# Personal opinion time



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Just listening to Pettersson's early syms, 2,3,4
seems his 3rd is really a fine early symphony and holds some greatness qualities, Superior to his 4th, by a lot.

I find Pettersson's 3rd, his early phase, not in maturity as yet, to possess finer music that any of Bruckner and Mahler extensive oeuvre

Mahler meanders and has nothing exceptional, not when compared to wagner;s finer moments,,,
Bruckner has some codas in the 7th symphony,,,but other than that, its all just again, dated material. Nothing memorable. Mozart's last works are memorable, so this quality has nothing to do with the fact of linear time.

So here we have the opinion of considering *2nd tier composer* to be less important than either Bruckner and Mahler.

Time for a change

Note the passage from the Sibelius VC, how he pays respects and homage to his compatriot.
Beginning at 19:48, especially at 20:17-20:40. 
this is not a minor symphony from Pettersson there is significant genius shown throughout. 
Just this 3rd symphony alone, IMHO
raises far above Mahler and Bruckner, lengthy, thinly structured, often meanders material.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Since the posts with which you fill other threads consist almost entirely of personal opinions, I don't see why you need a special thread called "personal opinion time." That said, I'll offer a personal opinion on Pettersson's Symphony #3 which you've posted here.

Basing my reaction solely on this work (I've heard a few of his other symphonies), I'd say that I hear a composer who is highly inventive, skilled, and sincere. It's clear that he is not going through the motions of "composing," but actually has something to communicate. Ideas come thick and fast, too much so really to make perfect sense of before he's moved on to something else, and the something else is usually arresting enough that you don't stop to think about what you may have missed. If the structural logic isn't obvious, the emotional logic is clear. The trouble is, this sort of outpouring can only go on for so long before satiety and impatience set in. Without clear structural moorings, and without sufficient emotional relaxation and contrast to provide relief and let me charge up for the next foray into turbulence, the returns began to diminish for me half way through, and by the 20 minute mark or thereabouts I was ready to check out. The result was an overall sense of anticlimax; by the end I was just tired of the whole business, and I have to say that I'm not tempted to go back and listen to it all again.

This symphony has merit, but it hardly justifies your exalting it over the works of Bruckner and Mahler. Those composers have their faults, but the ones you ascribe to them - "thinly structured" and "often meandering" - don't dominate their powerfully conceived creations. In Mahler, for example, I can think of a few of his symphonic movements that fail somewhat with respect to structure, but even in those his sense of commitment is usually enough to pull me through the thin spots, especially knowing that there's great stuff to look forward to. Both of those composers have a sense of scale, a grip on time, a feeling for the the long view, for going the distance, that I don't find in the more momentary, existential reportage of Pettersson's 3rd. I think Mahler or Bruckner would have said, "OK, young man, you have a lot of ideas here. Now throw half of them away and see what you can build with the rest." Sibelius would have told him to throw away three-fourths of them, and locked him in the sauna till he was ready to come out with something clear and tight.

It's ironic that I've sometimes complained that Mahler occasionally makes me feel like an unwilling witness to a session with his therapist. I'd have to say that Pettersson drags me right into therapy with him. It isn't something I'm normally in the mood for, and I don't find it to be the most edifying thing that art can aspire to. A true tragic vision, which we can find in the greatest music - in Bach, in Beethoven, in Wagner - affords an Olympian perspective, produces catharsis, and exalts us. Pettersson, in this work at least, just wearies me.

Time for a Haydn quartet.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> Since the posts with which you fill other threads consist almost entirely of personal opinions, I don't see why you need a special thread called "personal opinion time."...


Must remember to open a thread titled "Objective opinion time." It would, of course, be populated by my own opinions. :lol:


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

I'd start a thread called The Truth, but, like the man says, "You can't handle (Handel?) the truth!"


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Strange Magic said:


> I'd start a thread called The Truth, but, like the man says, "You can't handle (Handel?) the truth!"


It's all right. Anyone who's been following your contributions will already have absorbed as much truth as they can bearlioz.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Strange Magic said:


> I'd start a thread called The Truth, but, like the man says, "You can't handle (Handel?) the truth!"


Been done. "Pravda" translates to "truth."


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Apparently, some of the folks around here haven't heard: 'All Talk Classical Forum members are liars'.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

SONNET CLV said:


> Apparently, some of the folks around here haven't heard: 'All Talk Classical Forum members are liars'.


You lie. _............._


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

The need to prop up Pettersson while denigrating Mahler and Bruckner indicates an insecurity much the way a certain president has to constantly mention a certain past president.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Glad to see a lot of humor going around, 
You know every 100 years or so, the CC should step back and takea look at where they have come from, where they are at, (New Orleans slang *whr Y At* , and where we are going,,,,btw that 's a great line, one of Nicklesons's best 
*You can't handle the truth*

about the shannigans that go on in the military,,behind closed doors...

yeah , my opinions are solely mine are do not represent the TC membership nor the CC at large in thew orld..
But I do have 35 yrs of musical listening,,,seeking amny rare/OOP/finest recordings in history.
So I have always sought the finest,,I ama record critic, my hobby past 30 yrs.

Made some good finds , made some bad deals. 
I was a completist in some selective composers,
Bartok, Shostakovich, Ravel. others. 



New discoveries has given me a wider perspective on previous *masters*. 
Some just don't add up. 
Had Bruckner and Mahler SQ's, VC's, PC;s, I might have interest in those works, maybe. can not say forb sure as it is hypothetical. 


I have looked over Mahler /Bruckner comments,,, *I love this sym, starting at 35 minutes*,,,* the middle movement is what makes this sym great*….
When I say I listened to such and such a sym, the fans say *oh no, not that work, you missed his best, you need to hear , XYZ sym as his best*,,,well, why don't they make up their minds...

Its all hodge podge, hit N miss with both. As I say Bruckner;'s 7th, codas 1st/4th are stunning, but after 1 or 2 listens,,,OK maybe a 3rd, and a 4th,,as I compared all YT uploads, but really, its like old news after these 4 experiences..
Seems Wooduck , has a really good sense of figuring out textures, , phrasing, , he interprets quite well. 
Something I have no skill at, , I interpret on a slower, yet realizable system of comparisioons with other styles/forms in my 35 years experience... 


I mean as you know, everything has a rating, scale, valuation system in todays world.,.
*What is it worth*

Music has no such valuation, only in a personal sense. 
Or does it? 
I mean a composer with a well rounded output, is usually more highly appreciated than a composer who lacks the chamber/concertos which offer nice bonus scores. 

Some folks say they prefer chamber over all other forms in CM. 
Chamber does offer unique ways of expressing music. 

