# Mozart vs. Modernism



## neoshredder

Finally this thread is available to those wanting to talk about the conflict between fans of Modern Composers vs. fans of Mozart. They are basically the opposites. And if you ask me, I prefer Modern Composers. Baroque was my favorite Era but things started to change for the worse by the late Classical Era. Beethoven finally fixed things with his less Mozartian later Symphonies. Music returned back to what was tolerable in the Baroque Era with the Beethovian Era. And we know Modern Composers are way more enjoyable than Mozart.


----------



## Crudblud

40 pages of brickwalling between BurningDesire and StlukesguildOhio later...


----------



## Toddlertoddy

Can we get a mod to sticky this?


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Crudblud said:


> 40 pages of brickwalling between BurningDesire and StlukesguildOhio later...


Except, in my opinion, StlukesguildOhio is a far more experienced listener and broader listener, thus lending weight to the credibility of StlukesguildOhio's opinion.


----------



## mmsbls

For me it's a win-win situation. Mozart is the greatest composer ever (translation - _I_ find more beauty in Mozart's works than any other composer). The overwhelming percentage of posters on TC (including me) find plenty of beauty in modern music as well. Some prefer modern music while others prefer Mozart.

I suspect no one really cares much if a classical music listener doesn't enjoy Mozart or modern music. There's more than a lifetime to sample without listening to either. I, personally, would feel that I was missing out on great music if I somehow were unable to enjoy either Mozart or modern music. Unfortunately, some people are unlucky enough to suffer that fate.


----------



## Crudblud

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Except, in my opinion, StlukesguildOhio is a far more experienced listener and broader listener, thus lending weight to the credibility of StlukesguildOhio's opinion.


That doesn't stop either one of them for going on at eachother ad nauseam. Some people around here can argue 'til the cows come home, but by the time those two have stopped the cows will have come and gone at least 10 times.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Crudblud said:


> That doesn't stop either one of them for going on at eachother ad nauseam. Some people around here can argue 'til the cows come home, but by the time those two have stopped the cows will have come and gone at least 10 times.


Of course, they may wish to do so. Except I often learn from the opinion of one, whereas the other's opinions are no more worthy than a pig's breakfast.


----------



## crmoorhead

neoshredder said:


> Finally this thread is available to those wanting to talk about the conflict between fans of Modern Composers vs. fans of Mozart. They are basically the opposites. And if you ask me, I prefer Modern Composers. Baroque was my favorite Era but things started to change for the worse by the late Classical Era. Beethoven finally fixed things with his less Mozartian later Symphonies. Music returned back to what was tolerable in the Baroque Era with the Beethovian Era. And we know Modern Composers are way more enjoyable than Mozart.


They really aren't mutually exclusive. I enjoy both a great deal. I profoundly disagree with you about the late Classical, since Haydn wrote several great works in that period (including The Creation) and Beethoven was the quintessential late classicist. You mention his late symphonies, but his Eroica and 5th Symphonies were premiered before 1810. Also, Mozart scores a billion points for his operas.  It might also be slightly unfair to pit Mozart on his own against the legion of modern composers in the last 100 years, most of whom lived past the age of 35.


----------



## Crudblud

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Of course, they may wish to do so. Except I often learn from the opinion of one, whereas the other's opinions are no more worthy than a pig's breakfast.


I don't learn anything from senseless bickering, but you have to start somewhere, I suppose. But let's not have this discussion anymore, shall we?


----------



## aleazk

Let me put it in this way: if someone comes to me and says-hey, there are two new cd's, one contains new, never heard before, works by Mozart, and the other contains new, never heard before, works by (say) Ligeti-then, before you can articulate the final 'i' of 'Ligeti', I will have my new Ligeti cd, with new pieces.


----------



## aleazk

crmoorhead said:


> It might also be slightly unfair to pit Mozart on his own against the legion of modern composers in the last 100 years, most of whom lived past the age of 35.


And that has to move me?. The objective fact is if they have wrote good music. If some of them lived longer to develop themselves, that's not good luck for them, is bad luck for Mozart in any case, sorry Mozart. If X composer has great and mature works I should say 'ohh, poor Mozart, he could have done it'?. The fact is that 'most of whom lived past the age of 35' is totally irrelevant, since relies only on speculative things about Mozart living more than 35 years. It's incredible how they twist a clearly negative fact into a pro argument.


----------



## jani

Is this one of those threads which only purpose is to insult someones taste in music?
I have only listened a few works by modern composers and those haven't catched my attention.
So Mozart it is.
Also whit out him today's modern music would be different.


----------



## Klavierspieler

aleazk said:


> Let me put it in this way: if someone comes to me and says-hey, there are two new cd's, one contains new, never listened before, works by Mozart, and the other contains new, never listened before, works by (say) Ligeti-then, before you can articulate the final 'i' of 'Ligeti', I will have my new Ligeti cd, with new pieces.


I would say "Why should I waste my hard-earned money?"


----------



## aleazk

Klavierspieler said:


> I would say "Why should I waste my hard-earned money?"


They were free, I just discarded the other even if it was free


----------



## mmsbls

aleazk said:


> And that has to move me?. The objective fact is if they have wrote good music. If some of them lived longer to develop themselves, that's not good luck for them, is bad luck for Mozart in any case, sorry Mozart. If X composer has great and mature works I should say 'ohh, poor Mozart, he could have done it'?. The fact is that 'most of whom lived past the age of 35' is totally irrelevant, since relies only on speculative things about Mozart living more than 35 years. It's incredible how they twist a clearly negative fact into a pro argument.


Yes, it's not relevant that Mozart lived to just 35 when comparing composers, but I think the main part of the argument was questioning pitting a single composer against a century of composers. In some sense just the fact that anyone would pose such a comparison suggests how great the classical music community perceives Mozart.


----------



## aleazk

mmsbls said:


> Yes, it's not relevant that Mozart lived to just 35 when comparing composers, but I think the main part of the argument was questioning pitting a single composer against a century of composers. In some sense just the fact that anyone would pose such a comparison suggests how great the classical music community perceives Mozart.


Yes, I was criticizing only the 'lived to just 35' part. Of course Mozart is well perceived, he was a great composer. What I don't like are the anachronic comparisons, since they are meaningless and pretentious, generally put forward by small minds who cannot appreciate good art because of their naive tastes and they seem to have the necessity to find in some composer the flag for their ignorance. The composer is innocent, of course, he's just another victim.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Of course the very idea promoted by this thread is, to use the immortal words of member Sid James, a "false dichotomy". It presents the idea that loving Mozart and loving Modern music are somehow mutually exclusive activities. As I have already suggested in other threads, I would not be the least bit surprised to discover that my collection of music by 20th century composers far outstrips that of Neoshredder, BurningDesire, or any other member who presumes to pigeon-hole me in terms of musical taste.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

For me it's a win-win situation. Mozart is the greatest composer ever (translation - I find more beauty in Mozart's works than any other composer). The overwhelming percentage of posters on TC (including me) find plenty of beauty in modern music as well.

Bingo!


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

It might also be slightly unfair to pit Mozart on his own against the legion of modern composers in the last 100 years...

True. Now throw J.S. Bach into the mix, however, and there's no contest.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Let me put it in this way: if someone comes to me and says-hey, there are two new cd's, one contains new, never listened before, works by Mozart, and the other contains new, never listened before, works by (say) Ligeti-then, before you can articulate the final 'i' of 'Ligeti', I will have my new Ligeti cd, with new pieces.

And I will have the recording of unheard works by Mozart before you even began to tell me who the alternative was. Granted I'm taking a chance there... it might have been J.S. Bach behind door number 2.:lol:


----------



## aleazk

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Let me put it in this way: if someone comes to me and says-hey, there are two new cd's, one contains new, never listened before, works by Mozart, and the other contains new, never listened before, works by (say) Ligeti-then, before you can articulate the final 'i' of 'Ligeti', I will have my new Ligeti cd, with new pieces.
> 
> And I will have the recording of unheard works by Mozart before you even began to tell me who the alternative was. Granted I'm taking a chance there... it might have been J.S. Bach behind door number 2.:lol:


Well, of course, you can choose whatever you want, as I did.


----------



## Couchie

jani said:


> Is this one of those threads which only purpose is to insult someones taste in music?


Are you naive enough to be suggesting that there are threads created for other purposes?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Mozart is only great because the general public (who knows very little about modern music) says so. Modern music is better because of the new and improved technique and the composers' greater knowledge of past styles. Modern composers have access and more understanding of a wider range of music than Mozart did. This thread is rather silly, it's like asking "Who was more advanced: Australopithecus or Homo Sapiens?"


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Mozart is only great because the general public (who knows very little about modern music) says so. Modern music is better because of the new and improved technique and greater knowledge of the composer who has access to more music than Mozart did.

That is certainly one of the dumbest things I've yet to read at TC. :lol:


----------



## SottoVoce

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Mozart is only great because the general public (who knows very little about modern music) says so. Modern music is better because of the new and improved technique and greater knowledge of the composer who has access to more music than Mozart did. This thread is rather silly, it's like asking "Who was more advanced: Australopithecus or Homo Sapiens?"


Are you saying music is progressive? That's absolutely ridiculous. Some people might say that the greater access to music actually ruined the process of music, since less people depended on instruments to hear music, and thus less music education and more ignorant classical listeners. No art is progressive, and it's never been.

Mozart is great because time says so. It's been 300 years since Mozart's death and people still connect and feel something hugely insightful of the human condition in his music. Both great composers (Schoenberg and Webern included) have said great things about Mozart's music, and do you know how much professional scholarship there is on Mozart's music?

I swear, the arguments against Mozart on this forum are starting to get on a dangerously childish level. Why do you feel that you can pigeonhole a composer so unfairly is beyond me.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Mozart is only great because the general public (who knows very little about modern music) says so. Modern music is better because of the new and improved technique and the composers' greater knowledge of past styles. Modern composers have access and more understanding of a wider range of music than Mozart did.
> 
> That is certainly one of the dumbest things I've yet to read at TC. :lol:


Are you implying that Mozart knew more about a wider range of music and had more influences than composers today have?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Are you implying that Mozart knew more about a wider range of music and had more influences than composers today have?

I'm implying that your comment founded upon sheer ignorance. Art is something that changes over time, but doesn't improve. Nor do a wider range of experience and influences make for an inherently greater art. We have the internet and virtually the whole of cultural history is at our fingertips... but I don't see our culture teeming with writers surpassing Dante and Shakespeare, painters greater than Michelangelo and Rembrandt, or composers greater than Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart.


----------



## BurningDesire

StlukesguildOhio said:


> We have the internet and virtually the whole of cultural history is at our fingertips... but I don't see our culture teeming with writers surpassing Dante and Shakespeare, painters greater than Michelangelo and Rembrandt, or composers greater than Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart.




Because you have a fetish for that past. Thats fine as long as you can admit it ^^


----------



## Toddlertoddy

BurningDesire said:


> Because you have a fetish for that past. Thats fine as long as you can admit it ^^


You can now be 100% sure that she (or a he, who knows?) is now a true troll.


----------



## BurningDesire

Toddlertoddy said:


> You can now be 100% sure that she (or a he, who knows?) is now a true troll.


I am not a troll. I just have some opinions that some folks on here don't like.


----------



## Toddlertoddy

BurningDesire said:


> I am not a troll. I just have some opinions that some folks on here don't like.


Woops, then I read your comment too seriously then. I realize it was only a joke...


----------



## science

Couchie said:


> Are you naive enough to be suggesting that there are threads created for other purposes?


I am.

A bit of hope still smolders in my heart, far under the ashes of cynical experience.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

BurningDesire said:


> Because you have a fetish for that past. Thats fine as long as you can admit it ^^


Well, this Board is called Talk*Classical*. Why does it appear difficult for you to digest that most of us here enjoy music of the past? *You are of course more than welcome to start your own discussion board elsewhere in the www to discuss Modern "classical", perhaps even to discuss your own pieces there.* At your own board dedicated to modern "classical", you would draw more fans than "dinosaurs". I think it might suit you better at your own new site elsewhere ...


----------



## BurningDesire

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Well, this Board is called Talk*Classical*. Why does it appear difficult for you to digest that most of us here enjoy music of the past? *You are of course more than welcome to start your own discussion board elsewhere in the www to discuss Modern "classical", perhaps even to discuss your own pieces there.* At your own board dedicated to modern "classical", you would draw more fans than "dinosaurs". I think it might suit you better at your own new site elsewhere ...


I quite enjoy music from the past, thank you


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

BurningDesire said:


> I quite enjoy music from the past, thank you


But it would be even better for you, I humbly think, that you should start up your own discussion board elsewhere - TalkModernClassical dedicated by and large, to what those terms suggest. You can diss Mozart as much as you like with modern pieces that are infinitely better , but more importantly, you would get along just fine with new members there, and be a lot happier. Perhaps you might even find inspiration to compose great modern works with like-minded people and fans there. We dinosaurs are too much of a drag here for you.


----------



## bigshot

I kinda thought this board was for talking about music. But it seems it's about talking about ourselves and our personal tastes.


----------



## science

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> But it would be even better for you, I humbly think, that you should start up your own discussion board elsewhere - TalkModernClassical dedicated by and large, to what those terms suggest. You can diss Mozart as much as you like with modern pieces that are infinitely better , but more importantly, you would get along just fine with new members there, and be a lot happier. Perhaps you might even find inspiration to compose great modern works with like-minded people and fans there. We dinosaurs are too much of a drag here for you.


But can't we do both? Do we really have to choose between liking and discussing "the music of the past" and liking and discussing "the music of the present?"

I'd really rather do both, and do both right here on this site, and so I'd appreciate it if we stopped trying to chase each other away.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

science said:


> But can't we do both? Do we really have to choose between liking and discussing "the music of the past" and liking and discussing "the music of the present?"
> 
> I'd really rather do both, and do both right here on this site, and so I'd appreciate it if we stopped trying to chase each other away.


I would rather do both, too. And I have evidence that I do, judging by my own threads here, and posts in general since I joined. Or at least I hope I do. Although the same cannot be said for some, those with the most burning of all desires to prove something else.


----------



## science

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Although the same cannot be said for some, those with the most burning of all desires to prove something else.


I don't understand this part.


----------



## SottoVoce

science said:


> But can't we do both? Do we really have to choose between liking and discussing "the music of the past" and liking and discussing "the music of the present?"
> 
> I'd really rather do both, and do both right here on this site, and so I'd appreciate it if we stopped trying to chase each other away.


It's obvious some can't handle the maturity of talking both about Modernity and Tradition; they feel like in order to legitimize Modernity as an aesthetic they have to burn all bridges from the past, and since Mozart seems to be the most stereotyped into the aristocratic naivety against the artsy angst of the Modern era, they decide to pick him. Jugen Habermas talks about this a lot in some of his essays on culture; "Modernity vs Postmodernity" seems to be able to explain this situation quite perfectly.

I love both Mozart's music and Webern's music. I find no difficulty in being able to like both; I feel like they come from the same kind of thought about music in abstract (Western) tradition, and even if they didn't they are both incredibly interesting points of view. I have never seen Modernity as a thing separate from tradition, and I think this kind of thinking that many people have perpetuated that Modernity is detached from Western tradition is what's holding it back. I know some people here pushing that agenda might say that "they like old music", but I ComposerOfAvantGarde's ridiculous remark that based on technological achievements somehow Modern music is better than any other music makes me think otherwise. It's not StLukesGuildOhio or HarpsichordConcerto who are trying to spout any sort of ideology; the only offensive ideology I see is from the other side. It's not them that are unable to talk respectfully about both traditional and modern music, it's the other side.


----------



## SottoVoce

Mozart vs Modernism? Are you kidding me? How is this not any anyway provocatively divisive? Like it's war between the two. Even Boulez and Stockhausen got away from this nonsense, and that was 40 years ago.

For pete's sake, this is the first post of this thread:



> *Finally this thread is available to those wanting to talk about the conflict between fans of Modern Composers vs. fans of Mozart.* *They are basically the opposites.* And if you ask me, I prefer Modern Composers. Baroque was my favorite Era but things started to change for the worse by the late Classical Era. Beethoven finally fixed things with his less Mozartian later Symphonies. *Music returned back to what was tolerable in the Baroque Era with the Beethovian Era. And we know Modern Composers are way more enjoyable than Mozart.*[


----------



## BurningDesire

I would like to point out that Mozart at times had sensibilities in his creativity very akin 20th Century and contemporary composers. For instance, the sense of humor that manifested in his _Eine Musikalischer Spass, K 522_ as well as it mocking things he didn't like in others' music, are things we see in many 20th Century pieces (How about Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra mocking Shostakovich's 7th Symphony in the third movement?), and who could forget _Leck mich im Arsch, K 231_?

He was also pioneering in that he cared about his own aesthetic tastes more than what his audience thought. He and Beethoven were artists pointing the way for raising the importance of the composer as an artist, rather than just being a servant for the entertainment of aristocrats. But plenty of his music, frankly, is pretty boring. Great artist, but by no means the greatest we've ever had.


----------



## Toddlertoddy

SottoVoce said:


> Mozart vs Modernism? Are you kidding me? How is this not any anyway provocatively divisive? Like it's war between the two. Even Boulez and Stockhausen got away from this nonsense, and that was 40 years ago.
> 
> For pete's sake, this is the first post of this thread:


Don't get so hung up on OP and the title. It was only meant as a quarantine for BD and SLGO's arguments.


----------



## SottoVoce

Toddlertoddy said:


> Don't get so hung up on OP and the title. It was only meant as a quarantine for BD and SLGO's arguments.


His first post seems equally provocative. .


----------



## SottoVoce

BurningDesire said:


> I would like to point out that Mozart at times had sensibilities in his creativity very akin 20th Century and contemporary composers. For instance, the sense of humor that manifested in his _Eine Musikalischer Spass, K 522_ as well as it mocking things he didn't like in others' music, are things we see in many 20th Century pieces (How about Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra mocking Shostakovich's 7th Symphony in the third movement?), and who could forget _Leck mich im Arsch, K 231_? He was also pioneering in that he cared about his own aesthetic tastes more than what his audience thought. He and Beethoven were artists pointing the way for raising the importance of the composer as an artist, rather than just being a servant for the entertainment of aristocrats. But plenty of his music, frankly, is pretty boring. Great artist, but by no means the greatest we've ever had.


I don't care if he had any modern sensibilities; I don't have to forcefully add the values and concepts of my age in order to appreciate an art from the past. It's great art, whether or not he was a "modern thinker"; great art doesn't confide itself to the aesthetic values of his age, the point of great art is to ignore all the constraints that his period puts on him. As Gould says about Richard strauss:



> It presents and substantiates an argument which transcends all the dogmatisms of art - all questions of style and taste and idiom - all the frivolous, effete preoccupations of the chronologist. It presents to us an example of the man who makes richer his own time by not being of it, who speaks for all generations by being of none. It is an ultimate argument of individuality - the argument that a man create his own synthesis of time without being bound by the conformities that time imposes.


