# the shoulds



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

What are "the shoulds" for classical music listeners?

(These "shoulds" are of course meant as guides to polite social behavior, not equivalent to the Terms of Service of this site, which have the internet's equivalent to the force of law. These are merely my suggestions, and I have absolutely no affiliation with the moderators of this site!)

For example, I propose:

1. A classical music listener should be familiar, or be becoming familiar ASAFP, with the instruments used in classical music, especially the most common ones. It is not too much to ask every listener to be able to identify each instrument based on hearing a few seconds of typical playing. Failure to do so will result in scorn from certain other classical music listeners.

2. A classical music listener should be familiar, or be becoming familiar ASAFP, with the great works (in all forms: symphonies, concertos, sonatas, operas, masses, whatever) of the great composers, as defined by tradition and expert near-consensus, of every era from medieval to contemporary. Perhaps it is too much to ask every listener to be able to identify any of these works from hearing any particular minute or so of the music, but that would nevertheless be ideal. Failure to do so will result in scorn from certain other classical music listeners.

3. To clarify: a classical music listener should be familiar, or be becoming familiar ASAFP, with the great works of the great composers, as defined by tradition and expert near-consensus, including those of the past half century, particularly composers who are still living. Failure to do so will result in scorn from certain other classical music listeners. Listeners can safely neglect the Medieval and Renaissance periods, but listeners familiar with the great works of those periods will be rewarded with special respect by certain other classical music listeners.

4. A classical music listener, regardless of his or her personal tastes or preferences, should express unqualified respect for the great works of the great composers of all eras (as defined of course by tradition and expert near-consensus), unless he or she is truly a world-class expert capable of analyzing and evaluating such works in their historical and theoretical contexts. Perhaps it is too much to ask every listener to understand and enjoy all those works, but at least they should refrain from critical comment if they don't. Anyone speaking about classical music should evince a deference proportional to the speaker's ignorance. Failure to do so will result in scorn from certain other classical music listeners.

5. Similarly, a classical music listener, regardless of his or her personal tastes or preferences, should NOT express too much respect for certain works which have been deemed unworthy of such respect by by tradition and expert near-consensus - light music, pops, popera, crossover, and the like - unless he or she is truly a world-class expert capable of analyzing and evaluating such works in their historical and theoretical contexts. Perhaps it is too much to ask every listener NOT to enjoy all those works, but at least they should refrain from effusive praise if they do. Not doing so will result in scorn from certain other classical music listeners.

6. A classical music listener should also be familiar, or be becoming familiar ASAP, with a number of rather less great composers, "off the beaten path" music of any era, and should express some enthusiasm for some of those works. However, unless he or she is truly a world-class expert capable of analyzing and evaluating such works in their historical and theoretical contexts, the listener should contain his or or enthusiasm for such composers within the limits stated in other "shoulds." Failure to do so will result in scorn from certain other classical music listeners.

7. A classical music listener should attend live music performances regularly. Failure to do so will result in scorn from certain other classical music listeners. Failure to do so for financial reasons will result in a mercifully unspoken excommunication from the community of classical music listeners. Conversely, attendance at particularly famous venues will result in greater respect from certain other classical music listeners. Personal relationships with famous composers or performers will also result in greater respect from certain other classical music listeners. Name-dropping, however, must be done very sensitively: no one, even a classical music listener, likes boasting.

8. A classical music listener should be familiar, or be becoming familiar ASAP, with famous recordings of the works included above, including both early recordings and very recent recordings, from major labels and the so-called "indie" labels of classical music. Failure to do so will result in scorn from certain other classical music listeners.

9. A classical music listener should be familiar, or be becoming familiar ASAP, with the basic historical context of those compositions and recordings, and with some of the biographical details of the most famous composers and performers. Failure to do so will result in scorn from certain other classical music listeners. However, such information should not be confused with the kind of theoretical and historical analysis required to permit one to express critical opinions of the great works of the great composers.

10. A classical music listener should also be familiar, or be becoming familiar ASAP, with the proper pronunciation of the names of the famous works, famous composers, and famous performers. Failure to do so will result in scorn from certain other classical music listeners.