Anyway, Pettersson does throw a lot at the listener, 
But if you understand the why's, and wherefor's he composers exactly as he did,,,in his circumstances,,,this might aid in accepting his thick, complex, whirl wind symphonies , many ae 1 movement, 

My interests are also books, history, some Jung, etc. 
IO hear in Pettersson, what I see in man's past , the suffering, hardships, 
Just think about for one second, if you will,. 
This planet is dying, and that process is speeding up day by day. 
What world will the grand kids face in say 60 years time?

This is the reality Pettersson attempts to portray in his music, there is no laughter, no humor, Why would there be if his manin goal is to attempt a reflection of how he sees, history = past/present/future.,.. can you name one other composer who reflects this demise and death process of the planet, more descriptively in musical form?


Plato when discussing music, has ideas that soul must be representative in the structure (I made this up, but as a Platonian I am quite sure it is in his volumues),,,that soul, according to Jung expresses itself in musical form and so can relate ina way to what is happening in the world around us. 


If a African/amazon artist/musican, can not portray in art/music what the group feels is the correct forms,,,the artist will be fired and have to work the fields, like everyone else. 
His privileges are struck.


When the artist can not properly reflect community life , its tragedies, hardships, hopes, dreams,,,the artist is now unemployed.


As I say, Pettersson is nota easy/simple composer to jump into. Unless one has the requirements,,,
I only made the discovery of Pettersson based on a members comments at *another CM discussion forum * . what are you currently listen to,,,he used one word which struck deep chord, like a gong,,,*Listening to Pettersson's 2nd symphony.....HARROWING,...*,,,Never heard/seen this name ever before,,,I thought,,, *harrowing,,,I like music that harrows,,what ever this experience is, I must see what this is all about,,.,,*. 
The rest is history, 

may have been months/years passing, had I not seen this one post in say 2002ish? 


After experience music with depth, Schnittke, Webern, Pettersson and a few others,,,previous vessels of music, seem to be thin, pale, lack luster.

With me, music has to challenge, and hold interest. 
Who wants yesterdays bread?


I have years before I can absorb all the nuances and complexities within Pettersson, Then we have Schnittke's thick, rich complex scores, , if thats not enough to keep one busy,,,Elliott Carter also matches the previous 2. 

I still have to work through Wagner;'s masterpieces,,after listening to one part of the Ring Cycle,,play a Bruckner Cd next day. See how Bruckner has melted away like a ice cube on a hot summer day. 
Whatever Bruckner offers at his best, Wagner offers 100 times more dynamics, suspense, colors. 


I leave behind music , only due to new overwhelming experiences. 

I can not understand how folks can remain committed to music , which has been transcended by a far superior composer? 
What's up with this? 


had ravel been so over awed , impressed with Chopin, he would have written very close to Chopin's style,,,*Why try to make something different, its already perfected in Chopin*


Then we would be left with Chopin a la Ravel. 


Ravel transcended Chopin and this means he has a job, as he is reflecting the values of the modern psyche.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

DaveM said:


> The need to prop up Pettersson while denigrating Mahler and Bruckner indicates an insecurity much the way a certain president has to constantly mention a certain past president.


Can you listen to a part of the Ring cycle and then say *Bruckner's music is so much more than wagner,,way more better*
Or a Shostakovich symphony 4,5,7, others, (except 1,2,313,14,15 none of which I find of interest) and say, *Mahler is so much better than Shostakovich;'s symphony 8*.

Both composers trumped by superior forms, more modern voices. 
Such is life, we seek the finest art. 
Why pretend Mahler matches Shostakovich's 5,7,8 symphonies , in every department of musical descript...

Mahler sounds like yesterdays bread, next to Shostakovich's fresh baked delicacies.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

paulbest said:


> Just think about for one second, if you will,.
> This planet is dying, and that process is speeding up day by day.
> What world will the grand kids face in say 60 years time?


What's the bad news?


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Bulldog said:


> What's the bad news?


You know the news media is ina sort of bind,,,the only news they have to report is bad. 
Our local TV station, 24/7,,,tries its best to present a *positive news broadcast*...so the real , ONLY important news , like street pot holes, broken water pipes, trees not maintained, parking ticket workers giving mea ticket for my trucked parked ona neighbors empty lot,,i am about 10 feet from the fire hydrant ,, thinking,,surely I am far enough away,,,,yet I seea yellow ticket on my widshield,,I am not on the street!!!,,,water bills $140++ a month, and in a drought? when folks need extra water for gardens/lawns,,,NO MERCY,, now its $200+
New Orleans is now trying to cover up this death process, I have since moved, water bill, $20 a month,,property taxes 40% less. Just a few miles from New orleans proper.

New orleans has no chance at a future, 
It is a Federal $ city,,,w/o FED money, like a weed in a desert with no rain.

This is the world I see, and music has to address this fake/lie/propaganda/cheatin world surrounding me. 
I like history, Jung, Plato, so my music has to be just as challenging as the books I like to read.

have you ever gone to a nice University library,,they havea section called the *Dewey catalogue area* where books from the 1920's-1950's are kept,.,, At one time these book were considered solid scholarship, Now no one bothers, as the shelves are updated, with newer more accurate solid scholarship.
To me Bruckner and Mahler works are like *Dewey books*


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Personal opinion, 
We all know Shostakovich was a masterful symphonist, as well as chamber and concertos. 
But of his symphonies, which do you feel you could live without.
I love 5,7,8,10,11,12.
The rest hold little interest,,as the 3rd symphony comes back in superior forms in the 5,7,8. 
The 4th has that great final movement,,,but who is interested in half a work? 
Besides the 8th has superior scoring which is over shadows the 4th;'s last movement. 

Shostakovich's 2nd VC, keeper? often heard? Seldom? 
I find the 1st VC is the one I reach for most often.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

was wondering,,,the TC mods are all asleep now, for I know I should have been served yet another 
WARNING violation
making it my last strike.

I am down in the count bad,,,so was wondering if you guys could proof read me comments here, and note any *offensive/inappropriate* ideas/opinions,,which I would be wise to delete, before morning sun rises.


I feel maybe the hangman is gonna come looking for me at sunrise..Its just this gut feeling...


Please try to give me heads up on what I need to revise/and or delete,,,lest you don't see me around the TC much longer. 

I did try to use the *IMHO* as a protection devise like a cop would use a bullet proof vest 

but I can feel something in the AM awaits my 

Personal Message box.

. I opretty much said all I plan to say,,so I am turning over a new page in my book. 
Positive notes on 
my 4 favs , , that's a promise. I'll stay within their chat rooms and will not venture out where I am sure to get in trouble.


Remember the Buffalo Springfield;s song,

Come on people now,
smile on your brother
lets get together and try and love one another
right now
right now

righttt nowww.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

paulbest said:


> I mean as you know, everything has a rating, scale, valuation system in todays world.,.
> *What is it worth*
> 
> Music has no such valuation, only in a personal sense.
> Or does it?