Frankly, I don't care what you have to say about Mozart. I don't think you know anything about him, or rather anything that doesn't fit your own narrow-minded opinion on what music is. I know Mozart is great; everything about what I've felt, and what great men have felt when listening to his music tells me so much about what his music has done for humanity, how he has made a world a better place with his music. Your words are ignorant, and often terribly offensive, of who Mozart was and the music he wrote. Who are you to say he is "by no means, the greatest we've ever had?" Since when were you able to talk about the power of a music whose genius is still talked about intellectually and has inspired people 300 years after it was written? I'm sorry for being a little brash, but I've really found no other way to talk to you when you speak in such absolutes.


----------



## neoshredder

I think this thread was to show how ridiculous some of the discussions about my taste vs. your taste arguments lately. Of course I had to put my spin on how this thread would be worded.


----------



## bigshot

Some people have very carefully considered tastes. Other people have "inexperienced" tastes. Nothing wrong with being "inexperienced" as long as you aren't trying to dominate the conversation and crowd out people who know what they're talking about. There's a time to speak and a time to listen.


----------



## Arsakes

The answer is obvious:

Haydn


----------



## Carpenoctem

Why do mods keep letting some members here create such threads over and over again, you like modern music, ok, listen to it, I don't care but why do you have to downgrade classical era, early romantic era etc. because of it?

Some people have way too much free time in their lives.


----------



## PlaySalieri

crmoorhead said:


> It might also be slightly unfair to pit Mozart on his own against the legion of modern composers in the last 100 years, most of whom lived past the age of 35.


You have it the wrong way around.


----------



## PlaySalieri

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Mozart is only great because the general public (who knows very little about modern music) says so. Modern music is better because of the new and improved technique and the composers' greater knowledge of past styles. Modern composers have access and more understanding of a wider range of music than Mozart did. This thread is rather silly, it's like asking "Who was more advanced: Australopithecus or Homo Sapiens?"


Nonsense - I have never met a conservatoire professor that did not hold Mozart in the highest esteem - and I have met quite a few. I know one who teaches violin at Royal College of Music - won't let his students play Mozart violin concertos until after they have mastered Tchaikovsky and Brahms. Mahler and R Strauss championed Mozart in the early 20th C and so did virtually every other major conductor. Schoenberg said he learned primarily from Mozart and Brahms declared Mozart's piano concertos better than any others - Wagner put him next to Beethoven and God - your view has no serious backers.


----------



## KRoad

neoshredder said:


> Finally this thread is available to those wanting to talk about the conflict between fans of Modern Composers vs. fans of Mozart. They are basically the opposites. And if you ask me, I prefer Modern Composers. Baroque was my favorite Era but things started to change for the worse by the late Classical Era. Beethoven finally fixed things with his less Mozartian later Symphonies. Music returned back to what was tolerable in the Baroque Era with the Beethovian Era. And we know Modern Composers are way more enjoyable than Mozart.


Could you please explain _why_ you feel this way in terms other than stating a purely personal preference for one genre over the other. Musical reasons/evidence that support your view would lend it credibility and give the thread legitimacy it presently lacks.


----------



## science

SottoVoce said:


> It's obvious some can't handle the maturity of talking both about Modernity and Tradition; they feel like in order to legitimize Modernity as an aesthetic they have to burn all bridges from the past, and since Mozart seems to be the most stereotyped into the aristocratic naivety against the artsy angst of the Modern era, they decide to pick him. Jugen Habermas talks about this a lot in some of his essays on culture; "Modernity vs Postmodernity" seems to be able to explain this situation quite perfectly.
> 
> I love both Mozart's music and Webern's music. I find no difficulty in being able to like both; I feel like they come from the same kind of thought about music in abstract (Western) tradition, and even if they didn't they are both incredibly interesting points of view. I have never seen Modernity as a thing separate from tradition, and I think this kind of thinking that many people have perpetuated that Modernity is detached from Western tradition is what's holding it back. I know some people here pushing that agenda might say that "they like old music", but I ComposerOfAvantGarde's ridiculous remark that based on technological achievements somehow Modern music is better than any other music makes me think otherwise.


I like all of this. I don't know about Habermas and I believe COAG was just playing when he made this and perhaps all his other threads. But aside from these tiny exceptions, we're in agreement.



SottoVoce said:


> It's not StLukesGuildOhio or HarpsichordConcerto who are trying to spout any sort of ideology; the only offensive ideology I see is from the other side. It's not them that are unable to talk respectfully about both traditional and modern music, it's the other side.


Here I disagree entirely, both regarding the specific members you mention and the "sides" as a whole. Both sides trash the other side's music - SLGO and HC are perfect examples of it going the other way; if you really don't remember them having done so on multiple occasions you simply haven't taken note. Someguy essentially couldn't say it was sunny in Florida without being told how bad sunlight is for his health and much better the weather there was in the early eighteenth century. Not that he was innocent.

But look, I really ought to be immune from that kind of thing. I doubt there's been a week of my life for the past several years in which I didn't spend significant time enjoying radically modern music as well as the old traditional stuff--Crumb's Black Angels was one of my first loves, another was Mozart's Requiem, another was Kilar's soundtrack for Dracula, another was Luython's Missa sex vocum super Filiae Jerusalem, another was Schoenberg's Pierrot Lunaire, another was Beethoven's fifth. I've always been all over the map, and made sure I stayed there.

So, take a guy like me, essentially just a random selection, and who insults me more? The traditionalists or the modernists? It's not even nearly close. The ratio must be something like 8:1. (Just a guess of course.) And it doesn't matter what the subject is. Look at this from neoshredder's thread on composers born after 1934:



HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Why are we severely restricted to the list you constructed? Are you that presumptuous to think that's all we know about composers born after 1934? I sure hope your knowledge of modern music is not as limiting as that suggested by this poll.


So even when the subject is modernist music, it's the traditionalists.

I don't think this necessarily has anything to do with who is innately more polite; it's about the relative rhetorical strengths of the positions. The nature of a classical music site is that the traditionalists outnumber the modernists, putting the latter at an inherent disadvantage, requiring them to choose between being more accommodating or being more blatantly antagonistic. The latter come and go in fiery glory, burning out fairly quickly; the former generally get rubbed and rubbed and rubbed until the friction ignites them. The traditionalists don't have to make that choice. They can just coast along with a casual condescension most of the time, enjoying widespread agreement.

Were it possible to win, I would ultimately win. I would know enough music from all the eras to command the respect of ordinary mortals on both sides. Of course it doesn't work that way, because there will always be some amazing sonata by Jacchini that I haven't heard, or some new concerto by Chin, or something that I didn't know about Mozart or Schnittke, or I haven't heard the particular indispensable recording, and the partisans' scorn will last as long as their memories.

But it's ok for me. I win in the deeper sense, in that I get to listen to the music. I sometimes glean some spoils from the battles. What's unfortunate is when less combative people are turned off by the antagonism. Of course at some level that may be the whole point: our uniqueness gets just that much more precious. But it's unfortunate for the people, and I am at heart an evangelical.


----------



## Jimm

SottoVoce said:


> Mozart vs Modernism? Are you kidding me? How is this not any anyway provocatively divisive? Like it's war between the two. Even Boulez and Stockhausen got away from this nonsense, and that was 40 years ago.
> 
> For pete's sake, this is the first post of this thread:


Boulez & Stockhausen were pupils of Messiaen who included in his learning regime lots of study of Mozart, i.e. the Piano Concertos. Stockhausen used to play it as a pianist. All of the major lasting preeminent post world war 2 composers whom are in the history books (i.e. KS & PB) studied and were deeply knowledgeable and wise to all that important musical history to build a solid foundation, but like all creative artists had to travel down their own unique paths .. Heck, Boulez & Stockhausen even conducted, performed and recorded Mozart's work.


----------



## Crudblud

I don't want to get involved in yet another argument, but I'd just like to give my thoughts (some more experienced than others) on the so-called dinosaur music and some of its big name composers. Hopefully no one will hit me on the head.

Bach - When I'm in the mood for it, I greatly enjoy the Goldberg Variations as performed by Scott Ross, and I simply cannot abide Bach on a piano (sorry Mr. Gould). Sadly, and it is a sadness, I don't find much else in his vast oeuvre to enjoy aside from a few scattered cantatas and organ works.

Mozart - I often find the music grows dull and repetitive fast, but I have been known to enjoy Don Giovanni form time to time. Usually when I'm in the mood for the classical period I go straight to the next guy on the list.

Haydn - One of my favourites. I find his music to have a wit and elegance about it that seems missing in much other music of his day. He is also perhaps the only composer of the period (if you do not include Beethoven) from whom I can honestly claim to enjoy a substantial number of works in various genres, from the symphonies to the quartets to the masses and the oratorios.

Beethoven - When I'm in the mood for Beethoven I find his chamber music to be among the most enjoyable and fulfilling out there, particularly the piano trios and cello sonatas, of which I have found few equals in any period, he also wrote some fine string quartets. I like symphonies 5, 6, 7 and 8, but find little to enjoy in the others, particularly the overblown 3rd and 9th.

Handel - I liked Messiah a lot when I first heard it, the harpsichord suites not so much. I will readily admit to not having heard much of his work over all, and would be happy to receive recommendations.

Schubert - Pretty much on a par with Beethoven for me. There's plenty of enjoyable work to be had in the solo piano, chamber and orchestra music, I also kind of enjoyed his Lazarus, for what it was.


----------



## Petwhac

The whole concept of this thread is imbecilic.


But since I'm here...

People are passionate about things they love and get defensive when they perceive a threat to it or when they feel ridiculed for it.

I've never been persuaded to like or dislike any music by anything other than the music itself.
You can tell me till you're blue in the mouth what is good, worthy, beautiful, important, moving, groundbreaking, great etc etc. If the music doesn't say it to me then for _me_ it is not important.

Even the most accomplished and renowned 'experts' in music can make what I consider terrible errors of judgement but really they are just expressing a subjective opinion.
I know a professor at a top British music college who doesn't like Faure's Requiem but loves Puccini....go figure!


----------



## Ramako

Crudblud said:


> Handel - I liked Messiah a lot when I first heard it, the harpsichord suites not so much. I will readily admit to not having heard much of his work over all, and would be happy to receive recommendations.


I am not an expert on Handel, but I have grown to like his op. 6 concerti grossi a lot, particularly nos 8 & 12. The Fireworks and Watermusic are obviously famous, but I am not as impressed by these as the op.6.


----------



## crmoorhead

aleazk said:


> And that has to move me?. The objective fact is if they have wrote good music. If some of them lived longer to develop themselves, that's not good luck for them, is bad luck for Mozart in any case, sorry Mozart. If X composer has great and mature works I should say 'ohh, poor Mozart, he could have done it'?. The fact is that 'most of whom lived past the age of 35' is totally irrelevant, since relies only on speculative things about Mozart living more than 35 years. It's incredible how they twist a clearly negative fact into a pro argument.


Hey, I'm not suggesting we give any credit to Mozart for works he 'might have' composed or even giving him more credit for composing great works before a certain age. That would be absurd. I am suggesting that Mozart, at best, had 15 years of mature composing and that to pit this in a contest against dozens of composers with decades of mature compositions each doesn't seem a sensible comparison. Even given the fact that Mozart was a genius, how could he possibly match against two or three generations worth of the finest minds in modern music. Also, how is such a contest to be measured? Popularity? Appreciation by peers? Number of music papers dedicated to works? Any of these measires is destined to fail.

I'll go back to my point that liking Mozart and modernism isn't mutally exclusive. I love Stravinsky and I love Mozart, probably more or less equally. I also love Messiaen and Haydn and Schoenberg and Beethoven. How do I compare who I like more? I don't!


----------



## Crudblud

Ramako said:


> I am not an expert on Handel, but I have grown to like his op. 6 concerti grossi a lot, particularly nos 8 & 12. The Fireworks and Watermusic are obviously famous, but I am not as impressed by these as the op.6.


By the way, does anyone know a good recording of the Op. 6? I'm currently eyeing a 2 CD Decca set conducted by Chris Hogwood.


----------



## bigshot

It's not a primary recommendation because of its age, but I posted my transfer of the Adolph Busch Chamber Players complete Concerti Grossi op 6 a few weeks ago. It's a very heartfelt performance.

http://www.talkclassical.com/19640-adolph-buschs-handel-concerti.html

This particular recording is extremely rare and the one CD release of it in inferior sound sells for hundreds of dollars. Here it is for free. I see there are no comments on the thread. I think people are too busy talking about how they find music to be boring. No time to actually listen to it.


----------



## Crudblud

bigshot said:


> It's not a primary recommendation because of its age, but I posted my transfer of the Adolph Busch Chamber Players complete Concerti Grossi op 6 a few weeks ago. If you can't find them using te forum search, I'd be happy to give you direct links. It's a very heartfelt performance.


Yes, I just found them using the search. Thank you ever so much!


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I am not an expert on Handel, but I have grown to like his op. 6 concerti grossi a lot, particularly nos 8 & 12. The Fireworks and Watermusic are obviously famous, but I am not as impressed by these as the op.6.

Yes... I had somewhat given up on the Fireworks and Water Music myself... until I came upon Jordi Savall's recording which was something of a revelation to me:


----------



## NightHawk

The way a musician performs Mozart says so much about their overall musicality. If you play an orchestral instrument and Mozart wrote a concerto for it, then it WILL be required in a reputable orchestral audition (1st movement only w cadenza) along with a good handful of the major solo excerpts from all over the standard rep orchestral literature. If Mozart didn't write a concerto for your instrument then you will be playing excerpts from his symphonies, or opera overtures or something from a contemporary of Mozart's. Mozart is a real wheat/chaff separator.


----------



## moody

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Mozart is only great because the general public (who knows very little about modern music) says so. Modern music is better because of the new and improved technique and the composers' greater knowledge of past styles. Modern composers have access and more understanding of a wider range of music than Mozart did. This thread is rather silly, it's like asking "Who was more advanced: Australopithecus or Homo Sapiens?"


You've hit the nail on the head--of course it's the general public who say so.
But why do the general public know so little about modern music, especially in this media filled world? Not to mention your input, I suppose it doesn't attract them!
Also you are quite right it is a silly thread, a very silly thread!


----------



## Toddlertoddy

moody said:


> But why do the general public know so little about modern music, especially in this media filled world?


Because you don't hear Xenakis in TV commercials or television shows (Barber of Seville in Bugs Bunny), and you hear Crumb's Black Angels in horror movies.


----------



## moody

Toddlertoddy said:


> Don't get so hung up on OP and the title. It was only meant as a quarantine for BD and SLGO's arguments.


Who told you that and why should such a thing be necessary?


----------



## moody

Toddlertoddy said:


> Because you don't hear Xenakis in TV commercials or television shows (Barber of Seville in Bugs Bunny), and you hear Crumb's Black Angels in horror movies.


Ha, ha, so that's how the public get to love music. I suppose they phone up the presenters and demand to know what the music was. Very seldom, altho' it does happen, let me assure you tha t when I was young there was no television and were no commercial channels.
i was listening to a radio programme today and the presenter said that the makers of horror films love using modern music because it is so discomforting and dissonant to the mind.
So at least somebody is happy, apparently Pendereki was a favourite.


----------



## Petwhac

Toddlertoddy said:


> Because you don't hear Xenakis in TV commercials or television shows (Barber of Seville in Bugs Bunny), and you hear Crumb's Black Angels in horror movies.


Chicken and egg situation. If Xenakis's music 'said' anything it would get used, perhaps. But in any case most modern classical (non harmonic) music is functionless. You don't marry to it, get buried to it, get crowned to it, dance to it, worship with it, advertise with it. This is a real issue that did not exist before the modern era.


----------



## Llyranor

I have a love/hate relationship with Mozart. His Requiem is great, his Sinfonia Concertante for violin/viola is exquisite. Those two are my favorite works of his. Don't know enough about his operas, though I do like some arias/parts I've heard.

I used to think classical-era symphonies were ?boring. Too light, no emotions, old wig music (perhaps the way other people think about classical music in general!). Then I heard his 31st and 36th live, and was blown away. I then purchased some CD's including a full cycle, and while they were somewhat enjoyable, they didn't click with me the way I expected them to. The 40/41 CD with Les Musiciens Du Louvre is phenomenal, though, and now I am looking for more HIP Mozart symphonies (maybe I'll try Hogwood)

I had the piano concerto set with Uchida. Again, nice enough, but ultimately not works I'd listen over and over to - they didn't wow me in the way I'd expect the works (that a lot of people consider his finest) to.

Recently purchase a HIP concerto set with fortepiano played by Viviana Sofronitsky, and they've wow'ed me all over again. The balanced blend of the fortepiano with the orchestra sounds so lively. And surprisingly, the works sound 'light', and this is a good thing. It doesn't seem to be overly emotional, and perhaps that's how Mozart intended it. Needless to say, I've started to fall in love with Mozart again. I need a similar revelation for his symphonies now.

---------------------

I also have a love/hate relationship with modern composers (post-Shostakovich, let's say). I really really like early 20th c. music - some of the 'dissonance' is amazing, and wouldn't have been possible by composers before that era. Late 20th c. often sounds too experimental, though. Maybe too _alien_. It's not that I haven't tried. I often try out youtube links that people recommend in threads. Also, I've been fortunate that the local conductor to my city's main orchestra likes to introduce new works to people (combined with flagship pieces that people know and love). Symphonies by relative unknowns, or 20th c. works. I've heard pieces by Gubaidulina or Dutilleux and others I don't remember. Honestly, I've had a lot of trouble with them. It sometimes feels so _alien_ that I don't derive any pleasure out of it at all. Fortunately, I have found works in the 2nd half of 20th c. that I do enjoy. Ifukube's 1st violin concerto is an amazing blend of western classical and traditional Japanese sounds. Vasks' Distant Light (violin concerto) is out of this world, and has introduced me to a new soundscape. Glass' 2 violin concerti have given me a glimpse at minimalism and helped me appreciate it somewhat. Some of Arvo Part's works (for example, Cantus In Memoriam Benjamin Britten) as well. Ligeti's Requiem sounds alien-esque, but somehow seems to completely fit the role of a requiem. I also liked that 'staircase of hell' (or whatever it was) piano piece of his.

So, I'm slowly digging into modern music. I don't like a bunch of it, but I'm finding bits I absolutely enjoy, and feel like my musical knowledge would be lessened by the lack of them. I'm still aiming at learning and listening more, albeit slowly.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

This thread reminds me of some aspects of modernism: anything goes; anything!


