-or hoping -- for both a great degree of listening experience and the sort of acquired (learned) 'objective detachment' which over time comes with it.* That is not to say academic, but less than the straight from the gut opinions and reactions that is the mode of so many on discussion fora.

I do wish more would get the idea that the only "best" thing about Beethoven is all about Beethoven, and hardly about any other composer in comparison, while I would not at all want to advocate a complete lack of 'rating' music, which would lead to 0 discernment and no evaluation, i.e. 'it is all the same.'

What you propose -- or wish for -- is simply in if not another league, at least very much in another room of the classical music building than the room where an open membership internet forum meets.

Added *
That frame of mind is common to music professionals, much less so the general listener.


----------



## Guest (Feb 20, 2014)

On an open Board basis, trying to change the broad tone of comments about music from the fairly simplistic overall assessment to something more pensive and personal would be rather like King Canute's futile efforts to stop the tide washing over his feet by his "command". It won't happen.

Apart from a few individuals who are possibly interested in expressing themselves in a more introspective and reflective way, the vast majority are not so inclined. This is based on clear evidence of their revealed preference.

I have noticed that on the few occasions that I have chosen to write more extensively on various topics of interest to me, I generally get little if any feed-back. On one occasion such a post attracted the comment "_My eyes glaze over with anything over 4 lines ...", _and that was all I received. I largely gave up after that.

One has only to look at some of the more interesting articles posted in the "Articles" section to see how little attention some of them have attracted by way of comment. Incidentally, all manner of misplaced material seems to be creeping into that section of late.

The stock-in-trade of Boards of this nature is straightforward comment, simple questioning, occasional comparisons, dubiously constructed polls, with the odd contentious issue thrown in now and then to liven up the debate. In this regard, they still serve a very useful purpose.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

GioCar said:


> Should we then divide the forum in two? One for the experts, one for the others?
> 
> Again:


Ha! Ha! Who sets the dividing line as to what an "expert" is? Comprehensive knowledge of musical works, but limited theoretical knowledge? Comprehensive technical knowledge with limited knowledge of musical works throughout history?
Comprehensive technical and historical knowledge of musical works?


----------



## Guest (Feb 20, 2014)

hpowders said:


> Ha! Ha! Who sets the dividing line as to what an "expert" is? Comprehensive knowledge of musical works, but limited theoretical knowledge? Comprehensive technical knowledge with limited knowledge of musical works throughout history?
> Comprehensive technical and historical knowledge of musical works?


Clearly a good technical knowledge of music does not necessarily imply a good knowledge of the main repertoire. There are several quite prominent people here who have stated that they cannot read music or play an instrument and yet their knowledge of music more generally is very good and perfectly adequate to make many useful contributions.

And yet I have come across some members who are apparently quite advanced music students and yet their knowledge of the repertoire, historical developments, the main current and past top artists, etc is not as impressive as one might expect. Some of them appear to have had such limited listening experience that they make hasty judgments, and in some cases frequently repeat adverse comments about certain historical figures that they might well regret making in years to come.

There is obviously no way of segmenting the membership of Boards. As I was once reminded, no one takes an exam to gain membership, and there is nothing to stop people posting whatever they like, however misconceived or errononeous it may be, provided it is not done with malicious intent or otherwise damaging effect.


----------



## GioCar (Oct 30, 2013)

GioCar said:


> Should we then divide the forum in two? One for the experts, one for the others?
> 
> Again:


Of course I was not talking seriously, mine was only a comment to express my disappointment...

I have quite different expectations from those expressed in the post I quoted. 
Very honestly, I wouldn't be here if the main purpose of this forum is just "e_xchanging recommendations, sharing pieces which others might not know yet. Just like a weekend tea-party for the ladies, where they show each other their new acquisitions from the flea market, etc"._


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

GioCar said:


> Of course I was not talking seriously, mine was only a comment to express my disappointment...
> 
> I have quite different expectations from those expressed in the post I quoted.
> Very honestly, I wouldn't be here if the main purpose of this forum is just "e_xchanging recommendations, sharing pieces which others might not know yet. Just like a weekend tea-party for the ladies, where they show each other their new acquisitions from the flea market, etc"._


Maybe TC should issue plastic "expert" cards that those lucky chosen few can swipe through their computer to enter an elite chat room just for them.


----------



## GioCar (Oct 30, 2013)

ArtMusic said:


> Those who avoid ranking tend to be those who cannot see the fun in casual ranking/discussion, in a casual discussion forum open to all, and they also tend to suspect that their favorite music types would be ranked last/criticised anyway. Kinda sad.