You seem to think so. What do you call your medium of exchange? Schnittcoin?



> This is the reality Pettersson attempts to portray in his music, there is no laughter, no humor, Why would there be if his manin goal is to attempt a reflection of how he sees, history = past/present/future.,.. can you name one other composer who reflects this demise and death process of the planet, more descriptively in musical form?


What other composer would want to? What for?



> As I say, Pettersson is nota easy/simple composer to jump into. Unless one has the requirements,,,
> I only made the discovery of Pettersson based on a members comments at *another CM discussion forum * . what are you currently listen to,,,he used one word which struck deep chord, like a gong,,,*Listening to Pettersson's 2nd symphony.....HARROWING,...*,,,Never heard/seen this name ever before,,,I thought,,, *harrowing,,,I like music that harrows,,what ever this experience is, I must see what this is all about,,.,,*.
> The rest is history,
> 
> After experience music with depth, Schnittke, Webern, Pettersson and a few others,,,previous vessels of music, seem to be thin, pale, lack luster.


Not everyone thinks that being harrowed is the height - or depth - of human experience or artistic aspiration.



> I still have to work through Wagner;'s masterpieces,,after listening to one part of the Ring Cycle,,play a Bruckner Cd next day. See how Bruckner has melted away like a ice cube on a hot summer day.
> Whatever Bruckner offers at his best, Wagner offers 100 times more dynamics, suspense, colors.


What if Wagner and Bruckner are trying to say entirely different things? Are _King Lear_ and _The Divine Comedy_ in competition? (Last I checked, Bruckner is still solid. He has not melted, even with Tristan breathing down his neck.)



> I can not understand how folks can remain committed to music , which has been transcended by a far superior composer?
> What's up with this?


Other people don't price all musical merchandise with Schnittcoin, but use the coin of each country they enter.

Wagner and Brahms don't transcend each other; that culture war is over, and we're the beneficiaries of the peace.



> Ravel transcended Chopin and this means he has a job, as he is reflecting the values of the modern psyche.


Chopin relected the values of his psyche, Ravel of his. Neither used Schnittcoin.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

paulbest said:


> *Can you listen to a part of the Ring cycle and then say *Bruckner's music is so much more than wagner,,way more better**
> Or a Shostakovich symphony 4,5,7, others, (except 1,2,313,14,15 none of which I find of interest) and say, *Mahler is so much better than Shostakovich;'s symphony 8*.
> 
> Both composers trumped by superior forms, more modern voices.
> ...


Wagner never wrote anything quite like this:






On the other hand, Bruckner never wrote anything like this:






In my listening, I don't 'play' the favorites game. I can be moved by Bruckner as much as by Wagner and by Rott as much as by Beethoven at any given time. When we discover something new, it can be the best thing we've ever heard...for now.

You're into Pettersson at the moment. But from the way you seem to judge composers, you'll eventually tire of him and then a few months from now, we'll be hearing how so-and-so is so much better than Pettersson.


----------



## samm (Jul 4, 2011)

I don't know about inappropriate, but if all the extraneous and useless content were to be removed there would only be an empty post.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I didn't know Pettersson's 3rd so it was interesting to hear it. I found it a little thin and lacking in incident ... and passion ... compared to the best of Pettersson's mature music. It does sound to me like someone learning his trade. To my ear the work can't come close to comparing with Mahler or Bruckner. Indeed it compare fairly poorly with quite a lot of broadly tonal modern music.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Paul Best seems to have a linear view of history, where the rest here seem to be at the center of a view of history, in which there is no time or progression of any sort.

The linear view of history lets history reflect its times,and the progress of musical thought and artistic accomplishment, and gives an automatic advantage to works of the present era.

The historical centrist view looks at works in absolute formal terms with no consideration for their place in time and to each other. Present-day works are given no quarter, and may be disparaged if they "do damage" to the centrist view.

Linear history must go forward; centrist history does not move in time, and can stay the same, favoring whatever historical forms it chooses.

In centricism, time has died, music is static, and the CM tradition is not a living, thriving thing; it is petrified. In simple terms, it is a rejection of the present in favor of history.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> Paul Best seems to have a linear view of history, where the rest here seem to be at the center of a view of history, in which there is no time or progression of any sort.
> 
> The linear view of history lets history reflect its times,and the progress of musical thought and artistic accomplishment, and gives an automatic advantage to works of the present era.
> 
> ...


It could be well argued that with the New Stasis in the arts, history itself is dead. The fragmentation of the arts--its practitioners and its audiences--into innumerable segments all singing of their unique existences, simultaneously parallel to and detached from one another, tends powerfully to nullify the concept of forward motion in the arts. Instead of clear and unidirectional patterns, we have the white noise, the Brownian motion of today's aesthetics.

"Satellites transmit the latest thrill 
We can't escape the media overkill"

The Scorpions: _Media Overkill_


----------



## ECraigR (Jun 25, 2019)

paulbest said:


> Plato when discussing music, has ideas that soul must be representative in the structure (I made this up, but as a Platonian I am quite sure it is in his volumues),,,that soul, according to Jung expresses itself in musical form and so can relate ina way to what is happening in the world around us.


As a classist, I find it horrifically amusing that you can say that you're making up this doctrine of Plato's and in the same breath maintain that you're a "Platonian" so it must be there. Followers of Plato are Platonists, and they do not have the power to make up doctrines for Plato. That being said, being a Platonist myself, I cannot think of anything in the dialogues that backs up your claim. There's a relationship between harmony and soul, but that's a bit it. (Of course, who knows what he means by soul)


----------



## ECraigR (Jun 25, 2019)

millionrainbows said:


> Paul Best seems to have a linear view of history, where the rest here seem to be at the center of a view of history, in which there is no time or progression of any sort.
> 
> The linear view of history lets history reflect its times,and the progress of musical thought and artistic accomplishment, and gives an automatic advantage to works of the present era.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure Paul Best is alone in that respect, and even if he was, is that the view we all should have? Note that the view of history you're advocating for here is also how Augustine describes the divine's relationship to time and history. So maybe it's a good critical stance to have, if properly articulated and developed?


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

millionrainbows said:


> Paul Best seems to have a linear view of history, where the rest here seem to be at the center of a view of history, in which there is no time or progression of any sort.
> 
> The linear view of history lets history reflect its times,and the progress of musical thought and artistic accomplishment, and gives an automatic advantage to works of the present era.
> 
> ...


This pretty much sums up my view.
Take Stravinsky, Expremely popular past 100 years, 
Parisians were all talking about 1 composer at the time of his ballets premiere. The talk among the CC was *STRAVINSKY*,,,something completely new, fresh , innovative, ,,,destroying old styles and so on,,,The Modern Age was now official, with Stravinsky in paris, the hub of avant garde.