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Llyranor said:


> I have a love/hate relationship with Mozart. His Requiem is great, his Sinfonia Concertante for violin/viola is exquisite. Those two are my favorite works of his. Don't know enough about his operas, though I do like some arias/parts I've heard.
> 
> I used to think classical-era symphonies were ?boring. Too light, no emotions, old wig music (perhaps the way other people think about classical music in general!). Then I heard his 31st and 36th live, and was blown away. I then purchased some CD's including a full cycle, and while they were somewhat enjoyable, they didn't click with me the way I expected them to. The 40/41 CD with Les Musiciens Du Louvre is phenomenal, though, and now I am looking for more HIP Mozart symphonies (maybe I'll try Hogwood)
> 
> I had the piano concerto set with Uchida. Again, nice enough, but ultimately not works I'd listen over and over to - they didn't wow me in the way I'd expect the works (that a lot of people consider his finest) to.
> 
> Recently purchase a HIP concerto set with fortepiano played by Viviana Sofronitsky, and they've wow'ed me all over again. The balanced blend of the fortepiano with the orchestra sounds so lively. And surprisingly, the works sound 'light', and this is a good thing. It doesn't seem to be overly emotional, and perhaps that's how Mozart intended it. Needless to say, I've started to fall in love with Mozart again. I need a similar revelation for his symphonies now.
> 
> ---------------------
> 
> I also have a love/hate relationship with modern composers (post-Shostakovich, let's say). I really really like early 20th c. music - some of the 'dissonance' is amazing, and wouldn't have been possible by composers before that era. Late 20th c. often sounds too experimental, though. Maybe too _alien_. It's not that I haven't tried. I often try out youtube links that people recommend in threads. Also, I've been fortunate that the local conductor to my city's main orchestra likes to introduce new works to people (combined with flagship pieces that people know and love). Symphonies by relative unknowns, or 20th c. works. I've heard pieces by Gubaidulina or Dutilleux and others I don't remember. Honestly, I've had a lot of trouble with them. It sometimes feels so _alien_ that I don't derive any pleasure out of it at all. Fortunately, I have found works in the 2nd half of 20th c. that I do enjoy. Ifukube's 1st violin concerto is an amazing blend of western classical and traditional Japanese sounds. Vasks' Distant Light (violin concerto) is out of this world, and has introduced me to a new soundscape. Glass' 2 violin concerti have given me a glimpse at minimalism and helped me appreciate it somewhat. Some of Arvo Part's works (for example, Cantus In Memoriam Benjamin Britten) as well. Ligeti's Requiem sounds alien-esque, but somehow seems to completely fit the role of a requiem. I also liked that 'staircase of hell' (or whatever it was) piano piece of his.
> 
> So, I'm slowly digging into modern music. I don't like a bunch of it, but I'm finding bits I absolutely enjoy, and feel like my musical knowledge would be lessened by the lack of them. I'm still aiming at learning and listening more, albeit slowly.


Behold! A sensible TC member!


----------



## bigshot

It isn't that hard to find great performances of Mozart's best symphonies. Honestly, I could fall off a log and find great Mozart. I got the Brilliant Classics box, and it's packed with wonderful stuff. If you haven't found good Mozart yet, you aren't trying.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

@Llyranor: for HIP versions of Mozart symphonies I would recommend both the Hogwood and Pinnock box sets. I haven't heard John Eliot Gardiner's recordings but I assume they would be good too as he is renowned for excellent performances of Mozart's works. For Mozart's operas, René Jacobs' recordings on Harmonia Mundi are superb, as are Gardiner's on DG's Arkiv label if you want HIP for them too. 

My favourite versions of Mozart's three most famous operas that you might like to try out are Gardiner's _Le Nozze di Figaro_ and Jacobs' _Die Zauberflöte_ and _Don Giovanni._

_Le Nozze di Figaro_ is on YouTube complete if your interested:


----------



## bigshot

The Harmonia Mundi Lumieres 32 CD box is on sale at Berkshire for $44. Lots of great Mozart on that set.


----------



## Guest

*Mozart or Modernism?*

Which is better, a car or an egg-whisk?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

MacLeod said:


> Which is better, a car or an egg-whisk?


The egg whisk is healthier, but the car is more advanced overall.

Mozart=healthy to produce, easy to use, only a few funny little pieces of metal.
Modern=more advanced, more complicated, more diversity in funny little pieces of metal.


----------



## PlaySalieri

crmoorhead said:


> Hey, I'm not suggesting we give any credit to Mozart for works he 'might have' composed or even giving him more credit for composing great works before a certain age. That would be absurd. I am suggesting that Mozart, at best, had 15 years of mature composing and that to pit this in a contest against dozens of composers with decades of mature compositions each doesn't seem a sensible comparison. Even given the fact that Mozart was a genius, how could he possibly match against two or three generations worth of the finest minds in modern music. Also, how is such a contest to be measured? Popularity? Appreciation by peers? Number of music papers dedicated to works? Any of these measires is destined to fail.
> 
> I'll go back to my point that liking Mozart and modernism isn't mutally exclusive. I love Stravinsky and I love Mozart, probably more or less equally. I also love Messiaen and Haydn and Schoenberg and Beethoven. How do I compare who I like more? I don't!


Yes but the point is - however you measure it - M achieved more in those 15 years than any other composer achieved in a long life. It is not fair on those composers who lived to be 100 and have little to show for it - to compare them with Mozart. You may not rate him - but the accomplishments speak for themselves - How many composers who had long lives have 6 operas in the repertory, half a dozen symphonies, 20 piano concertos, 5 violin concertos, at least a dozen chamber works - shall I go on?


----------



## PlaySalieri

moody said:


> You've hit the nail on the head--of course it's the general public who say so.
> But why do the general public know so little about modern music, especially in this media filled world? Not to mention your input, I suppose it doesn't attract them!
> Also you are quite right it is a silly thread, a very silly thread!


First - it's not the general public - it is the classical music buying public - which is a very small percentage of the general population. Second - in the classical music establishment - concervatoires, performers - musicologists - you will find M held in the highest possible esteem with few detractors. Don't delude yourself - M not only has popular appeal - he is also a favourite of the specialists - see my earlier post. His works have been probably analysed more than any other composer.


----------



## peeyaj

Mozart vs. a piece of paper

Mozart vs. strawberry cake

Mozart vs. computer mouse

Mozart vs. the Internet

Mozart vs. your dirty handkerchief

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


----------



## Ramako

Mozart vs. Salieri?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Ramako said:


> Mozart vs. Salieri?


Salieri wins


----------



## aleazk

peeyaj said:


> Mozart vs. a piece of paper
> 
> Mozart vs. strawberry cake
> 
> Mozart vs. computer mouse
> 
> Mozart vs. the Internet
> 
> Mozart vs. your dirty handkerchief
> 
> ....................................................................


Certainly I would prefer Internet.


----------



## peeyaj

Mozart vs. toilet paper....


----------



## moody

stomanek said:


> First - it's not the general public - it is the classical music buying public - which is a very small percentage of the general population. Second - in the classical music establishment - concervatoires, performers - musicologists - you will find M held in the highest possible esteem with few detractors. Don't delude yourself - M not only has popular appeal - he is also a favourite of the specialists - see my earlier post. His works have been probably analysed more than any other composer.


What am I supposed to understand from this exactly?
Of course it is the music buying public that I am considering ,if it was the public who don't spend money on music there would be no point in mentioning them!
As for the high esteem from various establishments, that won't help unless they spend money on recordings and performances.
I don't analyse music--talk about get a life--I just listen to it, I leave the analysing to experts like Burning Desire and the coagulated one because they're so good at it after all.
Perhaps you would like to re-explain for old broken down prehistoric creatures like me ?


----------



## science

moody said:


> What am I supposed to understand from this exactly?
> Of course it is the music buying public that I am considering ,if it was the public who don't spend money on music there would be no point in mentioning them!
> As for the high esteem from various establishments, that won't help unless they spend money on recordings and performances.
> I don't analyse music--talk about get a life--I just listen to it, I leave the analysing to experts like Burning Desire and the coagulated one because they're so good at it after all.
> Perhaps you would like to re-explain for old broken down prehistoric creatures like me ?


I suspect you misunderstood him.


----------



## PlaySalieri

science said:


> I suspect you misunderstood him.


He misunderstood my main critcism of his proposition - he implied that Mozart is popular only with the classical music buying public - in fact he is universally popular - with the general public - and the musical establishment/performers/experts. Nobody with any kind of reputation that has any value in music would be reckless enough to say some of the uninformed stuff that is said here about this topic.

As I have said before on this forum - if someone came onto a literature forum claiming that Shakespeare or Chaucer were basically mediocre talents and their works primitive in comparison with, shall we say, Samuel Becket or Brendan Behan, they would be written off as cranks.


----------



## BurningDesire

stomanek said:


> Yes but the point is - however you measure it - M achieved more in those 15 years than any other composer achieved in a long life. It is not fair on those composers who lived to be 100 and have little to show for it - to compare them with Mozart. You may not rate him - but the accomplishments speak for themselves - How many composers who had long lives have 6 operas in the repertory, half a dozen symphonies, 20 piano concertos, 5 violin concertos, at least a dozen chamber works - shall I go on?


Quality over quantity. What does it matter that he composed ALOT in a variety of forms? J.S. Bach composed alot in a variety of forms. Beethoven composed alot in a variety of forms. Peter Tchaikovsky composed alot in a variety of forms. Sergei Prokofiev composed alot in a variety of forms. Stravinsky composed alot in a variety of forms. Frank Zappa composed alot in a variety of forms. Elliot Carter has composed alot in a variety of forms. Does this make any of them inherently better than say... Chopin who almost exclusively composed for solo piano? or Wagner who mostly composed operatic works? or Mahler who's output mostly consists of symphonies and songs? Can you explain how Mozart's achievements actually outweigh anybody else's outside of the fact that he was prolific (which is not unique in the history of classical music by a long shot)?


----------



## BurningDesire

stomanek said:


> He misunderstood my main critcism of his proposition - he implied that Mozart is popular only with the classical music buying public - in fact he is universally popular - with the general public - and the musical establishment/performers/experts. Nobody with any kind of reputation that has any value in music would be reckless enough to say some of the uninformed stuff that is said here about this topic.


Wrong. Plenty of the "general public" don't care for classical music because they assume its all like what Mozart wrote. They think its all just music to relax to, that its boring. There are also people more experienced in the classical tradition (listeners and artists) who don't hold him high regards. For listeners, you have examples right on this site, and as far as artists go, the great Charles Ives wasn't a fan either and was vocal about it. So obviously, its not universal.


----------



## PlaySalieri

BurningDesire said:


> Quality over quantity. What does it matter that he composed ALOT in a variety of forms? J.S. Bach composed alot in a variety of forms. Beethoven composed alot in a variety of forms. Peter Tchaikovsky composed alot in a variety of forms. Sergei Prokofiev composed alot in a variety of forms. Stravinsky composed alot in a variety of forms. Frank Zappa composed alot in a variety of forms. Elliot Carter has composed alot in a variety of forms. Does this make any of them inherently better than say... Chopin who almost exclusively composed for solo piano? or Wagner who mostly composed operatic works? or Mahler who's output mostly consists of symphonies and songs? Can you explain how Mozart's achievements actually outweigh anybody else's outside of the fact that he was prolific (which is not unique in the history of classical music by a long shot)?


You obviously do not bother to read posts carefully so I will give you a little help-

"How many composers who had long lives have 6 operas i*n the repertory*, half a dozen symphonies, 20 piano concertos, 5 violin concertos, at least a dozen chamber works - shall I go on?"

In the repertory - means music which is performed at a professional level on a regular basis in our times. If it wasn't any good it wouldn't be in the repertory - I thought that was obvious enough. Mozart wins on quantity and quality across all genres.


----------



## PlaySalieri

BurningDesire said:


> Wrong. Plenty of the "general public" don't care for classical music because they assume its all like what Mozart wrote. They think its all just music to relax to, that its boring. There are also people more experienced in the classical tradition (listeners and artists) who don't hold him high regards. For listeners, you have examples right on this site, and as far as artists go, the great Charles Ives wasn't a fan either and was vocal about it. So obviously, its not universal.


Yes Charles Ives wasn't a great fan - and Gershwin too. Can you find any other examples? I have a stack of names in favour - starting with Haydn, Schubert, Beethoven, Brahms, Wagner, Mahler, R Strauss, Tchaikovsky, Schoenberg, Britten ... excuse me - my fingertips are getting sore.


----------



## moody

science said:


> I suspect you misunderstood him.


I'm sure you are right, that's the trouble with being an old dinosaur type creature.


----------



## Crudblud

stomanek said:


> Yes Charles Ives wasn't a great fan - and Gershwin too. Can you find any other examples? I have a stack of names in favour - starting with Haydn, Schubert, Beethoven, Brahms, Wagner, Mahler, R Strauss, Tchaikovsky, Schoenberg, Britten ... excuse me - my fingertips are getting sore.


Your fingertips are getting sore after typing a few lines? Seek medical help.


----------



## BurningDesire

stomanek said:


> You obviously do not bother to read posts carefully so I will give you a little help-
> 
> "How many composers who had long lives have 6 operas i*n the repertory*, half a dozen symphonies, 20 piano concertos, 5 violin concertos, at least a dozen chamber works - shall I go on?"
> 
> In the repertory - means music which is performed at a professional level on a regular basis in our times. If it wasn't any good it wouldn't be in the repertory - I thought that was obvious enough. Mozart wins on quantity and quality across all genres.


There's plenty of great music that was ignored for large periods of time. Popularity is never a good argument for quality. All genres? What about all those genres that developed and expanded after him because of the work of all those other composers? What about the diversity of new genres, new instruments, new uses of the orchestra, new ways of using harmony and melody and rhythm? His piano sonatas trump those of Beethoven or Chopin's vast solo piano literature? His symphonies trump those of Beethoven and Mahler? You know, I could live with somebody arguing for Mozart's work equaling those achievements, but that they are superior? That is plain absurd. ABSURD.


----------



## moody

stomanek said:


> He misunderstood my main critcism of his proposition - he implied that Mozart is popular only with the classical music buying public - in fact he is universally popular - with the general public - and the musical establishment/performers/experts. Nobody with any kind of reputation that has any value in music would be reckless enough to say some of the uninformed stuff that is said here about this topic.
> 
> As I have said before on this forum - if someone came onto a literature forum claiming that Shakespeare or Chaucer were basically mediocre talents and their works primitive in comparison with, shall we say, Samuel Becket or Brendan Behan, they would be written off as cranks.


Why are you talking as if I were not in the room?
I was making no proposition, I was answering COAG who had stated that Mozart was only great because the general public say so (i.e.the general public interested in music---yes ?Or do you think he meant the general public uninterested in music ?? )
He also said that they knew very little about modern music. So I commented on that. 
Why don't you talk to him--because I'm bored now!


----------



## PlaySalieri

BurningDesire said:


> There's plenty of great music that was ignored for large periods of time. Popularity is never a good argument for quality. All genres? What about all those genres that developed and expanded after him because of the work of all those other composers? What about the diversity of new genres, new instruments, new uses of the orchestra, new ways of using harmony and melody and rhythm? His piano sonatas trump those of Beethoven or Chopin's vast solo piano literature? His symphonies trump those of Beethoven and Mahler? You know, I could live with somebody arguing for Mozart's work equaling those achievements, but that they are superior? That is plain absurd. ABSURD.


I never said that Mozart's piano sonatas were better than Beethoven's - again you don't take time to read my posts. What I did say is that he wrote great music in great quantity across all the genres which were available to him at the time. I agree that popularity is not a good argument for quality - I back up my argument for quality based on (apart from the evidence of my ears) the stature of those who have championed his music, the fact that his concertos/sonatas/chamber works/operas are accepted repertoire in the conservatoires. What other criteria do you suggest? Please go back and read this post again and ensure you understand before formulating a hasty reply.


----------



## PlaySalieri

moody said:


> Why are you talking as if I were not in the room?
> I was making no proposition, I was answering COAG who had stated that Mozart was only great because the general public say so (i.e.the general public interested in music---yes ?Or do you think he meant the general public uninterested in music ?? )
> He also said that they knew very little about modern music. So I commented on that.
> Why don't you talk to him--because I'm bored now!


How does he know how much modern music they know? For all he knows - that sweet old grandad buying Elgar's pomp and circumstance marches in the London HMV store has a full collection of Ligeti repertoire on LP


----------



## violadude

Mozart isn't against modernism as evidenced by this quote!

“I owe very, very much to Mozart; and if one studies, for instance, the way in which I write for string quartet, then one cannot deny that I have learned this directly from Mozart. And I am proud of it!” -Arnold Schoenberg


----------



## PlaySalieri

violadude said:


> Mozart isn't against modernism as evidenced by this quote!
> 
> "I owe very, very much to Mozart; and if one studies, for instance, the way in which I write for string quartet, then one cannot deny that I have learned this directly from Mozart. And I am proud of it!" -Arnold Schoenberg


Schoenberg also rebuked Gershwin for suggesting that Mozart's quartet's are simple.


----------



## violadude

stomanek said:


> Schoenberg also rebuked Gershwin for suggesting that Mozart's quartet's are simple.


Maybe that's secretly why he didn't take him in as a pupil.

Schoenberg Thinking: "Dammit, that Gershwin. If he can't even see the complexity in Mozart's quartets, how could he ever learn anything that I would teach him. Hmm, I better think of an excuse for not teaching him that at the same time makes it sound like I'm complimenting him."

Schoenberg Speaking: "Yes, Gershwin. Well, you are already a great Gershwin, I would only make you a bad Schoenberg."

Schoenberg Thinking: "In other words, don't you dare bastardize my technique."

 I kid.


----------



## Henrique

This is a pointless and, frankly, rather stupid discussion to get embroiled in. Concerning something which is as subjective as music, no one can come up with a universal criteria by which to measure composers and their work's merit - as one can easily see by the various arguments employed in this thread.

As such, no one here is going to be able to prove that either one side or the other is right. Thus, I'll just employ my time to point out that just because one thing is more advanced, it is not better: that is a ridiculous argument, since it assumes that music has the aim of becoming as complex as possible - an absurd notion, since the aims of music are dependant of the epoch in which it is being judged. It was certainly not its aim for most of its existence (mainly expressing feelings or providing pleasure was). Secondly, popularity is not a good measure of talent, otherwise Justin Bieber would be much better than any classical composer. Thirdly, we can just all realize that it all depends on personal taste. If someone is more satisfied with hearing Ligetti than Mozart - God knows I wouldn't - then I am not going to tell them that Mozart is better, just that I like him more.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

I thought JB was one of the most hated people on the internet, but whatever.


----------



## bigshot

BurningDesire said:


> There's plenty of great music that was ignored for large periods of time. Popularity is never a good argument for quality.


Your logic is a bit faulty there. The reverse doesn't negate the positive.

LACK of popularity is not a good indicator of lack of quality, but if something has remained popular for hundreds of years, there is a very good chance that it has a high level of quality.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Henrique said:


> Thus, I'll just employ my time to point out that just because one thing is more advanced, it is not better: that is a ridiculous argument, since it assumes that music has the aim of becoming as complex as possible - an absurd notion, since the aims of music are dependant of the epoch in which it is being judged.


That is so true - a simple melody played one finger at the piano can be better music than a full scale avant garde sonata.
My main problem with people who come on here and criticise Mozart is that they are basically wrong in some of the assertions which are made - such as that Mozart is considered a great composer only because he has mass appeal. You can't expect me to keep quiet about that though I am sure most members on this board can see through nonsense like that.


----------



## PetrB

Mozart was a modernist in his own time, ERGO there is no viable 'Mozart vs Modernism' discussion or debate, not in a real world at any rate.

What there is, and it is monumentally boring and utterly unproductive and both boring and unproductive in the 'informative' department - is the limitation of a comfort zone of one era or one composer for far too many a music listener. For some, it is Mozart, for others it is Ligeti (because the sensationalism of the new can also be a comfort zone), for others still it is the Baroque era to the near exclusion of all else, etc.