Actually I don't like ranking because it's a very "difficult" exercise, at least for me.
Very simply, most of the time I cannot say what is the "best" symphony of a composer, or the "worst" one.
This doesn't mean I have no preferences, but these preferences change so often...


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

The ranking thing isn't unique or even unusually fervent among fans of classical music. Jazz fans do it, rock fans do it, I haven't spent much time among other sorts of music fans but I'd bet a lot of others do too.

To me, many of the ranking projects are useful (with some reservations).

I think that old hands either do not appreciate the situation of a newbie among company like this, or simply do not have compassion for such people.

Over the years, some members have expressed fervent disapproval of the classical music project, and the original project (on another board) encountered similar scorn. They've both gone strong for over 1000 recommendations, so there has been on balance more than enough support - thank goodness!

I realize that, as the saying goes, I cannot reason someone out of an attitude they didn't reason themselves into, but all the same I'll enjoy explaining myself once again.

Seven or so years ago when I finally had the resources and time to explore classical music more thoroughly (a goal I'd had since my late teens), one of my tools was discussion boards like this one. There were "games" before I arrived, ranking composers and conductors and symphonies and so on, and those were somewhat useful to me. But in those games and in other threads the recommendations accumulated much, much faster than I had time or funds to pursue. I had to select among those recommendations, and I had no guide to do so. Eventually my curiosity and frustration become acute enough that I began to brainstorm a way to "force" the members of that forum to prioritize their recommendations for me. And thus "the classical music project" (in its original form) was conceived.

It has worked pretty well for me. Now a few points here ought to be obvious but in the face of hostility to the projects I've discovered it necessary to say explicitly: of course I haven't of course slavishly limited my exploration strictly to what those projects recommended, nor have I been able to follow up on every single recommendation. I have in no way surrendered my own judgement or hindered my own curiosity. The projects have been tools for me, not gods. Nor have I (nor probably anyone else) attributed any objective infallibility to them. But they have been _useful_. In fact, they've helped me learn a lot.

Of course that's precisely the problem for some people, who don't want people like me learning about classical music. Our presence here is experienced by some people as a sort of invasion. I know this is a controversial point, but I didn't arrive with this belief: I've arrived _at_ it after years of experience. And to be fair, their hostility has in fact been well-deserved, because I've become able to out-snob just about anyone. Hopefully I'm too subtle for that kind of thing to be generally apparent, but the point is that they've lost their high ground. There are strategies for them to maintain their superior posture, but it's much harder and approaching impossible for them to do so convincingly. Of course not everyone with hostility to the lists is territorially defensive in this way; for most of them it's just not the way they like to approach music, and that's fine. It's pretty easy to tell the difference between the two sorts of opposition in both the tone and content of their expressions of disapproval. In other words, I understand that some people have no interest in the project because of its structure (voting, adding, ranking, etc.) - but some people have no interest in the project because they really don't want people like me learning about the music _through the knowledge of which they define themselves in contrast to people like me_.

I have at times been cowed by the opposition to the projects, but I really am grateful to the people who expressed their support and who participated even a little bit, because thanks to them I've learned so much, and even heard some wonderful music that I might not even have heard _of_ without the projects. I don't think I _need_ the projects anymore; my knowledge has reached a different stage now.

Even so, at this point, if we were to wrap up the classical music project today, I'd want to do it again soon. Although I would learn much less, especially from the first few hundred recommendations, it would be interesting to me to watch the process again, to see how strongly _we as a community_ choose to recommend various works. _We_'re a different bunch than _we_ were when the project started. Not only do _we_ have a different set of participants, but those of us who've been active in it throughout - at least five of us (I won't list them because I'd be afraid of overlooking someone) have participated actively the entire time - must each have learned a lot and it would be interesting to see how we vote differently the second time around. Hopefully this shows that for me the interest is not in any objective ranking, but in the exploration of _our_ subjectivities. It's actually just a formalized _conversation_!


----------



## GioCar (Oct 30, 2013)

hpowders said:


> Maybe TC should issue plastic "expert" cards that those lucky chosen few can swipe through their computer to enter an elite chat room just for them.


Why not?
Moreover if the experts are obliged to pay for these cards, TC could have solved its fundraising problems


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

Vertical ranking assessments are not at all meaningful to me and, therefore, I mostly try to avoid being cornered into making such assessments, but horizontal descriptions are very difficult to achieve, as they require considerable insight, knowledge, thought, learning and time.