Now along comes new composers, Henze, Pettersson, , the names are hardly known. Of course in Stravinksy; sday there may have been only 10 or so new composers making their craft known. Major that is, Now past 30 years there have been hundreds. 
And with modern life, we have more gadgets to entertain us, CM can not compete, So less potential fans for Pettersson. 
Some say his music is depressive, dark, moody, not what people want, or feel they need.

That tells me something about late modern man. 
He has tossed great art aside.

If Stravinksy came on the world stage today,,he might not have half the acclaim he received back in the 20's. This world has changed, yet as Millionrainbows points out, some are quite happy , perfectly content with the static view of world history.

I guess as the old saying goes,
, how does it go,,,
*the more things change, the more they stay the same..*
That seems like a contradiction. 
Something is changing
Yet something else is not changing 
Pettersson is certainly not your grand fathers average CM choices , that s for sure.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

ECraigR said:


> As a classist, I find it horrifically amusing that you can say that you're making up this doctrine of Plato's and in the same breath maintain that you're a "Platonian" so it must be there. Followers of Plato are Platonists, and they do not have the power to make up doctrines for Plato. That being said, being a Platonist myself, I cannot think of anything in the dialogues that backs up your claim. There's a relationship between harmony and soul, but that's a bit it. (Of course, who knows what he means by soul)


I recall some 20 years ago, while looking over Muiscal Journals, at Tulne, I came across several interesting essays on how muisca activates tone centers, cascading like a waterfall, the deeper the sounds fall, more complex centers of meaning are awkened,,,Something along those lines, with diagrams...Since that time I am sure the number of studies, journals are grown leaps and bounds. 
The articles I came across may now be shelved in microfiche ,,,making it a needle ina hay stack,,,,If I spenda day or 2 there,,,i may find some articles of interest,,,maybe, manybe not, I have no idea in what directions this science has moved in, since that time.
This science may have evolved more mechanical, logical, thus leaving out the soul experience aspects.

I am more geared towards music that activates the most meaning centers deep within. In the best textures, complexities and tonal colors. 
I am kind of like the evangelical church fan-atic, I like music that makes me 
*Run the aisles and jump the pews..** also at times, shake all over, likea voodoo trance.
The Who's tune
Shaking all over* comes to mind. 
I like some *Seattle grunge* in my music.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Strange Magic said:


> It could be well argued that with the New Stasis in the arts, history itself is dead. The fragmentation of the arts--its practitioners and its audiences--into innumerable segments all singing of their unique existences, simultaneously parallel to and detached from one another, tends powerfully to nullify the concept of forward motion in the arts. Instead of clear and unidirectional patterns, we have the white noise, the Brownian motion of today's aesthetics.
> 
> "Satellites transmit the latest thrill
> We can't escape the media overkill"
> ...


Excellent post, 
not so easy to follow, But I get the drift..
Take The New Evangelical Experience
Joel Osteen does it best, 
Massive 50 foot video screens, 2 or 3, lots of LED color changing lights, , stage props, , its a real showtime Broadway skit. Massive sound systems. 
How does all this have to do with the poverty spoken of , and it to be accepted, welcomed as a requirement of the spiritual group.

But the fans love it, flock there every sunday, face huge traffic jams, long driving distances, and tithe to support the whole thing.

Satellites transmit the latest thrill

We can;'t escape the medias latest overkill


----------



## ECraigR (Jun 25, 2019)

paulbest said:


> I recall some 20 years ago, while looking over Muiscal Journals, at Tulne, I came across several interesting essays on how muisca activates tone centers, cascading like a waterfall, the deeper the sounds fall, more complex centers of meaning are awkened,,,Something along those lines, with diagrams...Since that time I am sure the number of studies, journals are grown leaps and bounds.
> The articles I came across may now be shelved in microfiche ,,,making it a needle ina hay stack,,,,If I spenda day or 2 there,,,i may find some articles of interest,,,maybe, manybe not, I have no idea in what directions this science has moved in, since that time.
> This science may have evolved more mechanical, logical, thus leaving out the soul experience aspects.
> 
> ...


Articles aren't really stored on microfiche if it was only twenty years ago. The internet would have them, either JSTOR or some other journal database.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

ECraigR said:


> Articles aren't really stored on microfiche if it was only twenty years ago. The internet would have them, either JSTOR or some other journal database.


These Musical Theory Journals, 1 was more usable data, that is understandable to the average reader,,the other 1 or 2 Journals, were more scientific/equation/math type ideas, which made no impact on me,,,I really wish I could find atht one particular article,,as I say, needle ina hay stack,,but I do have some plans to visit Tulane in coming moths and may take a look at past/current issues.

Look, its like this,,coming froma Warehouse show with The Allman Brothers, ,,,leaving that drug induced legends behind,,i still want something that jams in CM. I need my rock jams back in classical forms...To me a Schubert concert would be like attending Barry Manilow show,,well , lets say a Neil Diamond concert. 
I mean Diamond does have a few catchy tunes, but next to Cream Live, its your mom's show.

I do not want to go to a evangelical show and get my spirits moving,,I want to have the same excitement the holy rollers get out their show, the emotional kicks, the feverish highs. ,
but want to receive only in a classical music form.
Is this asking too much?

I mean they all seem to be really happy in their musical experiences,, they claim they *feel the spirit move*

I think they are only fooling themselves, as I've been to these types of skits. 
Its only a show, the feelings they get are fleeting and short lived..
I need get this same high, but not come down. 
I want to have music that liberates me from this earth. 
Bruckner may be your spiritual high,,but I want to go 
*wehere no man has gone before*
Give me more Webern please, 
*Beam me out Scottie*


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> Paul Best seems to have a linear view of history, where the rest here seem to be at the center of a view of history, in which there is no time or progression of any sort.
> 
> The linear view of history lets history reflect its times,and the progress of musical thought and artistic accomplishment, and gives an automatic advantage to works of the present era.
> 
> ...


"Linear view of history..." Phooey. Pretentious way of clothing tired Modernist dogma in an air of respectability.

Everybody knows that art, like everything else, changes through time and builds on previous accomplishments. On what planet do people believe that "there is no time or progression of any sort"? The one you came from? Are you refugees from a place where the natives won't let time progress? Did you and your protege recently touch down in the real Area 51?