But how can any of those who so cling to one era or composer dare to truly call themselves "Music Lovers?"

Mozart was not pop pop popular in his own time: his music was consumed and appreciated mostly by a tiny minority of the cognoscenti: it was criticized as dissonant (all those minor thirds, you know) and he was also heavily criticized for 'wearing his heart too much on his sleeve' (shades of the romantic era to come: the music was thought to be baldly 'emotional' and not within the perimeters of the good taste of classical restraint. The irony now is he is _the_ poster boy of classicism.

There is one school of thought that has it if you don't 'get' Mozart, you don't 'get' music. I pretty much agree with that. But if you are extolling Mozart vs. / over modernism, then I'd have to say your attachment to Mozart is more pathological, a comfort level, than really understanding 'music,' or you would, instead, be at least examining and liking some 'modernist' music as well -- it is a supposition (I believe a good one) that Mozart would have found Webern, Ligeti, Stravinsky, etc. more than 'just interesting.'

It was Stravinsky who when asked, "If Mozart were alive what would his music now sound like?" He answered unhesitatingly, "Schoenberg."

"Mozart vs. Modernism" / Threads for those who believe I - V -I is the ultimate in music (pro 'tonal' music) or those who believe 'atonal' is the only way to go / All divisive, not at all informative, or let's say they just inform about the OP's limitations more than anything, and invite others to 'discuss' limitations. All an ugly mess of childish ego. Imagine non-members dropping in in hope of finding something edifying and instead finding this sort of nasty mess.


----------



## aleazk

-meh, nevermind-


----------



## SottoVoce

PetrB said:


> It was Stravinsky who when asked, "If Mozart were alive what would his music now sound like?" He answered unhesitatingly, "Schoenberg."


Huh. I always thought both his personality and his conception of music was very akin to that of Webern; both saw music as a very internal process (Mozart wouldn't get his inspiration from any outside of the music itself, abstract self-referential) and both had a craftsman approach to music-making. Stravinsky knows best though.


----------



## TrazomGangflow

I can't answer this thread accurately because I have barely delved into the modern classical music genre. Mozart is one of my most favorites though and I don't predict to find many composers of any era that I enjoy more.


----------



## BurningDesire

TrazomGangflow said:


> I can't answer this thread accurately because I have barely delved into the modern classical music genre. Mozart is one of my most favorites though and I don't predict to find many composers of any era that I enjoy more.


Thats fine.


----------



## Petwhac

SottoVoce said:


> Huh. I always thought both his personality and his conception of music was very akin to that of Webern; both saw music as a very internal process (Mozart wouldn't get his inspiration from any outside of the music itself, abstract self-referential) and both had a craftsman approach to music-making. Stravinsky knows best though.


Have you read the Robert Craft books of conversations with Strav? They're very funny and quite scathing of many trends in 20C music.
He liked to say provocative things and it's always best to take some of them with a pinch of salt.


----------



## Sid James

PetrB said:


> Mozart was a modernist in his own time, ERGO there is no viable 'Mozart vs Modernism' discussion or debate, not in a real world at any rate...


All composers where contemporary in their day. The labels re what era they belong to where attached later. Its for convenience and also to kind of put composers together that share some common aesthetic or other qualities. It does not mean they are literally the same.



> ...
> 
> But how can any of those who so cling to one era or composer dare to truly call themselves "Music Lovers?"
> ...


I used to have that view, but no longer. I was just judging with my own values. I am eclectic in my tastes but not everyone has to be. Music is a smorgasbord, you take from it what you want. That's what I think now. ANd judging from the eclecticism of tastes on this forum generally (& many of the replies above) I think a lot of people here are like that, more or less.

This is just another fruitless turf war and we've had plenty in the past.



> ...
> 
> There is one school of thought that has it if you don't 'get' Mozart, you don't 'get' music. I pretty much agree with that. But if you are extolling Mozart vs. / over modernism, then I'd have to say your attachment to Mozart is more pathological, a comfort level...


I don't think a listener has to 'get' anything. That kind of attitude brings to mind the scene in 'A Clockwork Orange' where the guy is forced to watch these horrible images and accompanying that is Beethoven's 'choral symphony.' Its not to say that you are saying people have to do something, do it 'properly.' But just what comes to my mind, that you are forced to do something against your will. I think music for me as a listener is about freedom to do what I want, go where my passion takes me. I don't like people telling me I don't understand classical music or my knowledge is zero just because I may not value EXACTLY what they value.



science said:


> But can't we do both? Do we really have to choose between liking and discussing "the music of the past" and liking and discussing "the music of the present?"
> 
> I'd really rather do both, and do both right here on this site, and so I'd appreciate it if we stopped trying to chase each other away.


I agree, its a false dichotomy. Many of us here find no need to put one thing on a pedestal and correspondingly toilet another. I think someone called this a straw man argument, and I think that's what it is.

This will be my last post on any 'controversial' thread on the forum. I will aim to take a break for a few weeks, I will be back, but concentrate on 'current listening' forum. I hope the dust can kind of settle from all these feuds, basically i've had a gutful of them, I've had enough, and I've been on the end of some very rude posts, there's been a lot of heat and maybe 'bad acid' going around, time for me to take a breather and come back refreshed. So bye for now.


----------



## bigshot

It's not a good idea to be afraid of being wrong. If you have an epiphany and now you love something you previously hated, that's a good thing. No?

I can't tell you how many times I've been wrong about certain music in the past. I'm glad I was wrong. I much prefer appreciating to hating, and as time goes by and I grow musically, I'm definitely trending toward the appreciating side.


----------



## BurningDesire

bigshot said:


> It's not a good idea to be afraid of being wrong. If you have an epiphany and now you love something you previously hated, that's a good thing. No?
> 
> I can't tell you how many times I've been wrong about certain music in the past. I'm glad I was wrong. I much prefer appreciating to hating, and as time goes by and I grow musically, I'm definitely trending toward the appreciating side.


As I have said (and the others who are being grouped in with me have said) many... many times, I do not hate Mozart. I don't dislike Mozart. I appreciate him. I like the music of his that I've heard. Its possible to like something, and still think it is vastly over-rated. Its possible to like something, and find it pretty boring compared with other, better things. I'm done with these discussions.


----------



## bigshot

And as I've said many times, boredom is a purely subjective reaction. It doesn't mean that there is anything at all wrong with the music. I get bored by the Olympics. I'm not going to say that there's something wrong with the Olympics, because obviously there's nothing wrong with an event that millions of other people enjoy. I'm the one who contains the boredom, not the event.


----------



## PlaySalieri

BurningDesire said:


> As I have said (and the others who are being grouped in with me have said) many... many times, I do not hate Mozart. I don't dislike Mozart. I appreciate him. I like the music of his that I've heard. Its possible to like something, and still think it is vastly over-rated. Its possible to like something, and find it pretty boring compared with other, better things. I'm done with these discussions.


What does "over-rated" mean in this context - it merely means that a piece of music has had a popular and critical level of praise which you think it does not deserve. 
I would never say something is over-rated - for example - Britten's Peter Grimes is considered the best British opera, by many musicologists, since Dido and Aneas. I hate Peter Grimes - I think it is awful - but based on it's reputatin with listeners and critical acclaim I would be very wary of making an idiot out of myself by declaring it over-rated.


----------



## neoshredder

My thread was not meant to be a serious debate. It was basically to mock the nonsense that has been going on. My bad for thinking people would actually get my humor. Sorry someone had to be thrown under the bus. But BD is obviously the most vocal about Mozart here. And we do have some passionate Mozart fans. Not a great combination. Can someone lock this thread?


----------



## Toddlertoddy

neoshredder said:


> My thread was not meant to be a serious debate. It was basically to mock the nonsense that has been going on. My bad for thinking people would actually get my humor. Sorry someone had to be thrown under the bus. But BD is obviously the most vocal about Mozart here. And we do have some passionate Mozart fans. Not a great combination. Can someone lock this thread?


As well as other threads: this one, A Thread for People who Don't Like Mozart, Always Praising the Same Music/The Dinosaurs are Among Us, Thread for those who don't like modern classical music


----------



## Rapide

Toddlertoddy said:


> As well as other threads: this one, A Thread for People who Don't Like Mozart, Always Praising the Same Music/The Dinosaurs are Among Us, Thread for those who don't like modern classical music


Most number of junk threads I have read in a few days. Pure junk threads.


----------



## neoshredder

My opinion has changed. I am a big Mozart fan. I should be ashamed of my past posts about this subject. And I'd rather have Mozart over all modernism combined.


----------



## Ondine

I don't see the conflict. Both, Mozart and Avant Garde music are beautiful. Also I can say that they complement each other. After too much Mozart, listening to modern music results extraordinary. I love the contrast.


----------



## neoshredder

Ondine said:


> I don't see the conflict. Both, Mozart and Avant Garde music are beautiful. Also I can say that they complement each other. After too much Mozart listening to modern music is extraordinary.


Shostakovich is the closest I get to Modernism. After too much Mozart listening, I go to Romanticism or Baroque.


----------



## apricissimus

neoshredder said:


> My opinion has changed. I am a big Mozart fan. I should be ashamed of my past posts about this subject. And I'd rather have Mozart over all modernism combined.


Maybe by this time next year you'll be appreciating contemporary composers


----------



## neoshredder

apricissimus said:


> Maybe by this time next year you'll be appreciating contemporary composers


Well I was still a bit of the newbie at the time. And I don't see appreciating contemporary composers happening any time soon. Thank God I came to my senses and didn't follow the Modernist crowd.


----------



## Garlic

Mozart wrote some very nice music. But if I couldn't listen to anything else I'd lose my mind very quickly. There are plenty of 20th century composers I could quite happily listen to exclusively for the rest of my life.


----------



## Couchie

Fancy fundraisers would be rather quiet without him.


----------



## arpeggio

*Stockhausen and Mozart*

I realize that others have already addressed this issue so I am reluctant to bring it up again but I am with the faction that believes that this topic is bogus. It implies that people who like modernism dislikes Mozart. I have very rarely run into anyone who likes modernistic music who dislikes Mozart.

I remember seeing an interview of Stockhausen where he expressed his admiration of Mozart. It was on You Tube. I searched for it but I could not find it.

Stockhausen has his own label: http://www.stockhausencds.com/.

In the catalog I found a recording of Stockhausen conducting the Hayden _Trumpet Concerto_, the Mozart _First Flute Concerto_ and the Mozart _Clarinet Concerto_: http://www.stockhausencds.com/Stockhausen_Edition_CD39.htm

Stockhausen prepared the cadenzas used in this recording. (Reminder: Composers in the 18th Century rarely composed cadenzas.)


----------



## Blancrocher

arpeggio said:


> I realize that others have already addressed this issue so I am reluctant to bring it up again but I am with the faction that believes that this topic is bogus. It implies that people who like modernism dislikes Mozart. I have very rarely run into anyone who likes modernistic music who dislikes Mozart.


I agree with you. However, there is still a lingering debate about whether or not composers should still be producing Mozart-like music today.


----------



## neoshredder

Blancrocher said:


> I agree with you. However, there is still a lingering debate about whether or not composers should still be producing Mozart-like music today.


That would be too perfect. Unfortunately, society these days doesn't like good music. They'd rather hear Xenakis. :lol:


----------



## Blancrocher

neoshredder said:


> That would be too perfect. Unfortunately, society these days doesn't like good music. They'd rather hear Xenakis. :lol:


You can hear the late, great Charles Rosen lecture on the virtues of modern atonal music on youtube--and mention along the way that Xenakis is worthless. I've gotten the impression Xenakis was a thorn in the side for defenders of atonality! The equivalent of Philip Glass for the defenders of tonality, perhaps!


----------



## Ramako

Blancrocher said:


> I agree with you. However, there is still a lingering debate about whether or not composers should still be producing Mozart-like music today.


There are people who like modern music who want to prescribe what composers 'should' write today, and others who think composers should write what they want.

There are people who don't like modern music who want to prescribe what composers 'should' write today, and others who think composers should write what they want.

Both of these groups tend to, but don't always, also like traditional classical music (in a CM forum that is not surprising of course).

It seems to me irrelevant what kind of music one likes, though any group who, through various means, tries to put boxes round what composers 'ought' to do seems to me to be in a somewhat dodgy position. I don't think it's directly related to the topic of this thread, though, which is solely about listening.


----------



## aleazk

neoshredder, you always complain about people which disqualifies or insults others, etc. You also said that you were not interested in those kind of discussions. I invite you to be consequent with your sayings. Otherwise, it will become clear to this forum that you are nothing more than a hypocrite and a professional provoker.
I hope, then, that the moderators will take note of these recursive conducts of yours, which I have noticed not only in topics related to music here...


----------



## Ramako

Blancrocher said:


> You can hear the late, great Charles Rosen lecture on the virtues of modern atonal music on youtube--and mention along the way that Xenakis is worthless. *I've gotten the impression Xenakis was a thorn in the side for defenders of atonality*! The equivalent of Philip Glass for the defenders of tonality, perhaps!


What's the deal with Xenakis?


----------



## neoshredder

aleazk said:


> neoshredder, you always complain about people which disqualifies or insults others, etc. You also said that you were not interested in those kind of discussions. I invite you to be consequent with your sayings. Otherwise, it will become clear to this forum that you are nothing more than a hypocrite and a professional provoker.
> I hope, then, that the moderators will take note of these recursive conducts of yours, which I have noticed not only in topics related to music here...


Nothing I've done is against the ToS. You are allowed to have your own opinion. You aren't allowed to insult others. If my opinions bother you, put me on ignore.


----------



## aleazk

neoshredder said:


> put me on ignore.


You are welcome there now. :tiphat:


----------



## BurningDesire

Blancrocher said:


> I agree with you. However, there is still a lingering debate about whether or not composers should still be producing Mozart-like music today.


If somebody wants to compose music in that classical period style, thats the kind of music they should write. I probably won't listen to it, unless they inject alot of personality into it like Haydn did, or they put some kind of imaginative twist on it (for instance, just avoiding all of those cliche's that you hear in so much of the music from that time period that made it so bland and homogenized).

I think people should write what they want/need to write to be happy as artists, and there isn't anything inherently wrong with drawing on the influence of older, even much older composers and musicians. If anything, the composers that should be viewed in a negative light are those that simply follow a trend because its the current "in" thing, rather than because they want to, but we can't really know for sure if thats the case with anybody. People do change their minds, and artists do like to try out different and new things.


----------



## BurningDesire

Blancrocher said:


> You can hear the late, great Charles Rosen lecture on the virtues of modern atonal music on youtube--and mention along the way that Xenakis is worthless. I've gotten the impression Xenakis was a thorn in the side for defenders of atonality! The equivalent of Philip Glass for the defenders of tonality, perhaps!


Why would you get that impression? Most people who are into atonal music like Xenakis. Many many more conservative classical listeners really like Glass (and plenty of people love and respect both btw).

I personally rather like Xenakis, and I really don't like Glass, but that has nothing to do with Glass's harmonic language. I even like ideas I've heard in many of his pieces, but he just doesn't do anything with them. He just plays a cool idea over and over again for ages and it may change in very tiny ways but nothing that elaborates or really adds weight to that idea. Its just really really boring music. I find him quite over-rated.


----------



## aleazk

Unfortunately, society these days doesn't like good music. They'd rather hear Mozart. :lol:

(if neoshredder is right, then I can say that without anyone feeling insulted; let's check then )


----------



## Crudblud

Ramako said:


> What's the deal with Xenakis?


From what I remember from an interview with his widow Françoise that I listened to some months back, he didn't "toe the party line" and he didn't have any particular reverence for the trends in the avant garde at the time, he just did his own thing. As you know, back then we were still in the days of regional schools with staunchly held ideals about this and that, so someone like Xenakis who was associated with Darmstadt but was not really "one of them" probably caused them a lot of headaches. This is largely conjecture though, you'll want to do some digging if you're that interested.


----------



## Blancrocher

BurningDesire said:


> Why would you get that impression?


I suppose I was just thinking of Rosen. Mostly, I was just looking for an excuse to slag Philip Glass. However, now that the topic of manners has come up, I regret it: I myself love this forum for the enthusiastic recommendations people make rather than for the attacks on various works or composers (except the witty ones--and I can't manage that myself!)


----------



## Ondine

neoshredder said:


> Shostakovich is the closest I get to Modernism. After too much Mozart listening, I go to Romanticism or Baroque.


Yes, Baroque too, or some 'black' Jazz. But Romanticism is difficult for me.


----------



## neoshredder

Ondine said:


> Yes, Baroque too, or some 'black' Jazz. But Romanticism is difficult for me.


Romanticism is quite versatile imo. Some I really like. Some I don't. Late Schubert, Mendelssohn, Dvorak, Tchaikokvsky, Sibelius, and Grieg I really like at times. Yes some of it is quite long and boring at times. Not my favorite Era.


----------



## julianoq

Omg. I just read this whole thread. I have no idea why.

I don't have much to add, I dislike the whole concept of opposing some genre or composer to another. With so much art available for us, is really useful to waste time justifying why we like/dislike something instead of listening and discovering the intentions of the composers and the beauty in their music? In my opinion it is not, and I will try to remember it before reading another thread like this.


----------



## neoshredder

julianoq said:


> Omg. I just read this whole thread. I have no idea why.
> 
> I don't have much to add, I dislike the whole concept of opposing some genre or composer to another. With so much art available for us, is really useful to waste time justifying why we like/dislike something instead of listening and discovering the intentions of the composers and the beauty in their music? In my opinion it is not, and I will try to remember it before reading another thread like this.


The irony is I made this thread to mock all of that fighting going on between Eras. I ended up getting into those discussions myself. I gotta show better control of myself.


----------



## aleazk

julianoq said:


> Omg. I just read this whole thread. I have no idea why.
> 
> I don't have much to add, I dislike the whole concept of opposing some genre or composer to another. With so much art available for us, is really useful to waste time justifying why we like/dislike something instead of listening and discovering the intentions of the composers and the beauty in their music? In my opinion it is not, and I will try to remember it before reading another thread like this.


Yes. I don't think music, and particularly composers, as something divine and flawless. An even more as a musician, I find interesting to discuss music with others, its good and bad points (according to me of course). 
There's nothing bad in discussing music. But, of course, I'm talking about rational discussions, with thought out and knowledgeable opinions.
I encourage you not to confuse this with the free and insulting attack of musical periods and the people who is fond of the music of these periods.


----------



## julianoq

aleazk said:


> Yes. I don't think music, and particularly composers, as something divine and flawless. An even more as a musician, I find interesting to discuss music with others, its good and bad points (according to me of course).
> There's nothing bad in discussing music. But, of course, I'm talking about rational discussions, with thought out and knowledgeable opinions.
> I encourage you not to confuse this with the free and insulting attack of musical periods and the people who is fond of the music of these periods.


I agree with you. If I would't like to discuss music I wouldn't go to a classical music _discussion board_. I was obviously referring to the meaningless attacks that this kind of topic encourages. There is nothing to participate on a rational thread discussing the influence of Mozart on modern music, for example.