----------



## Guest (Feb 20, 2014)

shangoyal said:


> I think talking horizontally takes a lot of things the average music lover does not possess readily.


And I do not.

I'm a little alarmed by the ready acceptance of the idea that verticality is for the average (who?) music lover and horizonality is for the experts. (I'm a little alarmed that the idea that we can be divided into experts and dolts has had such traction. Even substituting "beginner" or "average" for dolt doesn't diminish my alarm.)

As for what beginners need, do beginners need ranking in order to function? (Are all beginners alike?)

I think the answer to both of those is "no," and I don't think that dividing the membership up into experts and beginners is anything but, um, divisive. Everyone started out as a beginner, after all. And I know for myself, that no matter how "expert" I get in one or two little areas, I will always have vast swathes of ignorance. It happens.

How about let's leave off talking about the people and get back to talking about the ideas. Hey! There's an idea!!


----------



## Guest (Feb 20, 2014)

science said:


> Of course that's precisely the problem for some people, who don't want people like me learning about classical music.


This is simply not true.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

GioCar said:


> Why not?
> Moreover if the experts are obliged to pay for these cards, TC could have solved its fundraising problems


I would give two Furtwangler Brahm's Firsts for such a card. Legend has that it exists.


----------



## FleshRobot (Jan 27, 2014)

brotagonist said:


> Vertical ranking assessments are not at all meaningful to me and, therefore, I mostly try to avoid being cornered into making such assessments, but horizontal descriptions are very difficult to achieve, as they require considerable insight, knowledge, thought, learning and time.


It doesn't need to be technical either. If the person doesn't have a great knowledge about music, I can't see why she/he would talk about _the greatest, the best_ and so on. Talking about the qualities and effects of the music without ranking it is more likely to contain opinions that won't change every time that person start listening to new composers and works.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

I certainly don't agree that horizonality is for the experts or verticality is for the average. Part of the problem about classical music is definition by example. We can't say classical music is precisely these qualities, exactly defined, no external references because somebody will come along and compose something new that bends the definitions but is still "classical" or at least everybody accepts as classical music. So although we can talk about tunings where A is 440hz or whatever, somebody will come along with a new system where the tones are aleatory and make it work (for example).

That means that we don't have a definite standard of comparison - like pantone colours - so we are always looking for examples and that means ranking - this is a good example of fugal writing, this is not so good and then we can explain why one is good and the other not so good. By making these comparisons we can examine what we mean by fugal writing. We can also decide if a certain piece is good but unplayable or at least makes severe demands on a player and then allows us to judge the quality of a performance.

There is also the emotional dimension - this affects me; that leaves me cold; this performance is note perfect but lacks soul. This is a lot more difficult to describe.

Again, you may lack the technical vocabulary to describe what is happening in a piece, but you can respond to the changes in "tone colour" - whether they are modulations or whatever.



FleshRobot said:


> It doesn't need to be technical either. If the person doesn't have a great knowledge about music, I can't see why she/he would talk about _the greatest, the best_ and so on. Talking about the qualities and effects of the music without ranking it is more likely to contain opinions that won't change every time that person start listening to new composers and works.


Absolutely to the no technical jargon! But as you listen to new composers and works, your attitudes to music may change and so will your opinions.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

Taggart said:


> I certainly don't agree that horizonality is for the experts or verticality is for the average.
> 
> ...the tones are aleatory... pantone colours... a good example of fugal writing... unplayable or at least makes severe demands on a player and then allows us to judge the quality of a performance... the changes in "tone colour" - whether they are modulations or whatever.
> 
> Absolutely to the no technical jargon!


Those all sound pretty technical to me, Taggart: aleatory tones, pantone colours, a good fugue, unplayable or technically difficult music, tone colour, modulations...  I know what a fugue is and, when I'm paying attention, I can hear it as it's happening. As for the rest, I've looked up the definitions of a few of them countless times, but they still haven't stuck or left any sense of meaning. If someone could play an example and point out the process as it is happening, not before or after, it might help, since reading definitions doesn't seem to help much with music.

As for the emotional dimension, I see it as coming fairly close to the horizontal ranking, but it is something that the average Mr. Stubble can do.


----------



## FleshRobot (Jan 27, 2014)

Taggart said:


> Absolutely to the no technical jargon! But as you listen to new composers and works, your attitudes to music may change and so will your opinions.