Paul Best may have an excuse (even if we can't tell what it is) for his interminable ranting about the world he lives in being behind the times - an obvious contradiction - and composers of the mid-20th century being somehow the voice of the 21st - a contradiction on top of a contradiction - but there is no excuse for your spurious exaltation of his personal conceits and your demeaning of us who call him on them.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> "Linear view of history..." Phooey. Pretentious way of clothing tired Modernist dogma in an air of respectability.
> 
> Everybody knows that art, like everything else, changes through time and builds on previous accomplishments. On what planet do people believe that "there is no time or progression of any sort"? The one you came from? Are you refugees from a place where the natives won't let time progress? Did you and your protege recently touch down in the real Area 51?
> 
> Paul Best may have an excuse (even if we can't tell what it is) for his interminable ranting about the world he lives in being behind the times - an obvious contradiction - and composers of the mid-20th century being somehow the voice of the 21st - a contradiction on top of a contradiction - but there is no excuse for your spurious exaltation of his personal conceits and your demeaning of us who call him on them.


That's right; there is "no arguing" with this, for those who are 'believers' in the centrist, self-contained view of history/tradition.

I must point out, though, that time does pass, and it can be put on a time-line that is linear. But the centrist view is like a round clock or pocket watch, recursive, going round and round. Comforting.


----------



## samm (Jul 4, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> That's right; there is "no arguing" with this, for those who are 'believers' in the centrist, self-contained view of history/tradition.
> 
> I must point out, though, that time does pass, and it can be put on a time-line that is linear. But the centrist view is like a round clock or pocket watch, recursive, going round and round. Comforting.


It sounds clever (actually it doesn't even sound clever), but what you say is extremely pretentious. Culture recycles itself all the time and a good deal of what we partake of now is what we partook of as culture a very long time ago. We move on in time and adjust ourselves piecemeal, some parts not at all, and yet still live in the present, in the now.

You may want to cook up some armchair-philosophical theory to support the ridiculous tirades of your new guru, but it's really just time ill-spent.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

samm said:


> It sounds clever (actually it doesn't even sound clever), but what you say is extremely pretentious. Culture recycles itself all the time and a good deal of what we partake of now is what we partook of as culture a very long time ago. We move on in time and adjust ourselves piecemeal, some parts not at all, and yet still live in the present, in the now.
> 
> You may want to cook up some armchair-philosophical theory to support the ridiculous tirades of your new guru, but it's really just time ill-spent.


On the other hand, some of the fixations on icons of the past can come across as air-tight, self-contained "fundamentalist belief systems," which, as I said, really can't be argued with.

And no, I don't see Paul Best's "tirades" as anything "dangerous," since I don't have anything to defend. I see his attitude as a healthy acceptance of the new. I've always done the same, putting music of past eras into realistic perspective, resisting the "idolization" of such figures. I enjoy their music for what it is.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> On the other hand, some of the fixations on icons of the past can come across as air-tight, self-contained "fundamentalist belief systems," which, as I said, really can't be argued with.


What "comes across" to you may not come across to others and may not correspond to reality. People who accuse others of "idolizing" composers (or other things they have a passion for) need to put down the binoculars and get away from their rear windows.

The fact that others love music widely acknowledged as a glory of civilization, and that they defend what they love against soapbox evangelists like the late Mr. Best (what? he'll be resurrected?), is not something reasonable and decent people object to. Accusations of "fundamentalist belief systems," coming from someone as prone to the relentless propagation of cranky preachments as yourself, is a laugh riot.



> And no, I don't see Paul Best's "tirades" as anything "dangerous," since I don't have anything to defend. I see his attitude as a healthy acceptance of the new.


Then you don't see his attitude. A healthy acceptance of the new doesn't entail a daily, hourly, moment-by-moment denigration of the old - in this case the old and excellent. But then excellence is a word rarely spoken by proponents of "the new."

Huh... Why do you suppose that is?



> I've always done the same, putting music of past eras into realistic perspective, resisting the "idolization" of such figures. I enjoy their music for what it is.


But of course. Only you and your protege are in possession of a realistic perspective and know what the music of past masters really "is." Everyone else here is too attached to "fluff, filler and gimmickry" to understand that Allan Pettersson's musical primal therapy has made Beethoven's ode to the brotherhood of man obsolete.

Now that we're getting a breather from Paul the Baptist's unrelenting call to serve his (deceased) musical saviors, could we please have no more preaching about whose attitude toward music is the healthy one?


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> And no, I don't see Paul Best's "tirades" as anything "dangerous," since I don't have anything to defend. I see his attitude as a healthy acceptance of the new.


How wrong you are. Paul frequently told us that he did not like new music and didn't even consider it classical music.


----------



## AeolianStrains (Apr 4, 2018)

ECraigR said:


> As a classist, I find it horrifically amusing that you can say that you're making up this doctrine of Plato's and in the same breath maintain that you're a "Platonian" so it must be there. Followers of Plato are Platonists, and they do not have the power to make up doctrines for Plato. That being said, being a Platonist myself, I cannot think of anything in the dialogues that backs up your claim. There's a relationship between harmony and soul, but that's a bit it. (Of course, who knows what he means by soul)


Classist or classicist?


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Kinda unrelated, but...

*paulbest is online now 
Banned (Temporarily)*

How is this possible? lmao


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Kinda unrelated, but...
> 
> *paulbest is online now
> Banned (Temporarily)*
> ...


You can view the forum without being able to contribute.


----------



## ECraigR (Jun 25, 2019)

AeolianStrains said:


> Classist or classicist?


Hah, that's funny. A terrible typo, but the latter may imply the former


----------



## AeolianStrains (Apr 4, 2018)

ECraigR said:


> Hah, that's funny. A terrible typo, but the latter may imply the former


I didn't know there were that many of us, and your post really could have gone either way!


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

Pettersson comes second to Schreker in originality, is surpassed in counterpoint by even Bruckner, and is very very far away from Mahler. Moments of great orchestration but nothing remarkable about the structure of the music or its message.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> .........But then excellence is a word rarely spoken by proponents of "the new."
> 
> Huh... Why do you suppose that is?


If I'm taking this out of any intended context, then apologies Wooduck. I think the points below are valid regardless. They are also defensive towards the New, but not a rejoinder to CP, CM and adherents, of which I also include myself.

The New requires technical excellence to a high degree, one might say more so than any period before. The emancipation of rhythm alone requires a sophisticated mental approach to composing and linearity unimagined in all previous epochs. (of course it is that very thing that is conceivably more responsible for polarising opinion of the New, quite possibly more so than dissonance). This same free approach to musical time is at once alienating and liberating for a contemporary composer opening up linear possibilities that can easily be construed as random.

In terms of timbre, so many options are available to a contemporary composer from a bedroom DAW and its synths and samples all the way to IRCAM and any combination of the real and electronic in between, giving a palette which is infinite in blend, scale and scope. In terms of traditional orchestral combinations, imagined and scored timbres these days rival and often go beyond even the complexity and subtlety of Ravel and Stravinsky's scoring, colour being even more vital in the New.