----------



## aleazk

julianoq said:


> I agree with you. If I would't like to discuss music I wouldn't go to a classical music _discussion board_. I was obviously referring to the meaningless attacks that this kind of topic encourages. There is nothing to participate on a rational thread discussing the influence of Mozart on modern music, for example.


Yes, I understood it in that way, but I made use of your particular wording to make my point. 
And Mozart _did_ have an influence on modern music. Take Ravel and Le Tombeau de Couperin, for example. 
(wording again?, )


----------



## niv

neoshredder said:


> The last sentence happens all the time. I think it is ok to attack musical periods. Even if it isn't a popular opinion. Expect the backlash like I'm getting right now though.


You just don't get a certain piece of music (or genre), you don't see the appeal, and instead of assuming it might be your faulty interpretation or your tastes, you think it's a fault within the art itself. It ain't.

What? Did you think people can attack certain composers, interpreters, generations, musical genres; but opinions (and people who voice them) are immune?


----------



## neoshredder

I get it alright. And wish I didn't. Sorry I don't like Hip-Hop. Does everyone that doesn't like Hip-Hop have faulty tastes? lol Btw once again changing the subject to me. This is about Mozart vs. Modernism. Rather how awkward this thread is. Maybe it's time for this thread to be locked.


----------



## niv

I didn't mention hip hop.

The problem is not that you dislike a piece of music. The problem is that you think that since you dislike it, it must be attacked. Sentences like "Music returned back to what* was tolerable* in the Baroque Era with the Beethovian Era." (my bold)


----------



## neoshredder

niv said:


> I didn't mention hip hop.
> 
> The problem is not that you dislike a piece of music. The problem is that you think that since you dislike it, it must be attacked. Sentences like "Music returned back to what* was tolerable* in the Baroque Era with the Beethovian Era." (my bold)


That was a long time ago. I disagree with that opinion now. I don't see anything problematic with that opinion though.


----------



## niv

I think it's not tolerable


----------



## neoshredder

niv said:


> I think it's not tolerable


Are we supposed to only talk about things we like? That's boring. I like expressing myself more than that.


----------



## PetrB

neoshredder said:


> The last sentence happens all the time. I think it is ok to attack musical periods. Even if it isn't a popular opinion. Expect the backlash like I'm getting right now though.


As long as the attacker is well aware, when saying, "I do not like the classical era," that the literal translation is, "I don't get / or get and don't care for, the classical era." I.e. it says more about the person saying it than anything else.

That then leads to "those who notice" such a seeming extreme point of view as meaning the speaker is sorely lacking.... has an *intolerable* gap ,is severely limited in their understanding of things


----------



## niv

You're entitled to express yourself. But your expressions can be pretty insulting. Nothing wrong with that as long as you are able to handle when criticism is directed at you, when people dislike your opinions.

If I say something like "mozart is not tolerable", what does that say of all mozart lovers in the world? If I say something like "stravinsky is shallow & empty", what does that say of everybody that loves and is moved by stravinsky? If I say something like "12 tone is idiotic" what does that say of everyone that has liked 12 tone pieces of music? Well if you apply common sense those statements are implicit attacks on the people that like that stuff, because if those statements were "objectively true", then it would be "objectively true" that those people are morons for finding value in something without value (luckily, this is not how art works in reality). This is why despite this forum having rules against personal attacks ends up in heated discussions all the time, people take that stuff personally, and it's no wonder they do.


----------



## Ingélou

Some allowance should surely be made for banter - for exaggerating one's antipathy to a composer or musical period in order to encourage another poster to come out & defend their favourite, preferably in a witty way?

I don't know about avant-garde music, so can't comment; I do know that, despite preferring early music & baroque, I like composers & styles in every era. I also still feel surprised, after 5 months on TC, at seeing how nasty people become with each other, and how quickly. But then, I come from a large family of kids & had enough of tiffs, quarrelling & insults to last a lifetime! 

Is the 'ignore' list helpful, & does it work by blocking your knowledge of what your 'ignoree' has said? - I personally would rather know what's being said, and then if I choose to ignore it I can. There seems to be an awful lot of 'announcing' that one has/ is going to put someone on the 'ignore' list. Presumably there's no real satisfaction in 'just doing it'?


----------



## Eschbeg

niv said:


> Well if you apply common sense those statements are implicit attacks on the people that like that stuff, because if those statements were "objectively true", then it would be "objectively true" that those people are morons for finding value in something without value





niv said:


> (luckily, this is not how art works in reality).


I don't follow. The first part says that _if_ an attack on a composer is "objectively true" then it can be construed as an attack on a listener of that composer; but then the second part says that it doesn't really work that way--that attacks on composers are not "objectively true," if I'm reading you correctly--from which it follows that attacks on composers are _not_ attacks on listeners, right? So if it's the case, then there should no harm in expressing dislike of a composer since, as you say, there's no reason to equate attacks on composers with attacks on listeners. So the answer to your question "If I say something like 'mozart is not tolerable', what does that say of all mozart lovers in the world?" seems to be "Very little."


----------



## Ondine

Eschbeg said:


> "If I say something like 'mozart is not tolerable', what does that say of all mozart lovers in the world?" seems to be "Very little."


I think there is something important here. When somebody says that Mozart is not tolerable, well there is not too much to say. End of the discussion. The problem is with the person which has exposed the statement, not with Mozart's music.

Otherwise, when somebody says: This Avant Garde composer is 'crap' what comes to mind, if I know and appreciate that composer, is: 'What does that listener experienced that I did not; what made he or she to come to that statement? My hypothesis is that sometimes we want to found Mozart in Contemporary Music or the other way. Then, there is a problem.


----------



## niv

Eschbeg said:


> I don't follow. The first part says that _if_ an attack on a composer is "objectively true" then it can be construed as an attack on a listener of that composer; but then the second part says that it doesn't really work that way--that attacks on composers are not "objectively true," if I'm reading you correctly--from which it follows that attacks on composers are _not_ attacks on listeners, right? So if it's the case, then there should no harm in expressing dislike of a composer since, as you say, there's no reason to equate attacks on composers with attacks on listeners. So the answer to your question "If I say something like 'mozart is not tolerable', what does that say of all mozart lovers in the world?" seems to be "Very little."


You are a bit confused. It's not the same if I say "I dislike mozart" than if I say "mozart sucks". In both cases I'm stating my preference and my dislike. Both sentences are subjective, not objective. The difference is that the latter is stated as if my dislike of mozart is an inherent quality of mozart (i.e. I believe it's objective) while the former is stated not as something inherent, but as the result of the interaction between my brain and mozart (i.e. I believe it's subjective). The "objective" (objective as in "I believe it's objective", not as in *actually* objective) way of looking at things, as something inherent to the object (mozart's music would be the object in this case), is quite arrogant in presence of evidence that many people with an extensive knowledge of music love and are moved by mozart. Because if suckiness is inherent to mozart, then it follows that other people are just imagining beauty where there isn't or that simply lack the well taste to understand better music.

Of course art doesn't work that way. But if you believe it does, that belief itself is pretty insulting and arrogant.


----------



## PetrB

neoshredder said:


> This thread is for those wanting to talk about the conflict between fans of Modern Composers vs. fans of Mozart. They are basically the opposites. _And if you ask me, I prefer Modern Composers. Baroque was my favorite Era but things started to change for the worse by the late Classical Era. Beethoven finally fixed things with his less Mozartian later Symphonies. Music returned back to what was tolerable in the Baroque Era with the Beethovian Era. And we know Modern Composers are way more enjoyable than Mozart._


The part highlighted in color says nothing concrete or logical, but it is certainly "all about you."

I'm sure you have your "logical" declensions of why music dropped the ball, picked it back up, etc, but they would be of course based entirely upon that which you get / what you care for, i.e. Empric an visceral personal opinions, and nothing based on any ground for reasonable discussion.

The fact


----------



## neoshredder

PetrB said:


> The part highlighted in color says nothing concrete or logical, but it is certainly "all about you."
> 
> I'm sure you have your "logical" declensions of why music dropped the ball, picked it back up, etc, but they would be of course based entirely upon that which you get / what you care for, i.e. Empric an visceral personal opinions, and nothing based on any ground for reasonable discussion.
> 
> The fact


I just bumped an old thread for the fun of it. See how far we come. Obviously I've changed a lot. I did almost a 180. And a big part of this site is based on personal opinions. Plenty of reasonable discussions were made by personal opinions.


----------



## arpeggio

Before things get out of hand and the thread is closed down, I find that some interesting points have been raised.

I have a question I would like to ask. As many know I am not a big fan of Verdi. If I have read some of the above posts correctly, there would be a problem if I stated that, "Verdi is grossly over rated and technically an inadequate composer."

It appears that it would not be a problem if I simply stated, "I dislike Verdi." It appears that this would be a subjective statement that would only have meaning to me and not be a negative reflection on the tastes of others.


----------



## Crudblud

arpeggio said:


> Before things get out of hand and the thread is closed down, I find that some interesting points have been raised.
> 
> I have a question I would like to ask. As many know I am not a big fan of Verdi. If I have read some of the above posts correctly, there would be a problem if I stated that, "Verdi is grossly over rated and technically an inadequate composer."
> 
> It appears that it would not be a problem if I simply stated, "I dislike Verdi." It appears that this would be a subjective statement that would only have meaning to me and not be a negative reflection on the tastes of others.


Well yes, it seems like common sense to me that one should say "I don't like this" rather than "this is crap." The latter implies that anyone who likes _this_ is deficient in some way. "Verdi is grossly over rated and technically an inadequate composer" just requires you to provide evidence and reasoning to support your case.


----------



## violadude

When someone says something like "I don't know why people like so and so type of music, it must be something wrong with this generation" that is definitely an attack on a person, not the music.


----------



## neoshredder

violadude said:


> When someone says something like "I don't know why people like so and so type of music, it must be something wrong with this generation" that is definitely an attack on a person, not the music.


It's an attack on the music. No insult was mentioned at that person. And btw that's not what I said exactly. Twisting my words around. I already mentioned I am at odds with this generation. I didn't mean that there is something wrong with this generation.


----------



## Eschbeg

niv said:


> The difference is that the latter is stated as if my dislike of mozart is an inherent quality of mozart (i.e. I believe it's objective) while the former is stated not as something inherent


It is stated like that, yes, when taken literally; but why would anyone take it literally? Are people really that hyper-sensitive? (Do people also take offense when they hear "Mussels are gross" or "Hyundais are awful"?) I don't imagine you're going to find many people who will disagree with the above--i.e. that statements about like or dislike are subjective--since it is entirely sensible and self-evident. Thus, it seems to me that when someone expresses dislike of a composer but forgets to precede the sentence with "In my opinion...," then the easiest thing to do would be to mentally supply the preamble and not assume that one's person or integrity is being attacked, don't you think? If one is inclined to perceive an attack on one's integrity by statements that are not prefaced with the obligatory preamble, then one is not going to find one's way through life very easily.

I'm also curious as to why the opposite is not also considered problematic. If someone says "Scriabin is wonderful" and I don't agree, am I justified in perceiving an attack on my integrity because the statement did not make it explicitly clear that it was a subjective statement, implying there is a problem with me?


----------



## Garlic

People are perfectly entitled to insult Mozart and his music if they like. He doesn't need defending. A little light hearted ribbing (which is all the occasional anti-Mozart comments are) is nothing compared to the often vicious attacks on "modernist" composers and their music. This music still needs defending, many people would rather it didn't exist (and they've largely succeeded in driving it out of concert halls).


----------



## violadude

neoshredder said:


> It's an attack on the music. No insult was mentioned at that person. And btw that's not what I said exactly. Twisting my words around. I already mentioned I am at odds with this generation. I didn't mean that there is something wrong with this generation.


"Hip-Hop is far different and stands for something totally different and yet many find that better? Maybe it's just this generation that's the problem. " That's the exact quote. To me, this sounds like an insult on people, not music.


----------



## neoshredder

I meant maybe it's just this generation. That's the problem. As in I'm at odds with this generation music selection. I can't beat myself up forever due to not fitting in to the music styles of today.


----------



## neoshredder

Garlic said:


> People are perfectly entitled to insult Mozart and his music if they like. He doesn't need defending. A little light hearted ribbing (which is all the occasional anti-Mozart comments are) is nothing compared to the often vicious attacks on "modernist" composers and their music. This music still needs defending, many people would rather it didn't exist (and they've largely succeeded in driving it out of concert halls).


Sounds like a double standard. It's ok to insult Mozart but not Modernism? I don't believe I read anything about insulting a Composers music being against the ToS. You are free to insult any Composer's music you want imo. I wouldn't care.


----------



## Garlic

Bach sucks, his music is just noise. Total charlatan IMO.


----------



## neoshredder

Garlic said:


> Bach sucks, his music is just noise. Total charlatan IMO.


You are free to your opinion.


----------



## niv

Eschbeg said:


> It is stated like that, yes, when taken literally; but why would anyone take it literally? Are people really that hyper-sensitive? (Do people also take offense when they hear "Mussels are gross" or "Hyundais are awful"?) I don't imagine you're going to find many people who will disagree with the above--i.e. that statements about like or dislike are subjective--since it is entirely sensible and self-evident. Thus, it seems to me that when someone expresses dislike of a composer but forgets to precede the sentence with "In my opinion...," then the easiest thing to do would be to mentally supply the preamble and not assume that one's person or integrity is being attacked, don't you think?


It's all about context and intent. Often it might be confusing but sometimes is pretty clear when someone is talking from a position of "taste superiority".



Eschbeg said:


> If one is inclined to perceive an attack on one's integrity by statements that are not prefaced with the obligatory preamble, then one is not going to find one's way through life very easily.


It's not only about feeling attacked: I'm strongly against critic position of removing oneself from the art equation. I'm strongly against people labeling this or that "****" because it's reductive of the beauty and meaning of art and it only helps to close minds. And in practice... I could name a zillion times when I heard someone criticizing a work of art because it was bad when clearly they misunderstood it. Movie critics are the worst. They never leave the theather after watching a movie they disliked thinking "hey... maybe the movie was fine but I didn't get it or it wasn't meant for me", even though that's what often happens.

I'd like to spread the idea that labeling things as **** isn't very productive at all. In fact, it's way better to open your mind. I admit I used to be very close minded when I was younger, about 15. I used to label things as **** a lot. And you know what... After I stopped doing that, a whole new world of beauty opened up for me.



> I'm also curious as to why the opposite is not also considered problematic. If someone says "Scriabin is wonderful" and I don't agree, am I justified in perceiving an attack on my integrity because the statement did not make it explicitly clear that it was a subjective statement, implying there is a problem with me?


Well... I have two things to answer (or should I say question  to that:
-What means that you don't agree? Is that you listen to scriabin and you don't see what's so wonderful about? What do you think everybody else sees in scriabin? Do you hold the hypothesis that perhaps there is beauty in scriabin that is not meant for you or that you aren't really getting?
-I disagree with the notion that like & dislike are equals. I don't listen to music to *dislike* it, do you? What's so useful and necessary about bashing art?


----------



## niv

I guess in summary my argument is the following:
The big question is how much you hold the hypothesis "Maybe there is something good about it but I just can't grasp it"


----------



## starry

niv said:


> -I disagree with the notion that like & dislike are equals. I don't listen to music to *dislike* it, do you? What's so useful and necessary about bashing art?


Just bashing music for no reason is pointless, doing so with some reasoned points to back it up can be more useful however. Of course many don't do that.


----------



## KenOC

starry said:


> Just bashing music for no reason is pointless, doing so with some reasoned points to back it up can be more useful however. Of course many don't do that.


"Beethoven's reputation is based entirely on gossip. The middle Beethoven represents a supreme example of a composer on an ego trip." -- Glenn What's-his-name


----------



## Nereffid

niv said:


> I guess in summary my argument is the following:
> The big question is how much you hold the hypothesis "Maybe there is something good about it but I just can't grasp it"


Well, inability to differentiate "I don't care for it, myself" from "It's bad/wrong" is the basis of bigotry generally, isn't it?
So the more people who can make that differentiation, even in something as "trivial" as art, the better.


----------



## Blancrocher

Nereffid said:


> Well, inability to differentiate "I don't care for it, myself" from "It's bad/wrong" is the basis of bigotry generally, isn't it?
> So the more people who can make that differentiation, even in something as "trivial" as art, the better.


There are "ordinary language" philosophers who think that "It's bad/wrong" always really means "I don't care for it, myself." Clearly they didn't participate in online music forums!


----------



## neoshredder

KenOC said:


> "Beethoven's reputation is based entirely on gossip. The middle Beethoven represents a supreme example of a composer on an ego trip." -- Glenn What's-his-name


Thank God for that ego trip. My favorite period of Beethoven's.


----------



## KenOC

neoshredder said:


> Thank God for that ego trip. My favorite period of Beethoven's.


It's certainly one of my three favorite periods!


----------



## Eschbeg

niv said:


> What means that you don't agree? Is that you listen to scriabin and you don't see what's so wonderful about?


In this hypothetical example, yes.



niv said:


> What do you think everybody else sees in scriabin?


In this hypothetical example, I haven't the slightest idea.



niv said:


> Do you hold the hypothesis that perhaps there is beauty in scriabin that is not meant for you or that you aren't really getting?


In this hypothetical example, certainly that's a possibility.



niv said:


> I disagree with the notion that like & dislike are equals. I don't listen to music to *dislike* it, do you?


Of course not. But that doesn't change the plain and uncontroversial fact that people dislike some music. So the question remains: if someone is justified in taking offense at the suggestion that there's something they don't understand that's preventing them from disliking a piece, then is someone equally justified in taking offense at the suggestion that there's something they don't understand that's preventing them from liking a piece? Why should one party be expected to preface their opinions with the "In my opinion..." disclaimer, but not the other? Just saying liking and disliking are not equals doesn't explain much. The latter fulfills the same criteria you laid out for the former, so so far I'm not seeing a difference. My suspicion is that the only way to assert a difference between the two is by a simple _ipse dixit_ declaration, but I'm willing to hear anyone try.



niv said:


> What's so useful and necessary about bashing art?


I haven't the slightest idea. Regardless, not many people who dislike art do so for the explicit reason that they find it useful or necessary, so I'm not sure this question gets us anywhere.


----------



## niv

Eschberg, the problem for me is not disliking art. There's plenty of art that I dislike. What offends me is the notion that there is CRAP MUSIC and that people listening and making such music should feel ashamed or are dim witted and that's why they don't listen to higher music. sometimes this notion is not laid out that literally, but it's clearly there.

You're clearly aren't that kind of person.

What also offends me is the notion that you can call anything crap, but opinions themselves cannot be crap. This puts the critic is a comfortable position: The critics can point out everything that's wrong about art, and no one can tell the critics that their opinions can too be crap, because "it's just an opinion".


----------



## neoshredder

niv said:


> Eschberg, the problem for me is not disliking art. There's plenty of art that I dislike. What offends me is the notion that there is CRAP MUSIC and that people listening and making such music should feel ashamed or are dim witted and that's why they don't listen to higher music. sometimes this notion is not laid out that literally, but it's clearly there.
> 
> You're clearly aren't that kind of person.
> 
> What also offends me is the notion that you can call anything crap, but opinions themselves cannot be crap. This puts the critic is a comfortable position: The critics can point out everything that's wrong about art, and no one can tell the critics that their opinions can too be crap, because "it's just an opinion".