That's true. But while it would take me a long time to change my opinion on tchaikovsy's music as a whole and what I like about him, for example, it could take me less than an day to rethink my favorite 20 composers. People that make such lists usually say they change all the time, but their opinions on the music they already know doesn't as quickly.


----------



## Guest (Feb 20, 2014)

mmsbls said:


> Over the past half year or so I've searched for a post by an old member, Elgarian, that discussed how to talk about music. I thought it was one of the wiser posts on TC. Unfortunately I have not been able to find it. If I remember that post correctly, Elgarian was attempting to describe what he wished to accomplish in discussing a work or composer. He wanted to give others a sense of how a work made him feel such that the reader could imagine feeling that way herself. Instead of simply saying that he enjoyed the work or that the work was mysterious, he essentially wanted to the reader to know what it was like to be Elgarian listening to that work.


This one perchance? http://www.talkclassical.com/3979-do-i-like-how.html


----------



## Polyphemus (Nov 2, 2011)

Thank you Partita.
Elgarian sums it up so well 'Do *I*like it'. One of my favourite discs is Ashkenazy's 1963 recording of the Rachmninov 3rd Piano Concerto (LSO-Fistoulari). Most of the professional reviewers and 'experts' tell me that this is by no means the best available version on disc but I love it. I have many recordings of the work including the much praised one by Martha Argerich which seems to be the top choice of the experts and very fine it is too. However when I am in my chair with my glass of tipple and decide its time for the Rach 3 then almost invariably I select the Ashkenazy.
This is not me being a diehard the disc just makes me happy. You will notice that I make no claims that the version I like is the best as I have no musical knowledge to back up such a claim. I do however know what I like and what pleases me. 
Surely that is the joy of music.


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

some guy said:


> And I do not.
> 
> I'm a little alarmed by the ready acceptance of the idea that verticality is for the average (who?) music lover and horizonality is for the experts. (I'm a little alarmed that the idea that we can be divided into experts and dolts has had such traction. Even substituting "beginner" or "average" for dolt doesn't diminish my alarm.)
> 
> ...


As I see it, you could be right. But you have hardly provided any evidence as to how your ideas can be put into practice. You often sound like you want to bring about a newness to not only how this forum talks about music, but about how people should listen to music. A lot of what you say sounds like you might be better off putting it into a more creative form - that way you will affect more people and they will understand you better. Otherwise, it's just your opinion like everybody else's - and nobody will just listen to your opinion unless they agree with it beforehand (very slightly at least).

Just an idea. But I believe music is more personal than that, at least the enjoyment of it.


----------



## Guest (Feb 20, 2014)

Polyphemus said:


> Thank you Partita.
> Elgarian sums it up so well 'Do *I*like it'. One of my favourite discs is Ashkenazy's 1963 recording of the Rachmninov 3rd Piano Concerto (LSO-Fistoulari). Most of the professional reviewers and 'experts' tell me that this is by no means the best available version on disc but I love it. I have many recordings of the work including the much praised one by Martha Argerich which seems to be the top choice of the experts and very fine it is too. However when I am in my chair with my glass of tipple and decide its time for the Rach 3 then almost invariably I select the Ashkenazy.
> This is not me being a diehard the disc just makes me happy. You will notice that I make no claims that the version I like is the best as I have no musical knowledge to back up such a claim. I do however know what I like and what pleases me.
> Surely that is the joy of music.


I'm not sure if the thread I referred to is the relevant one. I had a quick glance at it and it would seem that "Elgarian" was trying to find some suitable language for the purpose of describing the pleasure one gets from a piece of music that other people might be able to latch onto so that they too see might see the potential virtues of that music. There are some comments in that thread but I'm not sure if anything concrete actually emerged.

Elgarian was a polite, cultivated, highly educated and very interesting character. I admired his form of expression. [I believe he is still active on another Board]. Not only that but he was a big champion of English classical music, especially of course Elgar. I'm sure that if he was still around here his enthusiasm for English music would have rubbed off on others. It made me check out lots more Elgar than I had originally in my possession, and I finished virtually becoming an Elgar addict including taking a detour to visit his former home near Worcester.

I do very much like Ashkenazy and have a great many of his recordings but not of Rach's PC3. Like you say it's a splendid work. The versions I have are: Andsnes/Oslo PO; Argerich/Berlin RSO; Janis/Boston SO; Wild/Royal PO; Horowitz/ NY PO. They're all slightly different but I like them all. I'm pretty sure that I would like Ashkenazy's version too, but I reckon I have enough.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

some guy, you're way too open and universal for this age. Be careful, as you just might truly enjoy yourself. We're still in the monkey-era of the human race... where beating on the chest (exempli gracia - pride in personal opinions and rankings) seems very important.