To pull off contemporary musical thought in art music requires much excellence, vision, balls and now even technological prowess. Given these requirements, it is remarkable and comforting to know that there are composers sitting down today to write who are exemplary in their work and are held up as paragons of excellence and artistic achievement.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

millionrainbows said:


> And no, I don't see Paul Best's "tirades" as anything "dangerous," since I don't have anything to defend. I see his attitude as a healthy acceptance of the new. I've always done the same, putting music of past eras into realistic perspective, resisting the "idolization" of such figures. I enjoy their music for what it is.


Not dangerous but frequently tiresome in repeating very frequently the same stuff at quite some length and with scant regard for ensuring that what he has written makes sense. And it doesn't help that he states his views as facts that cannot be discussed or argued with. And you are very wrong if you see him as a champion of the new. It gets treated in the same way as the old and all the other music that he believes is doomed to be forgotten. And he rarely goes into any detail about even the composers that he does like. Personally, I don't object too much now that I am used to it but he makes a poor candidate for defending and, indeed, you frequently have a go at him yourself!


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

samm said:


> It sounds clever (actually it doesn't even sound clever), but what you say is extremely pretentious. Culture recycles itself all the time and a good deal of what we partake of now is what we partook of as culture a very long time ago. We move on in time and adjust ourselves piecemeal, some parts not at all, and yet still live in the present, in the now.


I don't think I understand this post. Culture "recycles itself" needs a lot more explanation to me to make any sense and I really can't see how we "partake" of the same culture now as we used to a long time ago. I'm not saying you are wrong - just I am not sure what your point is. I know your main point was to attack another member's post - and of course you are free to do so - but your own philosophical position (whether from an armchair or not) is not clear.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> What "comes across" to you may not come across to others and may not correspond to reality. People who accuse others of "idolizing" composers (or other things they have a passion for) need to put down the binoculars and get away from their rear windows. The fact that others love music widely acknowledged as a glory of civilization, and that they defend what they love against soapbox evangelists like the late Mr. Best (what? he'll be resurrected?), is not something reasonable and decent people object to. Accusations of "fundamentalist belief systems," coming from someone as prone to the relentless propagation of cranky preachments as yourself, is a laugh riot. Then you don't see his attitude. A healthy acceptance of the new doesn't entail a daily, hourly, moment-by-moment denigration of the old - in this case the old and excellent. But then excellence is a word rarely spoken by proponents of "the new."Huh... Why do you suppose that is? But of course. Only you and your protege are in possession of a realistic perspective and know what the music of past masters really "is." Everyone else here is too attached to "fluff, filler and gimmickry" to understand that Allan Pettersson's musical primal therapy has made Beethoven's ode to the brotherhood of man obsolete.Now that we're getting a breather from Paul the Baptist's unrelenting call to serve his (deceased) musical saviors, could we please have no more preaching about whose attitude toward music is the healthy one?


Exaggeration, distortion, false conclusions, argumentation, and ad-hominish comments; and finally, personal messages to cease. The situation is very simple; either you accept musical history as a vital, living, changing thing, to you accept a static, unchanging view of history which is formed by your own or closely similar "status quo" criteria.

Nobody is telling you that you can't think that way; all we've done is point this out.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Enthusiast said:


> Not dangerous but frequently tiresome in repeating very frequently the same stuff at quite some length and with scant regard for ensuring that what he has written makes sense. And it doesn't help that he states his views as facts that cannot be discussed or argued with. And you are very wrong if you see him as a champion of the new. It gets treated in the same way as the old and all the other music that he believes is doomed to be forgotten. And he rarely goes into any detail about even the composers that he does like. Personally, I don't object too much now that I am used to it but he makes a poor candidate for defending and, indeed, you frequently have a go at him yourself!


If you are tired of it, nobody is forcing you to do anything. Your views on music should be unaffected by anything Paul Best thinks or says. No need to attack him personally for having an opinion which differs from yours or the status quo.


----------



## samm (Jul 4, 2011)

Enthusiast said:


> I don't think I understand this post. Culture "recycles itself" needs a lot more explanation to me to make any sense and I really can't see how we "partake" of the same culture now as we used to a long time ago. I'm not saying you are wrong - just I am not sure what your point is. I know your main point was to attack another member's post - and of course you are free to do so - but your own philosophical position (whether from an armchair or not) is not clear.


It wasn't an 'attack' it was a correction. The culture we partake of is essentially of the same nature it has always been because we are generally pressing the same emotional buttons (or more soberly, exciting the same sort of nervous system) in the same way and by similar means. That is how it recycles itself; for the most part old wine in new bottles. The innovations are a small percentage. I don't know why you put the word "partake" in quotes because that was a mere vocabulary item irrelevant to the point being made.

The position may not be clear for you, but that is hardly my fault.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

> If you are tired of it, nobody is forcing you to do anything. Your views on music should be unaffected by anything Paul Best thinks or says. No need to attack him personally for having an opinion which differs from yours or the status quo.


As I said, it doesn't bother me too much and a little bit of it might freshen things up. I attack his posts and (particularly) his posting style rather than the man (who I don't know) and I go no further than you frequently do. I think you might just like being in opposition to the majority.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

samm said:


> It wasn't an 'attack' it was a correction. The culture we partake of is essentially of the same nature it has always been because we are generally pressing the same emotional buttons (or more soberly, exciting the same sort of nervous system) in the same way and by similar means. That is how it recycles itself; for the most part old wine in new bottles. The innovations are a small percentage. I don't know why you put the word "partake" in quotes because that was a mere vocabulary item irrelevant to the point being made.
> 
> The position may not be clear for you, but that is hardly my fault.


Your language certainly read like someone who was on the attack but a correction needs to make sense. You dismissed a point of view and replaced it with a sketch of a different one ... apparently assured that yours requires no justification and should be clear to all. Personally, so far, I suspect your "correction" is mistaken.

Why is partake in inverted commas? Because your use of the word is not a familiar one to me. It seems rather one-directional for describing our relationship to our culture. Would "participate" work better? I suppose it depends on what you think our relationship with a (the?) culture is.

Meanwhile, your position is no clearer to me and, personally, I think that is your fault as you are not explaining it. I asked out of interest (culture, cultural differences and the evolution of cultures are all interesting subjects to me) and not to embarrass or upset you. I think I'll leave things be.


----------



## Guest (Jul 10, 2019)

Enthusiast said:


> As I said, it doesn't bother me too much and a little bit of it might freshen things up.* I attack his posts and (particularly) his posting style* rather than the man (who I don't know) and I go no further than you frequently do. I think you might just like being in opposition to the majority.


Forum Rules

_"Do not post comments about other members person or »*posting style*« on the forum (unless said comments are unmistakably positive). Argue opinions all you like but do not get personal and never resort to »ad homs«."_


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> Exaggeration, distortion, false conclusions, argumentation, and ad-hominish comments; and finally, personal messages to cease. The situation is very simple; either you accept musical history as a vital, living, changing thing, to you accept a static, unchanging view of history which is formed by your own or closely similar "status quo" criteria.
> 
> Nobody is telling you that you can't think that way; all *we've* done is point this out.