I disagree. The music the person makes should have no saying on the true character of that person. Though a couple artists try their best to be the bad guy in their music sometimes. Marilyn Manson the obvious choice here. Btw I like Marilyn Manson's music. At least his first few albums.


----------



## Trout

neoshredder said:


> I disagree. The music the person makes should have no saying on the true character of that person.




Did you even read niv's post?



niv said:


> *What offends me* is the notion that there is CRAP MUSIC and that people listening and making such music should feel ashamed or are dim witted and that's why they don't listen to higher music.


----------



## Cheyenne

niv said:


> Eschberg, the problem for me is not disliking art. There's plenty of art that I dislike. What offends me is the notion that there is CRAP MUSIC and that people listening and making such music should feel ashamed or are dim witted and that's why they don't listen to higher music. sometimes this notion is not laid out that literally, but it's clearly there.


I don't recall ever seeing it stated plainly here on these forums, nor do I find it a recognizable trend in opinions. In general, it appears to me members here are quite accepting and open


----------



## neoshredder

Trout said:


> Did you even read niv's post?


Yes. And I disagree with that opinion. I guess there are people like that. I'm not one of those. I judge only the music. Not other people's music choice. If I say rap is crap. That doesn't mean those that listen to it are dim witted for listening to rap. Is that more clear? It just means I hate the sound. The only time it gets to me is when people blast their crap music in the car real loud with bass. I do judge those people. But what they listen to at their house means nothing to me.


----------



## starry

niv said:


> Eschberg, the problem for me is not disliking art. There's plenty of art that I dislike. What offends me is the notion that there is CRAP MUSIC and that people listening and making such music should feel ashamed or are dim witted and that's why they don't listen to higher music. sometimes this notion is not laid out that literally, but it's clearly there.
> 
> You're clearly aren't that kind of person.
> 
> What also offends me is the notion that you can call anything crap, but opinions themselves cannot be crap. This puts the critic is a comfortable position: The critics can point out everything that's wrong about art, and no one can tell the critics that their opinions can too be crap, because "it's just an opinion".


With some people there isn't much point discussing something as they aren't willing to debate anyway. People are allowed to have an opinion on forums without personal attacks, but they should be able to accept people debating the musical merits of that opinion as well.

As for 'crap music', I would differentiate between people judging a whole style of music as crap (which tends to just show ignorance), and those who judge some music within a style as weaker examples of that style and backing it up with some kind of argument.


----------



## neoshredder

starry said:


> With some people there isn't much point discussing something as they aren't willing to debate anyway. People are allowed to have an opinion on forums without personal attacks, but they should be able to accept people debating the musical merits of that opinion as well.
> 
> As for 'crap music', I would differentiate between people judging a whole style of music as crap (which tends to just show ignorance), and those who judge some music within a style as weaker examples of that style and backing it up with some kind of argument.


I would. But I hate the style so much, I have no interest in digging deep in finding the stuff I might like and showing all the examples of why I really dislike this artist. All I can do is speak about the general things about that genre. Loud bass. Rough on ears. Annoying Rapper voice. Things talked about on the streets that I wouldn't want to experience. Yes I know that this is real life for some. That is unfortunate. Not interested in a soundtrack for that life though.


----------



## BurningDesire

neoshredder said:


> I would. But I hate the style so much, I have no interest in digging deep in finding the stuff I might like and showing all the examples of why I really dislike this artist. All I can do is speak about the general things about that genre. Loud bass. Rough on ears. Annoying Rapper voice. Things talked about on the streets that I wouldn't want to experience. Yes I know that this is real life for some. That is unfortunate. Not interested in a soundtrack for that life though.


That is such a huge oversimplification of what hip hop is. First of all, it can be about anything, just as any musical idiom can be about anything. Its like saying all heavy metal music is about worshiping Satan.


----------



## Nereffid

neoshredder said:


> Yes. And I disagree with that opinion. I guess there are people like that. I'm not one of those. I judge only the music. Not other people's music choice. If I say rap is crap. That doesn't mean those that listen to it are dim witted for listening to rap. Is that more clear? It just means I hate the sound. The only time it gets to me is when people blast their crap music in the car real loud with bass. I do judge those people. But what they listen to at their house means nothing to me.


But do you not at least accept that when you say "I hate rap" this is different than "rap is crap". I know you don't _literally_ mean crap, but you are in your choice of words comparing the sensory experience offered by rap music to the sensory experience offered by feces. By extension it can be inferred that the person who enjoys rap is - again, not literally - enjoying feces.
No, not everyone will make that inference, but surely you accept that there's different layers of meaning in the things we say.


----------



## Guest

neoshredder said:


> If I say rap is crap. That doesn't mean those that listen to it are dim witted for listening to rap. Is that more clear? It just means I hate the sound.


I don't need to draw the conclusion that you are insulting the tastes of others to think that your comment on rap is almost valueless. Whether you are asserting objectively, or just forgetting to prefix with "In my opinion...", the comment itself is of such limited use, it tells the reader nothing about 'rap' (or, by extension to similar opinions expressed in similar terms by others about other musical styles) and is just plain lazy criticism.

Now, let's not get too exercised about this. I'm sure there are times when many members here resort to lazy criticism. But let's not make a virtue of it, or assert that it is anyone's 'right' to offer such criticism.


----------



## neoshredder

How about I say the way I like best. I know my dad has said rap is crap as well. I see nothing wrong with that statement. It rhymes quite nicely.  I'm sure most will understand rap is crap means I hate rap. Though I hate rap doesn't sound as good. And heavy metal isn't a soundtrack to a certain lifestyle. Yes the lyrics are kind of ridiculous. Slayer being an example of that. Almost makes me laugh the ridiculous things they say. There is no heavy metal hood though that I know of. I guess the closest you get is a concert though. I would probably avoid a Slayer concert for that reason.


----------



## Guest

neoshredder said:


> I know my dad has said rap is crap as well.


And the relevance of this to the debate is?


----------



## neoshredder

MacLeod said:


> And the relevance of this to the debate is?


It means it's a common saying. I feel the same way. Wish others would lighten up and not try to overanalyze everything I say. Like I'm under the microscope or something. Let me post the way I feel best. With obvious respect to the ToS of course.


----------



## Garlic

Maybe you should be writing a blog? You're entitled to express your opinion, but aren't other people also allowed to express their opinions on your opinion (or the way you express it)? Surely the point of a forum is exchange of ideas.


----------



## Nereffid

neoshredder said:


> It means it's a common saying. I feel the same way. Wish others would lighten up and not try to overanalyze everything I say. Like I'm under the microscope or something. Let me post the way I feel best. With obvious respect to the ToS of course.


Until every human being is a gifted telepath, you're just going to have to deal with the fact that not everyone shares the exact interpretation of your words as you do.
For example, the above sounds kinda like you're saying "leave me alone! The very concept of semantics is too much for me to understand!"


----------



## starry

neoshredder said:


> I would. But I hate the style so much, I have no interest in digging deep in finding the stuff I might like and showing all the examples of why I really dislike this artist. All I can do is speak about the general things about that genre. Loud bass. Rough on ears. Annoying Rapper voice. Things talked about on the streets that I wouldn't want to experience. Yes I know that this is real life for some. That is unfortunate. Not interested in a soundtrack for that life though.


Well that's your choice not to be interested. But it's hard to offer useful criticism without some kind of understanding of what a musician is trying to do and just making broad generalisations. And if you aren't interested then there isn't much point in discussing something. Maybe you actually want to be interested but can't communicate that, but being open minded is important there and that comes from within not from others.


----------



## neoshredder

So rap music is now composed with musicians? Artists is obviously the better term for this style. Leave the name musician for those that play melodic instruments in their music. I don't understand what is so difficult to understand about me not liking a style of music. Plenty of people do the same thing.


----------



## niv

neoshredder said:


> It means it's a common saying. I feel the same way. Wish others would lighten up and not try to overanalyze everything I say. Like I'm under the microscope or something. Let me post the way I feel best. With obvious respect to the ToS of course.


i.e. "I can attack anything, but you can't attack my own opinions."

(See what I mentioned before abouts critic's comfortable positions)

You know, my dad used to call various genres of music crap too, that's where I got that behaviour. I hated a lot of musical styles and called them inferior to what I listen.

If I can be judgemental for a while, it's a crap form of viewing art.

Please take this is not an attack on my part, rather a lesson I learned that I want to share. After I stopped hating music I found out that almost every genre has something to offer if you're willing to listen. Yes, rap lacks the qualities of baroque/metal/classical/etc, but it has different qualities that baroque/metal/classical lacks. In fact, I think that's the beauty of trying to listen to different styles of music, I learnt that there is no single way to make the musical bone tingle, there are many ways, and different ways evoke different feelings, emotions, reactions.

As an unintended side effect, now my dad can't stand what I listen to nowadays, heh.

edit: Yes, actually, good rap *musicians* know quite a bit about music.

Don't take it as an attack, but probably they know about it more than you do. You're pretty disrespectful, you know?


----------



## neoshredder

Disrespectful to rap? Yeah I know.  I have much more respect to those that play instruments and/or sings. But I still consider rap an art. That's something.


----------



## Cosmos

Why not both? 

(Though I do lean towards 20th century composers)


----------



## niv

I was going to give up, but one more try:

Remember the beginning of the thread? You said "And we know Modern Composers are way more enjoyable than Mozart." 
Yet later you changed your mind. What happened? You hadn't "tuned-in" to mozart yet. By "tuned-in" I mean the process everybody does interpreting music. You don't like rap? Ok, but there's nothing wrong with rap, you simply don't know how to tune-in to it


----------



## bigshot

Should I learn to tune in to my garbage disposal?


----------



## Crudblud

bigshot said:


> Should I learn to tune in to my garbage disposal?


Yes, but throw all your one-liners in there first.


----------



## Garlic

neoshredder said:


> So rap music is now composed with musicians? Artists is obviously the better term for this style. Leave the name musician for those that play melodic instruments in their music. I don't understand what is so difficult to understand about me not liking a style of music. Plenty of people do the same thing.


Are drummers not musicians now? Of course rappers, producers, turntablists etc. are musicians. They make music. That's what a musician is.

No one minds if you don't like hip hop, it's the generalisations you're making that people are objecting to.


----------



## Garlic

bigshot said:


> Should I learn to tune in to my garbage disposal?


In all seriousness, yes. Life is much more enjoyable when you listen to what's going on around you.


----------



## violadude

The only thing I don't really get is that, if your only contribution is "so and so is crap" why make a contribution at all. Personally, I just feel that that's not even a critique or a useful discussion point. At that point, the person that only says that is just being a downer to those that like that type of music.


----------



## starthrower

neoshredder said:


> Disrespectful to rap? Yeah I know.  I have much more respect to those that play instruments and/or sings. But I still consider rap an art. That's something.


Why do you think rap developed in the first place? It was a matter of necessity is the mother of invention. When people don't have access to musical instruments, they express themselves in the only way that's available to them. Kind of like the slaves and their field hollers. They didn't have musical instruments either. Should we respect them less?


----------



## apricissimus

starthrower said:


> Why do you think rap developed in the first place? It was a matter of necessity is the mother of invention. When people don't have access to musical instruments, they express themselves in the only way that's available to them. Kind of like the slaves and their field hollers. They didn't have musical instruments either. Should we respect them less?


I don't think the development of rap had anything to do with lack of instruments to play.


----------



## mtmailey

Well modern composers music seem to be not that great compared to MOZART,it depends on the person & what they love/like.A lot of MOZART music has my favorite textures.A lot of american music does not sound that good to me.GEORGE GERSHWIN made great american music


----------



## mmsbls

mtmailey said:


> Well modern composers music seem to be not that great compared to MOZART,it depends on the person & what they love/like.A lot of MOZART music has my favorite textures.A lot of american music does not sound that good to me.GEORGE GERSHWIN made great american music


While I agree with you, I'm not sure this comparison is so useful. Personally I would say that most music from any era does not compare well to Mozart. Mozart is generally viewed as one of the 3 "greatest" composers so comparisons to the vast majority of composers will favor Mozart. If I compare modern music I hear to a good Classical era composer such as Salieri*, I would say modern music compares quite well with him.

*While many do not consider Salieri a good composer, I feel that anyone who is still recorded and played 200 years after composing ought to be viewed as a good composer.


----------



## bigshot

Crudblud said:


> Yes, but throw all your one-liners in there first.


No room! It's all clogged up with John Cage and Andy Warhol!


----------



## BurningDesire

mtmailey said:


> Well modern composers music seem to be not that great compared to MOZART,it depends on the person & what they love/like.A lot of MOZART music has my favorite textures.A lot of american music does not sound that good to me.GEORGE GERSHWIN made great american music


I can't think of any good modern composers that Mozart is better than.


----------



## BurningDesire

mmsbls said:


> While I agree with you, I'm not sure this comparison is so useful. Personally I would say that most music from any era does not compare well to Mozart. Mozart is generally viewed as one of the 3 "greatest" composers so comparisons to the vast majority of composers will favor Mozart. If I compare modern music I hear to a good Classical era composer such as Salieri*, I would say modern music compares quite well with him.
> 
> *While many do not consider Salieri a good composer, I feel that anyone who is still recorded and played 200 years after composing ought to be viewed as a good composer.


Salieri was a fine composer. Most people that think Salieri was terrible probably learned all the needed to learn from the film Amadeus.


----------



## Aries

Shostakovich is 10 times better than Mozart.
Mozart is 1,000,000,000 times better than Stockhausen.


----------



## aleazk

Aries said:


> Shostakovich is 10 times better than Mozart.
> Mozart is 1,000,000,000 times better than Stockhausen.


And Stockhausen is better than Shostakovich. Then, by the antisymmetry property of ordered sets, we have that Shostakovich=Mozart=Stockhausen.


----------



## KenOC

BurningDesire said:


> Salieri was a fine composer.


There were several composers put in the shade by Mozart and then by Beethoven who were more original and impressive than Salieri. To say he was a "fine" composer really depends on your definition. Of course standards were pretty high in those days!


----------



## neoshredder

Aries said:


> Shostakovich is 10 times better than Mozart.
> Mozart is 1,000,000,000 times better than Stockhausen.


I think the right order is Mozart>Shostakovich>>>>Stockhausen.


----------



## Crudblud

Aries said:


> Shostakovich is 10 times better than Mozart.
> Mozart is 1,000,000,000 times better than Stockhausen.


Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claim?


----------



## aleazk

nevermind................... ...........................


----------



## mmsbls

BurningDesire said:


> I can't think of any good modern composers that Mozart is better than.


I can't think of any great modern composers that Mozart is not better than.

The wonderful thing about music and people is that everyone should immediately recognize that we are both correct (assuming they believe we are being honest). My statement means, "I like Mozart better than every modern composer." (Of course, those who know me know that I like Mozart better than any other composer so this is not saying much about modern composers.) And BurningDesire's statement means, "I like good modern composers better than Mozart." Both statements are true.

Translating other statements on this page:

Aries likes Shostakovich much more than Mozart and Mozart enormously more than Stockhausen.
neoshredder likes Mozart more than Shostakovich and both much more than Stockhausen.

[aleazk is being a bit cute but knows his math (although technically his result is only true without the factors in Aries statement )]


----------



## KenOC

mmsbls said:


> The wonderful thing about music and people is that everyone should immediately recognize that we are both correct (assuming they believe we are being honest).


You are evidently a relativist in these matters. I am not and believe that there is an objective definition of "greatness" that is unarguable. As evidence, I offer that the apparent degree of "greatness" in both composers and compositions agrees, to an uncanny extent, with my own perceptions. This should be proof enough for even the most skeptical!


----------



## BurningDesire

neoshredder said:


> I think the right order is Mozart>Shostakovich>>>>Stockhausen.


So interesting music is worse than bland crap. Interesting.


----------



## BurningDesire

KenOC said:


> You are evidently a relativist in these matters. I am not and believe that there is an objective definition of "greatness" that is unarguable. As evidence, I offer that the apparent degree of "greatness" in both composers and compositions agrees, to an uncanny extent, with my own perceptions. This should be proof enough for even the most skeptical!


There is no objective greatness. Unless I say something is great. I am an AWARD-WINNING COMPOSER after all :3


----------



## KenOC

BurningDesire said:


> There is no objective greatness. Unless I say something is great. I am an AWARD-WINNING COMPOSER after all :3


That's the spirit! No wishy-washy relativist you! But I'm a bit hesitant to offer full endorsement since you seem to have referred to the music of Mozart (and perhaps that of Shostakovich) as "bland crap." Of course I may misapprehend and, if so, look forward to your gentle correction...


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> I... believe that there is an objective definition of "greatness" that is unarguable.


Be interesting to see that puppy.

Anyway, we all have to believe in something. I believe I'll have another drink.


----------



## BurningDesire

KenOC said:


> That's the spirit! No wishy-washy relativist you! But I'm a bit hesitant to offer full endorsement since you seem to have referred to the music of Mozart (and perhaps that of Shostakovich) as "bland crap." Of course I may misapprehend and, if so, look forward to your gentle correction...


Oh of course, not all of Mozart's music. Just alot of it ^_^


----------



## bigshot

BurningDesire said:


> Salieri was a fine composer. Most people that think Salieri was terrible probably learned all the needed to learn from the film Amadeus.


I think the people who don't appreciate Mozart don't know him from his music, but rather from the film. I've never seen it, but I've heard a lot of his music and it's amazing.


----------



## Garlic

Mozart was a fantastic composer but I can't help feeling he didn't always use his talent in the best possible way.






I wish he'd written more stuff like this instead of the dippy stuff. I'm sure he would have done had he lived longer.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> You are evidently a relativist in these matters. I am not and believe that there is an objective definition of "greatness" that is unarguable. As evidence, I offer that the apparent degree of "greatness" in both composers and compositions agrees, to an uncanny extent, with my own perceptions. This should be proof enough for even the most skeptical!


Unfortunately Ken, your track record suggests that nothing you post can be taken as either unarguable or definite.


----------



## KenOC

MacLeod said:


> Unfortunately Ken, your track record suggests that nothing you post can be taken as either unarguable or definite.


Can anything posted on music be taken thus?


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> Can anything posted on music be taken thus?


Well, yes, of course...

My opinion!


----------



## KenOC

MacLeod said:


> Well, yes, of course...
> 
> My opinion!


Then you and I are in agreement -- in a sense.


----------



## starry

Garlic said:


> Mozart was a fantastic composer but I can't help feeling he didn't always use his talent in the best possible way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wish he'd written more stuff like this instead of the dippy stuff. I'm sure he would have done had he lived longer.


Dippy? I'm not sure that shows understanding of his music or the style. And why would he write organ music, i'm sure it wasn't as popular in his time.

I'm sure somebody could do a thread of pointless comparisons very easily here. Comparisons are meant to enlighten but they can just as easily be used to confuse and mislead.