----------



## Guest (Feb 20, 2014)

The last time I tried to start a thread to 'talk about the music' it ran aground, partly, some would say, because of the choice of music, partly because, as some others would say, a few posters came along to criticise the choice and deride the attempt. Finally, the inadequacy of some (including me) in being able to use the 'right' language to describe things made it problematic: if I can't efficiently refer to "bar 45 where there is a transition from F# to a diminished G Major fugue" thenI'm wasting my time and everyone else's.

But if someone wants to have another go...I'm game...if it's about a selection that I already like, or at least am sufficiently familiar with that I can join in.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Partita said:


> This one perchance? http://www.talkclassical.com/3979-do-i-like-how.html


That's certainly as close to what I remember from a few years ago as anything so it very well could be. Thank you for finding that.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

science said:


> Even so, at this point, if we were to wrap up the classical music project today, I'd want to do it again soon. Although I would learn much less, especially from the first few hundred recommendations, it would be interesting to me to watch the process again, to see how strongly _we as a community_ choose to recommend various works. _We_'re a different bunch than _we_ were when the project started. Not only do _we_ have a different set of participants, but those of us who've been active in it throughout - at least five of us (I won't list them because I'd be afraid of overlooking someone) have participated actively the entire time - must each have learned a lot and it would be interesting to see how we vote differently the second time around. *Hopefully this shows that for me the interest is not in any objective ranking, but in the exploration of our subjectivities. It's actually just a formalized conversation*!


The bolded sentences are spot on. I love the phrase "formalized conversation".

And it would be fascinating to rerun the experiment to see the variation given the initial run.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Vesuvius said:


> some guy, you're way too open and universal for this age. Be careful, as you just might truly enjoy yourself. We're still in the monkey-era of the human race... where beating on the chest (exempli gracia - pride in personal opinions and rankings) seems very important.


Most of us congratulate ourselves more subtly than by showing off our rankings.


----------



## Guest (Feb 21, 2014)

shangoyal said:


> But you have hardly provided any evidence as to how your ideas can be put into practice.


What are these ideas to be put into practice?

You may be misreading the OP. In it, I simply point to a phenomenon and wonder if it's possible to talk about things differently than we seem to do now.



shangoyal said:


> You often sound like you want to bring about a newness to not only how this forum talks about music, but about how people should listen to music.


Yes, well if this is the idea you bring to my posts, then no wonder. Jettison the idea and read the post, just the post.



shangoyal said:


> A lot of what you say sounds like you might be better off putting it into a more creative form - that way you will affect more people and they will understand you better.


What makes you think I don't already do just this? TC takes up only part of my time, you know.



shangoyal said:


> Otherwise, it's just your opinion like everybody else's - and nobody will just listen to your opinion unless they agree with it beforehand (very slightly at least).


Well, there are ways to evaluate opinions. I mean other than the agreeing already part. To evaluate and know pretty well if it's a good opinion or not--agreement or disagreement notwithstanding.



shangoyal said:


> But I believe music is more personal than that, at least the enjoyment of it.


To what does "that" refer? I don't see anything in any of my posts (to any thread) that suggests that the enjoyment of music is not a personal thing.


----------



## Guest (Feb 21, 2014)

some guy said:


> What are these ideas to be put into practice?
> 
> You may be misreading the OP. In it, I simply point to a phenomenon and wonder if it's possible to talk about things differently than we seem to do now.


The 'ideas' you put in your OP, presumably?



some guy said:


> A cursory glance at classical music threads (on any board, not just TC) will reveal something very curious, people seem only able to talk about music vertically. [...] Me can't help wondering about the horizontal. This work has these qualities and has these effects on me and is connected to these other pieces in the following ways. How often do you see that kind of conversation? Is it possible to talk about music without doing any sort of ranking? Without arranging things from better to worse?
> 
> Might be an interesting thing to try.


----------



## GioCar (Oct 30, 2013)

I really don't understand why many people in this forum seem to be worried to try to appreciate/participate music in a different way than the "like/don't like", "ranking" "better Bach or Handel" and so on.