So it's the "royal we" now?

I've told you that your beliefs about other people's "view of history" are wrong. I've told you that your asserting them is insulting and ridiculous. It's impossible to exaggerate how wrong, and how insulting, your views and your compulsion to characterize other people are - now, in the past, and, I fully expect, in the future. Until you break this reprehensible habit, which I've brought up to you again and again for what seems like years, you will continue to get "ad hominemish comments" from me and others. Behave in an arrogant, presumptuous way, call people things they are not, attribute to them views that they don't hold, and you'll hear from them about it. It's very simple.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Partita said:


> Forum Rules
> 
> _"Do not post comments about other members person or »*posting style*« on the forum (unless said comments are unmistakably positive). Argue opinions all you like but do not get personal and never resort to »ad homs«."_


The term "posting style" is not well-defined. What paulbest has been criticized for is not style but content (although his style - if it can be called that - has received some well-earned comment and a bit of parody). People who harp relentlessly on their pet peeves with the effect of drowning discussions in repetitious screeds and pointless squabbling have a content problem, not a style problem.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Bulldog said:


> How wrong you are. Paul frequently told us that he did not like new music and didn't even consider it classical music.


So he contradicts himself; he contains multitudes. :lol:


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

paulbest said:


> Remember the Buffalo Springfield;s song,
> 
> Come on people now,
> smile on your brother
> ...


Correction, this was the Youngbloods with Jessie Colin Young

"Glad to see a lot of humor going around"

Where? I read MR's posts and saw the usual suspect rise up to heckle and accuse him of something I do not see. Where is the humor? Why is a post that intelligently discusses two views of history treated as "phooey" as a lead-in to ad-hom insults? I just don't see the problems that woodduck sees in MR's posts, though I can see why he sees them, I was there years ago, and I think WD is obsessed with attacking MR while pretending to play forum police.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

mikeh375 said:


> If I'm taking this out of any intended context, then apologies Wooduck. I think the points below are valid regardless. They are also defensive towards the New, but not a rejoinder to CP, CM and adherents, of which I also include myself.
> 
> The New requires technical excellence to a high degree, one might say more so than any period before. The emancipation of rhythm alone requires a sophisticated mental approach to composing and linearity unimagined in all previous epochs. (of course it is that very thing that is conceivably more responsible for polarising opinion of the New, quite possibly more so than dissonance). This same free approach to musical time is at once alienating and liberating for a contemporary composer opening up linear possibilities that can easily be construed as random.
> 
> ...


Never heard the expression, emancipation of rhythm. That means rhythm used differently from a previous context? I did notice a lot of contemporary music vary accent placement, phrase shaping. Since this is a personal opinion thread, I opine that it only serves to reference something else, and doesn't stand on its own to have meaning. It can go to great lengths to defy expectation, but doesn't build on anything.

This topic reminds me of Millionrainbow's ideas of time, linearity, etc. With more traditional music, you get an idea something is being built in the music, certain spatial (tonal or rhythmic) relationships through a context over time. With music "in the moment" as he calls it, nothing is built. I agree with him there is no linearity of time in that sort of music, but I say that there is no dimension at all really, only discrete points unconnected in space and time. This is what I read is a trait of postmodern, the absence of meaning.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

philoctetes said:


> Correction, this was the Youngbloods with Jessie Colin Young
> 
> "Glad to see a lot of humor going around"
> 
> Where? I read MR's posts and saw the usual suspect rise up to heckle and accuse him of something I do not see. Where is the humor? Why is a post that intelligently discusses two views of history treated as "phooey" as a lead-in to ad-hom insults? I just don't see the problems that woodduck sees in MR's posts, though I can see why he sees them, I was there years ago, and I think WD is obsessed with attacking MR while pretending to play forum police.


Since you don't see the problems that I see in MR's posts, it's pretty arrogant of you to imagine that you know my reasons for seeing them (not to mention your claim that you were "there" years ago, based on some unwarranted assumption that you know "where" I am now). You are committing exactly the thought crime that MR commits: presuming to know what others think and announcing your suppositions to the world as truth. If you haven't noticed that he's doing that - and not only in this case, but habitually - then of course you won't know what I'm objecting to.

I have no interest in the job of moderator. But I do have an interest in fairness and truth. When people make unjustified statements about other peoples' beliefs and attitudes, I object. Millionrainbows was not making a nice academic presentation of "two views of history." He was interpreting people's objections to the behavior of paulbest as a conflict between ideas of his own imagining, regardless of whether the people involved subscribed to those (inherently questionable) ideas or not. I don't recognize the dichotomy he was offering as a legitimate description of anyone involved in this discussion, and certainly not of myself.

I regret that it's so often necessary to shoo away the flies of sophistry and false personal characterization on this forum. It's a bloody waste of time. But if people are going to keep presuming to put words in other people's mouths and beliefs in their heads, I will keep the bug repellant handy.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> Never heard the expression, emancipation of rhythm. That means rhythm used differently from a previous context? I did notice a lot of contemporary music vary accent placement, phrase shaping. Since this is a personal opinion thread, I opine that it only serves to reference something else, and doesn't stand on its own to have meaning . It can go to great lengths to defy expectation, but doesn't build on anything.


Phil,
I doubt an old hack like me will have invented the term 'emancipated rhythm', having almost certainly read it somewhere, but if nobody can come forward with a source, I'll claim it.
I'd have to disagree that rhythmic freedom doesn't have meaning beyond service to something else, especially from a creative pov. Technically and emotionally, the musicianship and invention required to even comprehend the possibilities of complicated nested tuplets and their surroundings in the imagination and over musical time is quite remarkable and is a central motivator in the New compositions. The elimination of a perceived (by the listener) regular pulse is akin to the abandonment of tonality with serialism and the two concepts were destined for one another - one could not carry on as one did before, Schoenberg got that wrong in his effort to smooth the transition imv. The writing of waltzes and other established rhythmic forms are not a natural environment for serialism and although Schoenberg understood this later, Webern was the true visionary as is evidenced by the 20thC. hindsight.

Ironically, one needs a pulse in order to execute precisely what is written _against_ the pulse. But most of all, from me to you, composer to composer, the possibility opened up to ones fancy and imagination by elimination of perceived regularity and metricicity 
(is that a word, no? then I'm claiming that too) is enticing and dangerous in equal measure. I stand by my words that the emancipation of rhythm is as responsible for the general listeners bewilderment with the New as much as dissonance for dissonance's sake is. John Adams has called rhythm the great unifier and yet the New has eschewed it's comfortable, familiar, reassuring pulse and replaced it with an emancipation from the bar line and conventional syncopation. It now has more meaning and significance than it ever did.