----------



## Garlic

starry said:


> Dippy? I'm not sure that shows understanding of his music or the style. And why would he write organ music, i'm sure it wasn't as popular in his time.
> 
> I'm sure somebody could do a thread of pointless comparisons very easily here. Comparisons are meant to enlighten but they can just as easily be used to confuse and mislead.


"Dippy" is probably the wrong word. I wanted a less offensive sounding synonym for "frivolous". Even if you like his piano sonatas, you have to admit they're not his most profound works. And I have nothing against the style, I love Haydn and much of Mozart.


----------



## starry

Does profound have to just mean dark and deadly serious rather than something individual and with feeling? Also bad performances can make some of his music sound frivolous even if it isn't.

Anyway this is a darker piano work by Mozart, while keeping the feeling he imparts to music.






But really it isn't up to me to convince you or anyone, you have to convince yourself. It's probably worth considering that many acclaimed composers have actually rated Mozart highly.


----------



## Garlic

I rate Mozart very highly as well, he's one of my favourite composers! I just think he didn't always fulfil his potential. The piano sonatas are nice, but how much better could they have been if he'd spent longer on them?


----------



## starry

Ok so now you say you like Mozart. Maybe you just want _some_ works to be something other than what they were intended to be, and is that really fair? Also he put time into other works as well in his short life, if you wanted him to concentrate on piano music in particular then you would lose things in other genres.


----------



## Garlic

That's true, and I'm grateful he composed as many great works as he did.


----------



## niv

KenOC said:


> You are evidently a relativist in these matters. I am not and believe that there is an objective definition of "greatness" that is unarguable. As evidence, I offer that the apparent degree of "greatness" in both composers and compositions agrees, to an uncanny extent, with my own perceptions. This should be proof enough for even the most skeptical!


There is a middle ground. I believe greatness is subjective, but we subjects don't have totally random and different interpretations. We have similarities in our interpretation, especially more when given a certain taste or listening background. Everybody has a criteria, but there are shared criterias, this creates an illusion of objectivity. I say illusion because for objectivity to exist, there should be an universal, better-than-the-rest criteria. I'd say even the notion of "better" is an illusion, or an aproximation at most.


----------



## starthrower

apricissimus said:


> I don't think the development of rap had anything to do with lack of instruments to play.


So are you saying it was exclusively a DJ/ghetto poet thing? Or the fact that people had no interest in all of the guitars, saxophones, drum sets, and keyboards lying around gang centers and run down inner city schools?


----------



## starry

niv said:


> I say illusion because for objectivity to exist, there should be an universal, better-than-the-rest criteria. I'd say even the notion of "better" is an illusion, or an aproximation at most.


There's perhaps a gradation of excellence or badness. But surely different styles have different criteria which might be more prominent, so in that sense how should there be there be one universal criteria? It's easier to compare things within the same style which may have the same kind of criteria.


----------



## jhar26

BurningDesire said:


> Oh of course, not all of Mozart's music. Just alot of it ^_^


His music is only regarded as "bland crap" by some because he's so popular. If he was as (un)popular as, say, Salieri or Dittersdorf those same people would argue in favor of "this scandulously underrated composer." But since virtually everyone loves Mozart he takes away from the self-appointed specialists one of things they love the most: The feeling that they know something more than the rest of us.


----------



## Kieran

Garlic said:


> I rate Mozart very highly as well, he's one of my favourite composers! I just think he didn't always fulfil his potential. The piano sonatas are nice, but how much better could they have been if he'd spent longer on them?


In fairness to Mozart, most of the time he composed the piano sonatas for gifted pupils. His own personal preference was in the larger form PC's. But even still, he has several which are truly great, including virtually all of his last ten sonatas, and a couple for four-hands and one for two pianos. It's not a bad return, really...


----------



## Neo Romanza

jhar26 said:


> But since virtually everyone loves Mozart...


I don't love Mozart.


----------



## BurningDesire

bigshot said:


> I think the people who don't appreciate Mozart don't know him from his music, but rather from the film. I've never seen it, but I've heard a lot of his music and it's amazing.


I actually thought he was really cool in the film.


----------



## BurningDesire

jhar26 said:


> His music is only regarded as "bland crap" by some because he's so popular. If he was as (un)popular as, say, Salieri or Dittersdorf those same people would argue in favor of "this scandulously underrated composer." But since virtually everyone loves Mozart he takes away from the self-appointed specialists one of things they love the most: The feeling that they know something more than the rest of us.


Nope. I'd be quite happy if say... Charles Ives was super popular. I'm happy that Beethoven and Chopin and Tchaikovsky and Debussy are all popular. I'm happy that alot of things I find to be great are popular ^_^


----------



## Xisten267

I prefer Mozart, even if I find that there's plenty of great modern music out there.


----------



## Chilham

Stinky bait. .............


----------



## SanAntone

Okay, another phishing scam to solicit comments against 20th century music. It's all been said before, by the same members.


----------



## Amadea

This discussion is a bit pointless if we think about it: Schonberg said Mozart taught him how to write quartets (you can find the interview on youtube), his string quartet n.19 nicknamed "dissonance" predicted Shostakovich and arguably inspired Beethoven's Grosse Fugue (along with Bach of course), Stravinsky is another one who studied Mozart deeply. I think many simply don't know Mozart's works enough, but judge him because of stereotypes. I used to do that too. I dismissed Mozart as not deep enough, now he is one of my favourite composers because he's the opposite of superficial if you know him, expecially compared to his times. Example, listen to Beethoven's favorites, like piano concerto n.20. It might be a surprise for many, but Mozart's late works were considered "too intellectual" in his time, because of the use of chromaticism and dissonances. Mozart fools the listener because he makes you think his music is easy, when you look at it it is not. Anyway, I think perceived intellectualism should not really be the staple to judge the value of art.


----------



## Chilham

Amadea said:


> This discussion is a bit pointless if we think about it.....


Oh, I guarantee there will be pointless discussion.


----------



## Phil loves classical

The first thing I thought see the thread title was how are they opposites, not really focusing on the Modernist Era, but the general term modernism uncapitalized. I recall reading stuff that Bach was a modernist in his time, and then so were all the famous composers we know now. At its time, everything was modern, and now everything before this century is classical. Other than some differences in the musical language, I don't see them as that radically different in spirit (even though they can sound radically different).

But on Mozart vs the whole Era, where probably 4 of my top 5 are Modernists, so I'd have to choose the Era over one composer. I really hope Hammeredklavier would understand, and forgive me.


----------



## Chilham




----------



## Amadea

Phil loves classical said:


> The first thing I thought see the thread title was how are they opposites, not really focusing on the Modernist Era, but the general term modernism uncapitalized. I recall reading stuff that Bach was a modernist in his time, and then so were all the famous composers we know now. At its time, everything was modern, and now everything before this century is classical. Other than some differences in the musical language, I don't see them as that radically different in spirit (even though they can sound radically different).
> 
> But on Mozart vs the whole Era, where probably 4 of my top 5 are Modernists, so I'd have to choose the Era over one composer. I really hope Hammeredklavier would understand, and forgive me.


Not to mention the fact "modern era" isn't really so contemporary, I mean, modern composers really belong to the last century! But we're still talking about them like they composed their masterpieces yesterday. If we lived in Mozart's times, I think we'd consider music done 50-100 years ago old school already, wouldn't we? Maybe the problem is those composers are not so popular as the romantic composers. The majority of people still didn't digest the avant-garde, in every art form, painting, sculpture, music, theatre. But that's old art if we think about it.


----------



## consuono

Chilham said:


> Oh, I guarantee there will be pointless discussion.


"Can you objectively prove that Mozart is better?" over 100 pages.


Phil loves classical said:


> I recall reading stuff that Bach was a modernist in his time, and then so were all the famous composers we know now. ...


I think if anything Bach was considered an arch-conservative throwback in his time. Ironically.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Amadea said:


> Not to mention the fact "modern era" isn't really so contemporary, I mean, modern composers really belong to the last century! But we're still talking about them like they composed their masterpieces yesterday. If we lived in Mozart's times, I think we'd consider music done 50-100 years ago old school already, wouldn't we? Maybe the problem is those composers are not so popular as the romantic composers. The majority of people still didn't digest the avant-garde, in every art form, painting, sculpture, music, theatre. But that's old art if we think about it.


I'll admit I still not convinced by the avante garde in other art forms other than music. In music I can still hear the structures and stuff, but I hope someone can shed some light if I'm missing it in other forms. Poetry and theatre is something I also feel more familiar and confident about, and I feel there is a lot of gimmickery with some edgy stuff. Painting and sculptures is what I don't feel qualified to judge, and I doubt the avant garde paintings are as structured as the avant garde in music. Hopefully someone can convince me of my ignorance in the matter.

I've heard stories of this sort of placebo effect in especially painting.


----------



## Amadea

consuono said:


> "Can you objectively prove that Mozart is better?" over 100 pages.


The problem is always the same: regarding what aspect?? Because we cannot really say one, any, composer is better than another one in a total way. It's also absurd to compare totally different styles and times, it has no sense. Beethoven vs Mozart has no sense already, Ligeti vs Mozart has even less sense. In the end there's only taste. We can individuate a list of very influential composers, but that's really it.


----------



## Amadea

Phil loves classical said:


> I'll admit I still not convinced by the avante garde in other art forms other than music. In music I can still hear the structures and stuff, but I hope someone can shed some light if I'm missing it in other forms. Poetry and theatre is something I also feel more familiar and confident about, and I feel there is a lot of gimmickery with some edgy stuff. Painting and sculptures is what I don't feel qualified to judge, and I doubt the avant garde paintings are as structured as the avant garde in music. Hopefully someone can convince me of my ignorance in the matter.


I can understand, I study history of art and I didn't like contemporary art at all and it was because I didn't get it. Now I love it. Every art style kinda has its own artistic language and it's not immediate. It needs context and a bit of study. The problem is also how art is exposed, the tourist doesn't get it, but trust me it has value. I'd suggest you to look for expressive artists rather than conceptual. Example Gerhard Richter works are beautiful, you don't really need to "get it", just think of how the combinations of colours and shapes in the paintings make you feel  https://www.gerhard-richter.com/en/...racts-19851989-30/abstract-painting-4824/?p=1
For the "placebo effect" I think you're saying some critics overrate contemporary art? It depends. Today it happens, but that's because of the art maket which has its own rules based on trends, also critics have sort of "van gogh syndrome", meaning they didn't recognize many geniuses of the past so now they see a little too much genius in some contemporary artists fearing they are missing geniuses (example they overrate Jeff Koons). But if we are talking about guys like Picasso, Mondrian, Kandinskij, Pollock etc., they're not overrated, they were inventing new languages.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Amadea said:


> I can understand, I study history of art and I didn't like contemporary art at all and it was because I didn't get it. Now I love it. Every art style kinda has its own artistic language and it's not immediate. It needs context and a bit of study. The problem is also how art is exposed, the tourist doesn't get it, but trust me it has value. I'd suggest you to look for expressive artists rather than conceptual. Example Gerhard Richter works are beautiful, you don't really need to "get it", just think of how the combinations of colours and shapes in the paintings make you feel  https://www.gerhard-richter.com/en/...racts-19851989-30/abstract-painting-4824/?p=1
> For the "placebo effect" I think you're saying some critics overrate contemporary art? It depends. Today it happens, but that's because of the art maket which has its own rules based on trends, also critics have sort of "van gogh syndrome", meaning they didn't recognize many geniuses of the past so now they see a little too much genius in some contemporary artists fearing they are missing geniuses (example they overrate Jeff Koons). But if we are talking about guys like Picasso, Mondrian, Kandinskij, Pollock etc., they're not overrated, they were inventing new languages.


For the placebo effect, I meant something like this.

https://www.cbc.ca/documentarychann...or-millions-and-expose-flaws-in-the-venerable

But I'll look into the other stuff you wrote.


----------



## Amadea

Phil loves classical said:


> For the placebo effect, I meant something like this.
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/documentarychann...or-millions-and-expose-flaws-in-the-venerable
> 
> But I'll look into the other stuff you wrote.


Oh, I see, that's a difficult topic. Look at "Leonardo's" Salvator Mundi, they said it was Leonardo Da Vinci, many say Luini or both. It's difficult because there's money and publicity involved, not only psychology. A critic can lie to make money or gain prestige because "he discovered a new painting by X". The art market is complex. It's not about the "objective value" of art, it's about many things, trends, the artist's brand, the interest, dimensions of the work, etc. A Tintoretto portrait sells less than Jeff Koons. That doesn't mean Jeff Koons is more valuable artistically speaking.


----------



## Art Rock

Amadea said:


> Example Gerhard Richter works are beautiful, you don't really need to "get it", just think of how the combinations of colours and shapes in the paintings make you feel


My favourite living fine artist, and one of my favourites of all time, especially for his abstracts and his works in grey scales.


----------



## SanAntone

Amadea said:


> Oh, I see, that's a difficult topic. Look at "Leonardo's" Salvator Mundi, they said it was Leonardo Da Vinci, many say Luini or both. It's difficult because there's money and publicity involved, not only psychology. A critic can lie to make money or gain prestige because "he discovered a new painting by X". The art market is complex. It's not about the "objective value" of art, it's about many things, trends, the artist's brand, the interest, dimensions of the work, etc. A Tintoretto portrait sells less than Jeff Koons. That doesn't mean Jeff Koons is more valuable artistically speaking.


I believe that the experience of art, or music, is a personal response. What is important is not "objective value" so much as the subjective importance to the viewer, listener. Specific "objective value" is a debatable abstract concept, which has no impact on the viewer/listener unless it coincides with a positive subjective response, and may add some background information which might broaden the experience. But I don't think it makes or breaks the experience.


----------



## Enthusiast

I know people who prefer the complete works of Led Zeppelin to the works of Mozart or Modernist composers. Clearly they are wrong. Still it isn't worth arguing even though I suspect that in their hearts they know they are wrong. That knowledge comes with a feeling of inferioirty which is what might lead them into some sort of debate that taste is subjective (which it is ... but so what?) and that there is no objective truth in the choice (which is not so right unless qualified by reference to their mood or their taste). It is a stupid comparison, though.


----------



## Amadea

Enthusiast said:


> I know people who prefer the complete works of Led Zeppelin to the works of Mozart or Modernist composers. Clearly they are wrong. Still it isn't worth arguing even though I suspect that in their hearts they know they are wrong. That knowledge comes with a feeling of inferioirty which is what might lead them into some sort of debate that taste is subjective (which it is ... but so what?) and that there is no objective truth in the choice (which is not so right unless qualified by reference to their mood or their taste). It is a stupid comparison, though.


Yes but you see, that's the point. I might object that Mozart didn't use blues scales therefore he's not as great as Led Zeppelin. You'd say it doesn't make sense, because blues didn't exist in Mozart's times. That's exactly the same with comparing composers of different times like Ligeti and Mozart. Led Zeppelin are worse than Mozart in what aspect? They're different, how are they comparable? They're not. Just like you can't compare Miles Davis and Beethoven. Led Zeppelin are geniuses of hard rock, Mozart is a classical genius. There is also this aspect:


----------



## janxharris

Enthusiast said:


> I know people who prefer the complete works of Led Zeppelin to the works of Mozart or Modernist composers. Clearly they are wrong. Still it isn't worth arguing even though I suspect that in their hearts they know they are wrong. That knowledge comes with a feeling of inferioirty which is what might lead them into some sort of debate that taste is subjective (which it is ... but so what?) and that there is no objective truth in the choice (which is not so right unless qualified by reference to their mood or their taste). It is a stupid comparison, though.


Using 'wrong' as you do is needlessly provocative Enthusiast. Wherefore would you do so?


----------



## Art Rock

Enthusiast said:


> I know people who prefer the complete works of Led Zeppelin to the works of Mozart or Modernist composers. Clearly they are wrong.


How can their personal preference be "wrong"?


----------



## SanAntone

Enthusiast said:


> I know people who prefer the complete works of Led Zeppelin to the works of Mozart or Modernist composers. Clearly they are wrong. Still it isn't worth arguing even though I suspect that in their hearts they know they are wrong. That knowledge comes with a feeling of inferioirty which is what might lead them into some sort of debate that taste is subjective (which it is ... but so what?) and that there is no objective truth in the choice (which is not so right unless qualified by reference to their mood or their taste). It is a stupid comparison, though.


According to you "clearly" 99% of the global music audience is "wrong," since classical music occupies only 1% of the global market. I think your elitism is the single most destructive aspect of classical music. Your classical music supremacy bias drives more people away from it than it might instruct.

Those who do not prefer classical music "don't know they are wrong," in their hearts or elsewhere, but I suspect they know you are a snob.


----------



## Mandryka

Art Rock said:


> How can their personal preference be "wrong"?


Suppose that an evil dictator makes it that either I live or 100000 innocent people die, my choice, and I prefer to live.

Harder to think of a musical example . . . give me time.


----------



## consuono

And away we go. :lol: Clockwork.

Look, folks, give it a rest. If you like music that few like, just keep on liking it and quit trying to "prove" somehow that your tastes are legit. It's really not necessary. Or if you don't like Bach, Mozart et al you don't have to ransack the 'net for references from past luminaries who shared your dislike to bolster your opinion.


----------



## Amadea

consuono said:


> And away we go. :lol: Clockwork.
> 
> Look, folks, give it a rest. If you like music that few like, just keep on liking it and quit trying to "prove" somehow that your tastes are legit. It's really not necessary. Or if you don't like Bach, Mozart et al you don't have to ransack the 'net for references from past luminaries who shared your dislike to bolster your opinion.


I don't like german/austrian 19th century composers except Beethoven, Schubert, Mendelssohn. I find them boring and/or pompous. I love Jimi Hendrix more. Sue me. Ahahah.


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> And away we go. :lol: Clockwork.
> 
> Look, folks, give it a rest. If you like music that few like, just keep on liking it and quit trying to "prove" somehow that your tastes are legit. It's really not necessary. Or if you don't like Bach, Mozart et al you don't have to ransack the 'net for references from past luminaries who shared your dislike to bolster your opinion.


You have defined classical music lovers, i.e. the 1% of people who "like music that few like," so, "quit trying to "prove" somehow that your tastes are legit."


----------



## SanAntone

Bach Nr 12 BWV 881 f-Moll II Das Wohltemperierte Klavier Teil II Sonata Canzona András Schiff






Jem - They


----------



## fbjim

the only valid criteria for music is how much it makes my behind move, meaning that the ghettotech works of DJ Assault are Objectively Superior than that of Mozart, Bach, Handel etc


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> You have defined classical music lovers, i.e. the 1% of people who "like music that few like,"


Where? What makes you so sure I wasn't talking about Max Reger? Lovers of avant garde music are part of an even tinier subset. That's the one I was aiming at, and lovers of such music are the ones who are most anxious and insecure about how their tastes are viewed. I don't have to prove anything. If I'm the only person on the planet that knows Bach's music, it still is what it is.


> so, "quit trying to "prove" somehow that your tastes are legit."


I'm not. You're the one that keeps trotting out that argumentum-ad-numerum-in-reverse as if it's some clever point. "Ninety nine percent of earth hasn't heard of Mozart, so that means they dislike Mozart, so that means Mozart isn't great, so that means there's no such thing as greatness...so there!" Idiotic.