Here (as in many other place I believe) we have a serie of radio broadcasted music "lessons", the lecturers are well-known critics or musicians, each lesson lasts 30 minutes, it's broadcasted twice a week (Saturday and Sunday morning), the lesson podcast is available the following day. As you know, Gould and Bernstein made something similar in the past, but in a pre-internet era...
Well, this is one of the most successfull radio programs. The lecturers speak a very basic language for an audience of non experts, the last one I listen to was about Mussorgsky's Pictures of an Exibition, with particular focus on the connections between the various "pictures" and other compositions of the 20th century (you know, Mussorgsky's music was much more "modern" than his time). At the end of the lesson people can send SMS messages to comment.

This is a way to talk about music horizontally, without anything like "_bar 45 where there is a transition from F# to a diminished G Major fugue_" (I took this from post #52).

As I have already said before, for the time being I found some example of this here

http://www.talkclassical.com/blogs/comments/comment2075.html

and I really would like to see something similar more often.

We are so lucky to have a bunch of very collaborative experts in this forum who can lead these kind of discussions, so why not try?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

GioCar said:


> I really don't understand why many people in this forum seem to be worried to try to appreciate/participate music in a different way than the "like/don't like", "ranking" "better Bach or Handel" and so on.
> 
> Here (as in many other place I believe) we have a serie of radio broadcasted music "lessons", the lecturers are well-known critics or musicians, each lesson lasts 30 minutes, it's broadcasted twice a week (Saturday and Sunday morning), the lesson podcast is available the following day. As you know, Gould and Bernstein made something similar in the past, but in a pre-internet era...
> Well, this is one of the most successfull radio programs. The lecturers speak a very basic language for an audience of non experts, the last one I listen to was about Mussorgsky's Pictures of an Exibition, with particular focus on the connections between the various "pictures" and other compositions of the 20th century (you know, Mussorgsky's music was much more "modern" than his time). At the end of the lesson people can send SMS messages to comment.
> ...


They're not mutually exclusive, are they?


----------



## GioCar (Oct 30, 2013)

science said:


> They're not mutually exclusive, are they?


Sorry, in what sense?


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

@ some guy, science and Giocar, Great back and forth in the respectful exchange of ideas, guys, without descending into the abyss of ad hominems.
This is a true example of what constitutes real discussion, both on-line and in real life. I only--and fervently-- wish that more--if not all of our "discussions" on this board about the different aspects and merits (or lack thereof) pertaining to particular composers and their ouevre could maintain the quality and criteria you have all demonstrated is possible when we really try to adhere 
to the simple tenet of mutual respect for one another. Thank You! :kiss:


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

GioCar said:


> Sorry, in what sense?


I mean, I think we can both discuss the histories and influences of the works (that is my attempt to describe the kind of discussion that you advocate in your post) and also have the kinds of discussions you and someguy decry.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

samurai said:


> @ some guy, science and Giocar, Great back and forth in the respectful exchange of ideas, guys, without descending into the abyss of ad hominems.
> This is a true example of what constitutes real discussion, both on-line and in real life. I only--and fervently-- wish that more--if not all of our "discussions" on this board about the different aspects and merits (or lack thereof) pertaining to particular composers and their ouevre could maintain the quality and criteria you have all demonstrated is possible when we really try to adhere
> to the simple tenet of mutual respect for one another. Thank You! :kiss:


That's very nice of you, samurai, not least because it reminds me that I have some ad homs to get to, when I can be sure the mods aren't looking....


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

Hi, science. I'm a recovering basher myself ,especially in the arena of politics, which can often become very emotional--and, unfortunately--quite personal at times as well. :scold:


----------



## lupinix (Jan 9, 2014)

What about a thread which changes topic lets say every week, and is always about a piece of music or series of small pieces , chosen as randomly as possible from all eras. Also it seems fair that if in the first the thread was about a piece of mozart, then in the second week it has to be about a piece from an other era than classicism
The one that choses (the OP or I don't know, maybe every week the first one to react may chose, unless he already had the chance and the next one didn't? something like that?) puts also a link of the piece so that everyone that has never heard it can listen
Then everyone can just talk about what the music does to them, of which other pieces or composers it reminds them, what the music means, what aspects they like about it (even if they don't like it as a whole!), why its a typical piece or not, why it is important to you or not, etc
just an idea, but I think I would like it if such a thread exist


----------



## Guest (Feb 21, 2014)

I purposely did not make any suggestions for threads because I didn't want to focus on any particular this or that.