----------



## samm (Jul 4, 2011)

Enthusiast said:


> Your language certainly read like someone who was on the attack but a correction needs to make sense. You dismissed a point of view and replaced it with a sketch of a different one ... apparently assured that yours requires no justification and should be clear to all. Personally, so far, I suspect your "correction" is mistaken.
> 
> Why is partake in inverted commas? Because your use of the word is not a familiar one to me. It seems rather one-directional for describing our relationship to our culture. Would "participate" work better? I suppose it depends on what you think our relationship with a (the?) culture is.
> 
> Meanwhile, your position is no clearer to me and, personally, I think that is your fault as you are not explaining it. I asked out of interest (culture, cultural differences and the evolution of cultures are all interesting subjects to me) and not to embarrass or upset you. I think I'll leave things be.


I suspect you may be just bored, now that Mr. Best has exited the building. I don't think I am mistaken, but if you think so then it's just going to have be that way. I can't potty train everyone come into contact with.


----------



## samm (Jul 4, 2011)

philoctetes said:


> Correction, this was the Youngbloods with Jessie Colin Young
> 
> "Glad to see a lot of humor going around"
> 
> Where? I read MR's posts and saw the usual suspect rise up to heckle and accuse him of something I do not see. Where is the humor? Why is a post that intelligently discusses two views of history treated as "phooey" as a lead-in to ad-hom insults? I just don't see the problems that woodduck sees in MR's posts, though I can see why he sees them, I was there years ago, and I think WD is obsessed with attacking MR while pretending to play forum police.


Perhaps better than forum judge? If you don't see man, maybe you're just blind.


----------



## Guest (Jul 10, 2019)

samm said:


> I suspect you may be just bored, now that *Mr. Best* has existed the building. I don't think I am mistaken, but if you think so then it's just going to have be that way. I can't potty train everyone come into contact with.


My guess is that he will back again next week.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

mikeh375 said:


> Phil,
> I doubt an old hack like me will have invented the term 'emancipated rhythm', having almost certainly read it somewhere, but if nobody can come forward with a source, I'll claim it.
> I'd have to disagree that rhythmic freedom doesn't have meaning beyond service to something else, especially from a creative pov. Technically and emotionally, the musicianship and invention required to even comprehend the possibilities of complicated nested tuplets and their surroundings in the imagination and over musical time is quite remarkable and is a central motivator in the New compositions. The elimination of a perceived (by the listener) regular pulse is akin to the abandonment of tonality with serialism and the two concepts were destined for one another - one could not carry on as one did before, Schoenberg got that wrong in his effort to smooth the transition imv. The writing of waltzes and other established rhythmic forms are not a natural environment for serialism and although Schoenberg understood this later, Webern was the true visionary as is evidenced by the 20thC. hindsight.
> 
> ...


Maybe I have a different understanding when I hear the term/expression "emancipation of rhythm". I didn't think of syncopation, which would refer to a more regular beat, but complete irregularity. Maybe you can provide an example of a piece with emancipation of rhythm. I was thinking Cage's Music of Changes or something.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

As people get older, or for some of other reason, sometimes they may show some evidence of memory loss, or short-term memory, when what they say can sound like an original insight, or what may seem new and fresh to them. It's not pleasant to see because it could happen to anyone. I believe that some people are here to help keep their minds and memories sharp if possible, at least that's been true for me. I do believe it helps when one has to reach way back in time and retrieve a memory or experience and then, one hopes, put a coherent sentence together with proper spelling, but it may not always woik and one could be the last one to know. Then someone has to tell you.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> Maybe I have a different understanding when I hear the term/expression "emancipation of rhythm". I didn't think of syncopation, which would refer to a more regular beat, but complete irregularity. Maybe you can provide an example of a piece with emancipation of rhythm. I was thinking Cage's Music of Changes or something.


Yes, that's what I meant Phil ...irregularity. I rather hoped I'd made that clear, sorry if it wasn't. No need for examples now you know what I mean as they are too numerous.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

mikeh375 said:


> Yes, that's what I meant Phil ...irregularity. I rather hoped I'd made that clear, sorry if it wasn't. No need for examples now you know what I mean as they are too numerous.


I was looking for some more examples in contemporary music, and interestingly, keeping this idea/concept in mind, the music made a lot more sense to me, not nearly as chaotic as I felt it was before. It is another barrier or obstacle lifted.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> I was looking for some more examples in contemporary music, and interestingly, keeping this idea/concept in mind, the music made a lot more sense to me, not nearly as chaotic as I felt it was before. It is another barrier or obstacle lifted.


Glad to hear that Phil, if you haven't already, try writing with that amount of rhythmic freedom and virtuosity and see if you can't find some new obstacles to overcome...:devil: I find it damned hard and often resort to simpler quasi Messiaen type tricks (additive/subtractive rhythms) with occasional nested sets. I could never get too complex and actually don't feel the need personally, but still admire rhythmic virtuosity in others. Have you ever tried unusual ratios by tapping them out, say 7 in the left hand and 11 in the right, to a metronome?


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

mikeh375 said:


> Glad to hear that Phil, if you haven't already, try writing with that amount of rhythmic freedom and virtuosity and see if you can't find some new obstacles to overcome...:devil: I find it damned hard and often resort to simpler quasi Messiaen type tricks (additive/subtractive rhythms) with occasional nested sets. I could never get too complex and actually don't feel the need personally, but still admire rhythmic virtuosity in others. Have you ever tried unusual ratios by tapping them out, say 7 in the left hand and 11 in the right, to a metronome?


Never like that. I remember alternating between odd number tuplet sets on one hand to even on the other, or changed the metre here and there. Usually just use syncopation.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Food for thought, just from a casual glance at Ferneyhough's technique. A while back, I speculated if you change a note or a rhythm here or there, it would make much less difference in a piece of contemporary music than to a more common practice piece, say Beethoven, in that it wouldn't sound any more (in or) out of place. Some wanted to defend against that kind of irreverent attitude, which is understandable, saying it would break up the carefully designed counterpoint, etc. Here is an instance where Ferneyhough just got it wrong. How could music be wrong? In bar number 172 of his Quartet No. 6, in the nested tuplet, he has 10:11 for the whole bar, ok. But within that, he has 7:4 and 5:4, which don't add up to the 10 beats he is stating there should be. Where are the 2 missing beats? Maybe he meant 7:5 and 5:5, to go with the 10:11, but he would only have used 12:11 instead, and there is no need for a 5:5 tuplet. Maybe it was just a notation error, but the fact he went out of his way to show a certain intent, which seems complex, which doesn't pan out, makes him suspect. Is he hiding behind overt complexity? Is it really complex at all (in relationships between notes, rhythms, etc.), or just a mass quantity of detail?


----------