----------



## fbjim

e) wrong thread


----------



## consuono

fbjim said:


> the only valid criteria for music is how much it makes my behind move, meaning that the ghettotech works of DJ Assault are Objectively Superior than that of Mozart, Bach, Handel etc


So what in the world ever brought you to a classical music forum?


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> Where? What makes you so sure I wasn't talking about Max Reger? Lovers of avant garde music are part of an even tinier subset. That's the one I was aiming at, and lovers of such music are the ones who are most anxious and insecure about how their tastes are viewed. I don't have to prove anything. If I'm the only person on the planet that knows Bach's music, it still is what it is.
> 
> I'm not. You're the one that keeps trotting out that argumentum-ad-numerum-in-reverse as if it's some clever point. "Ninety nine percent of earth hasn't heard of Mozart, so that means they dislike Mozart, so that means Mozart isn't great, so that means there's no such thing as greatness...so there!" Idiotic.


I don't "trot" out anything more than you trot out your opinions.

All of my comments are _in response_ to the intolerance expressed by the traditional classical music fans who rail against everything from classical avant-garde to Led Zeppelin. What got my attention in this thread was the comment that anyone who prefers Led Zep to Mozart is "wrong."

It takes two to tango.


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> I don't "trot" out anything more than you trot out your opinions.


Oh, give me a break. That "99% of humanity has never heard of _____" trope is worn out already.


> All of my comments are _in response_ to the intolerance expressed by the traditional classical music fans who rail against everything from classical avant-garde to Led Zeppelin. What got my attention in this thread was the comment that anyone who prefers Led Zep to Mozart is "wrong."
> 
> It takes two to tango.


So it hurt your feelings. Toughen up. Is it "intolerant" if I say I don't like something?


----------



## Jacck

SanAntone said:


> Okay, another phishing scam to solicit comments against 20th century music. It's all been said before, by the same members.


I am starting to believe that the ability to apreciate 20th century music might be in part neurologically conditioned. I already linked you the Nature paper
https://www.nature.com/news/why-dissonant-music-strikes-the-wrong-chord-in-the-brain-1.11791
they basically claim in the paper that a certain subset of people have a condition named "amusia" which leads them not to be able to distinguish between consonant and dissonant music. That might be the reason why to you the 20th century music sounds like any other music, while other people experience it as unpleasant and dissonant.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Jacck said:


> I am starting to believe that the ability to apreciate 20th century music might be in part neurologically conditioned. I already linked you the Nature paper
> https://www.nature.com/news/why-dissonant-music-strikes-the-wrong-chord-in-the-brain-1.11791
> they basically claim in the paper that a certain subset of people have a condition named "amusia" which leads them not to be able to distinguish between consonant and dissonant music. That might be the reason why to you the 20th century music sounds like any other music, while other people experience it as unpleasant and dissonant.


Yeoww, hold on. Someone with amusia, or tone deafness can't tell certain pitches apart, they sound the same, not that they can't tell consonance from dissonance, although the first does lead to the other, they are not equivalent. I believe it's like listening to a Bach fugue, you ignore or accept certain dissonances to get at some underlying movement in voices or harmony. Some can accept more like in 20th century music, while it is a stumbling block to others I believe.


----------



## Jacck

Phil loves classical said:


> Yeoww, hold on. Someone with amusia, or tone deafness can't tell certain pitches apart, they sound the same, not that they can't tell consonance from dissonance, although the first does lead to the other, they are not equivalent. I believe it's like listening to a Bach fugue, you ignore or accept certain dissonances to get at some underlying movement in harmony. Some can accept more like in 20th century music, while it is a stumbling block to others I believe.


_"Yet when Cousineau and colleagues asked amusic subjects to rate the pleasantness of a whole series of intervals, they showed no distinctions between any of the intervals. In contrast, normal-hearing people rated small intervals (minor seconds and major seconds, such as C-D) and large but sub-octave intervals (minor sevenths (C-B flat) and major sevenths (C-B)) as very unpleasant."_

I dont know if the ability to enjoy modern music has some neurological basis, it was just a hypothesis. More research would need to be done to find out. But it is certainly a possibility. But even if there were some neurological basis to it, I am sure that learning would play a big role either. For me, modern music was an acquired taste like beer. Unpleasant at first, but by repeated exposure I got used to it and now I enjoy it occasionally.


----------



## ArtMusic

Amadea said:


> This discussion is a bit pointless if we think about it: Schonberg said Mozart taught him how to write quartets (you can find the interview on youtube), his string quartet n.19 nicknamed "dissonance" predicted Shostakovich and arguably inspired Beethoven's Grosse Fugue (along with Bach of course), Stravinsky is another one who studied Mozart deeply. I think many simply don't know Mozart's works enough, but judge him because of stereotypes. I used to do that too. I dismissed Mozart as not deep enough, now he is one of my favourite composers because he's the opposite of superficial if you know him, expecially compared to his times. Example, listen to Beethoven's favorites, like piano concerto n.20. It might be a surprise for many, but Mozart's late works were considered "too intellectual" in his time, because of the use of chromaticism and dissonances. Mozart fools the listener because he makes you think his music is easy, when you look at it it is not. Anyway, I think perceived intellectualism should not really be the staple to judge the value of art.


Well said, Mozart's music has all the qualities of what is original, subtle, elegant, dramatic (yes, in operas and with operatic aesthetics), sublime and emotionally moving. There is a reason why he is much loved today and why he has never been neglected. I doubt mankind ever will, for the right reason.


----------



## SanAntone

Jacck said:


> I am starting to believe that the ability to apreciate 20th century music might be in part neurologically conditioned. I already linked you the Nature paper
> https://www.nature.com/news/why-dissonant-music-strikes-the-wrong-chord-in-the-brain-1.11791
> they basically claim in the paper that a certain subset of people have a condition named "amusia" which leads them not to be able to distinguish between consonant and dissonant music. That might be the reason why to you the 20th century music sounds like any other music, while other people experience it as unpleasant and dissonant.


I can assure you it is not, my ability to hear music is very well developed. The reason why I like C20/21 music is because I find it very interesting and enjoy the creativity and compositional skill displayed. I am also curious about what composers are writing today and I listen to it with an open mind, without any expectations or judgmentalism.

It might be that those who hear it as unpleasant and dissonant bring limiting expectations to the experience that are detrimental to their enjoyment.


----------



## Jacck

SanAntone said:


> It might be that those who hear it as unpleasant and dissonant bring limiting expectations to the experience that are detrimental to their enjoyment.


that is not my case, I am quite open minded to all kinds of musical and other experiences. But when I listen to something like this




I dont know what I should enjoy in that piece. No matter at what time stamp I click in the video, it sounds the same, like unstructured noise


----------



## SanAntone

Jacck said:


> that is not my case, I am quite open minded to all kinds of musical and other experiences. But when I listen to something like this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont know what I should enjoy in that piece. No matter at what time stamp I click in the video, it sounds the same, like unstructured noise


It is obvious to me that are bringing limiting expectations to the experience. It sounds nothing like unstructured noise to me. There are specific gestures which return in altered form, and he develops his ideas throughout the work. The texture is dynamic, and the work has a beginning, middle and end.


----------



## Amadea

Jacck said:


> that is not my case, I am quite open minded to all kinds of musical and other experiences. But when I listen to something like this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont know what I should enjoy in that piece. No matter at what time stamp I click in the video, it sounds the same, like unstructured noise


Well, as a noise-rock fan, I can tell you some people can enjoy "weird unstructured noise" ahah. This is very anxious though.


----------



## Jacck

SanAntone said:


> It is obvious to me that are bringing limiting expectations to the experience. It sounds nothing like unstructured noise to me. There are specific gestures which return in altered form, and he develops his ideas throughout the work. The texture is dynamic, and the work has a beginning, middle and end.


maybe it is just my extreme prejudice and naivite, but my impression is that it requires no musical skill to write a piece of music like this. Just take violin and fiddle it randomly in violent fits and the music is there. The hardest part is to make it into a notation (this is what all those Ph.Ds are for). Certainly much easier than inventing a good melody.


----------



## fbjim

It's really not too common that I like music like that, but _Tetras_ is one of my favorite quartet works. There's a definite pattern of tension-release and crucially, forward momentum that keeps it exciting- you can get away with so much as long as you maintain that sort of forward momentum.


----------



## SanAntone

Jacck said:


> maybe it is just my extreme prejudice and naivite, but my impression is that it requires no musical skill to write a piece of music like this. Just take violin and fiddle it randomly in violent fits and the music is there. The hardest part is to make it into a notation (this is what all those Ph.Ds are for). Certainly much easier than inventing a good melody.


It is presumptuous of you to think it requires no skill. How can you say you came to this work with an open mind? You are filled with assumptions and judgmentalism.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

Mozart vs. Modernism doesn't exist in my mind and I'm a happy guy! I love Mozart (my favorite forever) and I love modernism (for over 30 years).


----------



## Jacck

Amadea said:


> Well, as a noise-rock fan, I can tell you some people can enjoy "weird unstructured noise" ahah. This is very anxious though.


noise-rock is mostly not just noise. I dont know what kind of noise rock you listen to, but for example Melt-Banana combines the noise with a lot of melody





Ferneyhough is much worse. Maybe Merzbow is like Ferneyhough


----------



## Amadea

Jacck said:


> noise-rock is mostly not just noise. I dont know what kind of noise rock you listen to, but for example Melt-Banana combines the noise with a lot of melody
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ferneyhough is much worse. Maybe Merzbow is like Ferneyhough


They do not really have melody, expecially Merzbow. And it doesn't sound "structured". At least not in a conventional way. To make a comparison, Velvet Underground have melody.


----------



## Bwv 1080

Jacck said:


> that is not my case, I am quite open minded to all kinds of musical and other experiences. But when I listen to something like this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont know what I should enjoy in that piece. No matter at what time stamp I click in the video, it sounds the same, like unstructured noise


great piece. It's a very structured series of gestures, juxtaposing several different kinds of material


----------



## Bwv 1080

So I like Mozart and modernism, less so all that stuff in between


----------



## Phil loves classical

Bwv 1080 said:


> So I like Mozart and modernism, less so all that stuff in between


Hmm, interesting. I think I'm in the same boat.


----------



## Jacck

Bwv 1080 said:


> great piece. It's a very structured series of gestures, juxtaposing several different kinds of material


you call it gestures, I call it violent fits of random fiddling that someone drunk and angry and with no ability to produce music would play on a violin. I am sorry, I just dont get the point of this music at all, nor do I see any esthetic value in it.


----------



## Amadea

Jacck said:


> you call it gestures, I call it violent fits of random fiddling that someone drunk and angry and with no ability to produce music would play on a violin. I am sorry, I just dont get the point of this music at all, nor do I see any esthetic value in it.


I think the point is the oddity and trying to defy the limits imposed by centuries of aesthetic rules, or even to express anxiety or certain feelings.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Jacck said:


> you call it gestures, I call it violent fits of random fiddling that someone drunk and angry and with no ability to produce music would play on a violin. I am sorry, I just dont get the point of this music at all, nor do I see any esthetic value in it.


It's not really that odd or crazy new. It's only written for a higher register than used normally in the 20th C. It's really chromatic and not that atonal. Check out this clip that illustrates it in a more conventional sense. I slowed it down and adjusted the pitches lower (and took out some of the long pauses which get even longer). It's not something that different from Bartok.


----------



## Jacck

Amadea said:


> I think the point is the oddity and trying to defy the limits imposed by centuries of aesthetic rules, or even to express anxiety or certain feelings.


that might have been so during the time of Schoenberg. Then it was novel and they (the second viennese school and their copycats) likely believed that they are breaking new ground in music. But nowadays, the music has been so deconstructed and rid of all of elements such as melody, structure, harmony, tonality etc, that what is left are mere sounds. And there is no more progress in this direction possible, there is nothing left to deconstruct. So someone has to start constructing music again, ie rediscover the wheel. The same happened in all of arts. This music is the equivalent of Pollock, of whom I have a similar opinion as of Ferneyhough, ie he was drunk and randomly squirted paint on the floor and then called it art. (a 5 year old can produce better art). This process of deconstruction has reached its limits. Music is bordering on noise, painings do not look like paintings but like random splatches of color etc. And the biggest problem I see is that it is impossible to tell what is good art and what is bad art in this situation, because about any piece of crap you can say that it is the artistic expression of the author and that you just dont understand it, if you dont like it.


----------



## Amadea

Jacck said:


> that might have been so during the time of Schoenberg. Then it was novel and they (the second viennese school and their copycats) likely believed that they are breaking new ground in music. But nowadays, the music has been so deconstructed and rid of all of elements such as melody, structure, harmony, tonality etc, that what is left are mere sounds. And there is no more progress in this direction possible, there is nothing left to deconstruct. So someone has to start constructing music again, ie rediscover the wheel. The same happened in all of arts. This music is the equivalent of Pollock, of whom I have a similar opinion as of Ferneyhough, ie he was drunk and randomly squirted paint on the floor and then called it art. (a 5 year old can produce better art). This process of deconstruction has reached its limits. Music is bordering on noise, painings do not look like paintings but like random splatches of color etc. And the biggest problem I see is that it is impossible to tell what is good art and what is bad art in this situation, because about any piece of crap you can say that it is the artistic expression of the author and that you just dont understand it, if you dont like it.


While I do agree we should move on in other directions instead of being stuck (but it seems to me we are already, am I wrong?), I disagree on your view of music and art. Who said music has to be beautiful, has to "make sense" the way You think it should make sense, those are strong limits to any art. I do not really like Picasso, Pollock is not my favorite, but I do get them and I respect them and think their fame is deserved. What would you say to someone who doesn't like Merzbow because "it's just nonsense noise"? You would say "you don't get the point". How do you measure if an artist is good though? You put him into context, expecially the historical context. So, you understand you need different canons to judge different arts/music, because they're exactly like different languages. You can't judge Mozart with the canons for Miles Davis right? Two different things. So, you try to get what the language is about, so you can translate it. After that, you compare the artist/composer with the others in the same area. You compare Pollock to the other abstract artists, and what do you discover? That Pollock is not only innovative because he discovered a new way to express certain feelings (a new language), but he's the best in that. You look at many other paintings with dripping made by other artists, experts and amateurs, and you notice that: they have not the same control of Pollock, they do not have the same homogeneity, they do not have the same balance (some talk of "classicism" in Pollock), you notice Pollock's lines are elegant compared to others, his works are more layered, his works are more complex from every point of view, even in the choice of colours. But you do get it only when you compare and abandon your stereotypes about what art should be. I do not know Ferneyhough enough, I do not "get him", but if he's respected, there's probably more than we can hear. Does that mean we should be stuck there? No of course, but that's a different problem. I know it's annoying when someone tells you "you don't get it", but that's true for many types of music/arts. Also, from a practical point of view, a bird singing is making music, a child drawing is making art. That does not mean their "works" should belong to a museum, but that's something studies on the subject can determine. Pollock was (and still is) studied by many. We can't assume they're all idiots.


----------



## Enthusiast

Amadea said:


> You'd say it doesn't make sense, because blues didn't exist in Mozart's times. That's exactly the same with comparing composers of different times like Ligeti and Mozart.


Thanks for your response but please don't try to tell me what I would think. I doubt you could imagine what goes on in my head!


----------



## Enthusiast

SanAntone said:


> According to you "clearly" 99% of the global music audience is "wrong," since classical music occupies only 1% of the global market. I think your elitism is the single most destructive aspect of classical music. Your classical music supremacy bias drives more people away from it than it might instruct.
> 
> Those who do not prefer classical music "don't know they are wrong," in their hearts or elsewhere, but I suspect they know you are a snob.


Personally, I find getting so upset about whimsical comments to be more elitist. Who cares, anyway, what I think? I merely try to describe what I feel in my head. I suspect many others here probably _feel _the same - I could be wrong - but all this handwringing about something that doesn't matter gets in the way of their expressing their own feelings. In this way the subjectivists squash the subjective experience of those who would post here!


----------



## Enthusiast

Art Rock said:


> How can their personal preference be "wrong"?


I've probably answered that in my two responses above? If, that is, the rest of my post (which you chose not to quote) did not do so for you.

Essentially I would like to move the endlessly circular discussions of objective vs subjective on to more fertile and interesting ground. Whether or not art works have an inherent value and whether the value of one can be compared with that of another is the stuff of art criticism - a subject with a long history of rich discussions - and I don't think we should magic it away.


----------



## Amadea

Enthusiast said:


> Thanks for your response but please don't try to tell me what I would think. I doubt you could imagine what goes on in my head!


You are right. I made that assumption because I imagined you would use a logical argument. My bad, I apologize.


----------



## Kreisler jr

It is not obvious that it works in aesthetics, but personal preferences can be quite obviously wrong. E.g. personal preferences for some foods very popular in the Western world, for smoking, for certain other chemicals, for reckless driving etc. are all insofar wrong as they are dangerous for one's health (and sometimes others). Most societies think that there should be at least recommendations if not legal measures against some such preferences.
Until very recently it was quite common to accept that there were other fun things not innocuous, e.g. porn (if needed, replace with types of porn still illegal and frowned upon), some sexual practices, gambling, cockfights, dogfights etc. Sure, there is an ethical dimension that is apparently absent in aesthetics. But one could still argue that by indulging in or cultivating slightly milder aesthetic analogues of junk food or violent porn movies was bad for one's mental health/character/soul, whatever. I am not saying that these are *obvious* analogies. But as most of us are still queasy with some kind of transgressive art (from horror, pornography etc.) they may not be quite as far-fetched as it appears.


----------



## Amadea

Kreisler jr said:


> It is not obvious that it works in aesthetics, but personal preferences can be quite obviously wrong. E.g. personal preferences for some foods very popular in the Western world, for smoking, for certain other chemicals, for reckless driving etc. are all insofar wrong as they are dangerous for one's health (and sometimes others). Most societies think that there should be at least recommendations if not legal measures against some such preferences.
> Until very recently it was quite common to accept that there were other fun things not innocuous, e.g. porn (if needed, replace with types of porn still illegal and frowned upon), some sexual practices, gambling, cockfights, dogfights etc. Sure, there is an ethical dimension that is apparently absent in aesthetics. But one could still argue that by indulging in or cultivating slightly milder aesthetic analogues of junk food or violent porn movies was bad for one's mental health/character/soul, whatever. I am not saying that these are *obvious* analogies. But as most of us are still queasy with some kind of transgressive art (from horror, pornography etc.) they may not be quite as far-fetched as it appears.


How does this connect with the preference for Led Zeppelin over Mozart? How is that "wrong"? It's like saying "jazz corrupts young people". I do see nothing wrong in liking Led Zeppelin or weird modern music. Of course, one might object listening to Webern or Ligeti or Xenakis full time drives crazy, but I doubt people do that.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ Preference probably cannot be right or wrong. It might involve missing out on something, though.


----------



## Amadea

Enthusiast said:


> ^ Preference probably cannot be right or wrong. It might involve missing out on something, though.


I absolutely agree, that's why I try to never limit myself with prejudice over any musical genre (not even rap, which could be better, if only they knew how to use rhythm like the africans...).


----------