I wanted to call attention to a phenomenon. And perhaps suggest (here's my suggestion) that the vertical way of talking about music was not the only way. Not the only way _to think_ about music. Of course, I do think that the vertical way has some deleterious consequences, but that's as may be.

The important thing is that we've started talking about it, that we're aware of it. Done.

That other people besides myself are starting to suggest, and to actually do, threads in which horizontal thinking is appropriate and desirable is really grand. (I hope saying that isn't an example of vertical thinking. Oops!!)

Anyway, Lupinix's thread idea sounds fun to me. Let's do it!


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

Anything which will accomplish the twin goals/criteria of sharing with and learning from each other in an amicable atmosphere of fellowship, respect and good will is an endeavor worth striving for. :trp:


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

samurai said:


> Anything which will accomplish the twin goals/criteria of sharing with and learning from each other in an amicable atmosphere of fellowship, respect and good will is an endeavor worth striving for. :trp:


To dream the impossible dream....... :clap:


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

I've been accused of being a hopelessly romantic dreamer many times in my long life; why should I change now? :devil:


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

samurai said:


> I've been accused of being a hopelessly romantic dreamer many times in my long life; why should I change now? :devil:


You are not alone. In NYC, I used to live on Utopia Parkway.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

science said:


> Most of us congratulate ourselves more subtly than by showing off our rankings.


It appears we've evolved a bit from the ape.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Vesuvius said:


> It appears we've evolved a bit from the ape.


From a friend of my Nephew's, commenting upon the great Northeast Blackout of 2003
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_blackout_of_2003

"Man, something like this happens and it proves we're nothing more than just a bunch of monkeys with lights."


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Vesuvius said:


> It appears we've evolved a bit from the ape.


Speak for yourself. I'm an ex--New Yorker.


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

hpowders said:


> You are not alone. In NYC, I used to live on Utopia Parkway.


Yes, I know that roadway quite well; very nice, in a utopian kind of way, of course.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

samurai said:


> Yes, I know that roadway quite well; very nice, in a utopian kind of way, of course.


Maybe, but it doesn't have quite the regality of living on either Empire Boulevard or Kings Highway in Brooklyn.


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

You are absolutely right; having been born in Brooklyn {Borough Park, to be exact}, I simply cannot disagree with your observation! :tiphat:


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

There once was a ballpark on Bedford Avenue and Sullivan Place. I lived a couple of blocks away on Crown Street and Rogers Avenue, in Crown Heights, and then one day it was replaced by an apartment building. So sad.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

samurai said:


> You are absolutely right; having been born in Brooklyn {Borough Park, to be exact}, I simply cannot disagree with your observation! :tiphat:


My grandparents used to live in Borough Park, 14th Avenue. Those were the days....


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

PetrB said:


> From a friend of my Nephew's, commenting upon the great Northeast Blackout of 2003
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_blackout_of_2003
> 
> "Man, something like this happens and it proves we're nothing more than just a bunch of monkeys with lights."


I think the Hindus call it the "monkey-mind."


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Vesuvius said:


> I think the Hindus call it the "monkey-mind."


... and that _chattering monkey_ who lives in our heads at times


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

samurai said:


> Hi, science. I'm a recovering basher myself ,especially in the arena of politics, which can often become very emotional--and, unfortunately--quite personal at times as well. :scold:


I have politics fights with friends and neighbors all the time.


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

hpowders said:


> I have politics fights with friends and neighbors all the time.


I reckon that as long as you remain friends and your neighbors stay peaceful, it's alright. :angel:


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

samurai said:


> I reckon that as long as you remain friends and your neighbors stay peaceful, it's alright. :angel:


I try not to bring it up say when we go out for dinner. If the other person brings it up, I usually just smile and say something like "everybody's to blame" to not spoil my evening. That usually stops it.


----------



## GioCar (Oct 30, 2013)

samurai said:


> @ some guy, science and Giocar, Great back and forth in the respectful exchange of ideas, guys, without descending into the abyss of ad hominems.
> This is a true example of what constitutes real discussion, both on-line and in real life. I only--and fervently-- wish that more--if not all of our "discussions" on this board about the different aspects and merits (or lack thereof) pertaining to particular composers and their ouevre could maintain the quality and criteria you have all demonstrated is possible when we really try to adhere
> to the simple tenet of mutual respect for one another. Thank You! :kiss:


Thank you for your nice words, and if you are a beautiful lady, thank you for you nice kiss as well


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

I think it's all too easy to fault one's discussion about music - an art - either objectively nor subjectively. I can write down technical points why atonal music is inferior to tonal, and I can also write down technical points about the converse, but that's ultimately leading to opening up a can of worms depending on who are listening/reading to your points.

So, it's better in a casual forum like TC, just write whatever you wish without necessarily getting down into the details, unless you want to.


----------



## Guest (Feb 22, 2014)

ArtMusic said:


> I think it's all too easy to fault one's discussion about music - an art - either objectively nor subjectively. I can write down technical points why atonal music is inferior to tonal, and I can also write down technical points about the converse, but that's ultimately leading to opening up a can of worms depending on who are listening/reading to your points.
> 
> So, it's better in a casual forum like TC, just write whatever you wish without necessarily getting down into the details, unless you want to.


What this amounts to is, "Write what you wish...but don't write stuff that might open up a can or worms...unless you want to." Is that right?


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I like some atonal. Don't get me wrong, but if atonal is a natural, human way of making music, wouldn't all the great composers from Bach to Mahler have discovered it and exploited it to great effect?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

hpowders said:


> I like some atonal. Don't get me wrong, but if atonal is a natural, human way of making music, wouldn't all the great composers from Bach to Mahler have discovered it and exploited it to great effect?


No. "Atonal" music is something that had to evolve out of the combined chromatic weight of centuries of musical practice. It's like saying "If Debussy's Neomodal Impressionist style is so natural, why didn't composers from Machaut to Saint-Saens discover and make use of it?" Which makes equally little sense.

Of course, "atonality" is not a consistent nor a particularly useful term, and as it's used on the internet, it doesn't really mean anything other than "it sounds weird to me".

On top of which, Mahler's music was one of the things originally called "atonal" by critics when the term was coined in the 1920s (long after the first "atonal" pieces had been written), and some listeners find connections between Bach and Schoenberg's mid-late works.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> No. "Atonal" music is something that had to evolve out of the combined chromatic weight of centuries of musical practice. It's like saying "If Debussy's Neomodal Impressionist style is so natural, why didn't composers from Machaut to Saint-Saens discover and make use of it?" Which makes equally little sense.
> 
> Of course, "atonality" is not a consistent nor a particularly useful term, and as it's used on the internet, it doesn't really mean anything other than "it sounds weird to me".
> 
> On top of which, Mahler's music was one of the things originally called "atonal" by critics when the term was coined in the 1920s (long after the first "atonal" pieces had been written), and some listeners find connections between Bach and Schoenberg's mid-late works.


But one would think, given the extraordinary musical genius of Beethoven, stretching musical boundaries with the Grosse Fuge and the Hammerklavier fugue, he would have eventually discovered atonality as a means of expression. Perhaps if he lived a few more years.

I believe you would like Persichetti's 11th piano sonata; his venture into atonal-ness.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

hpowders said:


> But one would think, given the extraordinary musical genius of Beethoven, stretching musical boundaries with the Grosse Fuge and the Hammerklavier fugue, he would have eventually discovered atonality as a means of expression. Perhaps if he lived a few more years.
> 
> I believe you would like Persichetti's 11th piano sonata; his venture into atonal-ness.


Okeedoh -- I think it is time for that promised scream from whichever TC member delivered that vow contingent upon "One more mention of Persichetti." :lol:


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Okeedoh -- I think it is time for that promised scream from whichever TC member delivered that vow contingent upon "One more mention of Persichetti." :lol:


You will keep hearing it until I talk it up to "mainstream".

For your sake, I hope there is no Persichetti's Italian Restaurant in your neighborhood.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

hpowders said:


> I like some atonal. Don't get me wrong, but if atonal is a natural, human way of making music, wouldn't all the great composers from Bach to Mahler have discovered it and exploited it to great effect?


Agree. It the end product where prior centuries was perceived to have largely exhausted all tonal possibilities. Just like the vanat-garde now - through their own admission - that music have been exhuasted, so it's all bout experimentalism and noise.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Just because something is called 'atonal' or 'experimental' doesn't mean it still can't contain some tonal influence somewhere. The whole drama and expression of a piece should be more important than how tonal something is or isn't. Surely that's what people listen to more when they hear music.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

ArtMusic said:


> Agree. It the end product where prior centuries was perceived to have largely exhausted all tonal possibilities. Just like the vanat-garde now - through their own admission - that music have been exhuasted, so it's all bout experimentalism and noise.


Beethoven came close with the Grosse Fuge and Hammerklavier fugue. If he lived a few more years, he might have out-Alban-ed Berg!


----------