11. A classical music listener should have at least some respect and familiarity with the most widely esteemed music of other traditions, especially jazz, Indian classical music, and gamelan. Failure to do so will result in scorn from certain other classical music listeners.

12. A classical music listener (like fans of any art) should never admit to following the suggestions of tradition or expert consensus. He or she must always, explicitly, and forcefully deny the conformity and obedience required by these "shoulds." He or she must always maintain the fiction, preferably with complete sincerity, that his or her "tastes" correspond so nearly to tradition and expert consensus either by mere coincidence or, better, by virtue of his or her knowledge no nearly corresponding to that of tradition and experts. Failure to do so will result in scorn from certain other classical music listeners.

That's a good rough draft. But I assume I've overlooked something, or misunderstood something, so I have no doubt that with your input improvements can be made.

Afterword: This thread has some similarity to THE RULES (a thread for fun). That thread, however, was meant in jest, and this one is serious. I know that we as a society are so unused to honest evaluation of such issues - tied in as they are to social status, perhaps the single greatest conversational taboo in our supposedly democratic cultures - that it is hard to believe anyone would seriously address them outside of academic contexts (in which violating conversational taboos is regarded as virtuous) or internal discussions of corporate or political marketing strategies (where nondisclosure agreements are ubiquitous). If these "shoulds" annoyed you, you apparently do not like having this taboo violated. Nevertheless, I am doing so because I believe that this could serve as a useful guide to which we can refer people whose violations offend us.

If you do not think these are actually the "shoulds," then please offer corrections. In fact, I sincerely hope we can discover and discuss the "shoulds" together.

If you do not think any "shoulds" actually exist, please note "should" #12, which I regard - and will continue to regard, unless you can offer an alternative, mutually exclusive, and convincing explanation of the behavior of people discussing classical music - as encompassing all "blanket denials" of the existence, or of knowledge of the existence, of any "shoulds."


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

What's the point of #8? There are quality recordings that aren't famous. If I'm happy with the recording, why do I need to know the "famous" ones? Or is it not about listening to the music itself, but about being familiar famous stuff?


----------



## Richard8655 (Feb 19, 2016)

All due respect to this list of well thought-out requirements of classical music knowledge.

I would say this list applies best to classical music students, not the universe of general listeners. Many listeners are actually turned off by perceived rules that in the end discourages them. Of course it's always good to know the background. But listening, per se, can simply be enjoyment of any classical music one might hear with no strings attached.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

GreenMamba said:


> What's the point of #8? There are quality recordings that aren't famous. If I'm happy with the recording, why do I need to know the "famous" ones? Or is it not about listening to the music itself, but about being familiar famous stuff?


Do you really think no one is going to care if you don't know Kleiber's Beethoven 5 or Hilary Hahn's Schoenberg concerto or Callas's Tosca? _Someone_ is gong to judge you.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Richard8655 said:


> All due respect to this list of well thought-out requirements of classical music knowledge.
> 
> I would say this list applies best to classical music students, not the universe of general listeners. *Many listeners are actually turned off by perceived rules that in the end discourages them.* Of course it's always good to know the background. But listening, per se, can simply be enjoyment of any classical music one might hear with no strings attached.


Most of this post amounts to a denial that any shoulds apply to listeners, which I addressed in the OP. The part in bold belies that by admitting that these shoulds discourage listeners, and that does raise an interesting issue. I agree completely that the social dynamics I'm trying to enumerate turn many people off to classical music.

So my question would be, is that discouragement intentional or accidental?

I believe it's intentional.

We intend to communicate to less experienced or less committed listeners that they had better know their place in our implicit hierarchy of listeners - that is, to be clear, _below us_ - and until they are more experienced and/or more committed we are not going to respect them very much. If they choose instead simply to give up, our judgment is only the more severe, and our satisfaction the more complete.


----------



## Antiquarian (Apr 29, 2014)

You have put in writing what many of us in the classical music listening community already subconsciously acknowledge. However, scorn is never a good thing if it discourages fledgling listeners from pursuing the discipline necessary for proper enjoyment of this milieu. If the words "genuine concern" were to be substituted for "scorn", I would more readily accept this sort of framework. However, human nature being what it is, it seems unlikely that concern is going to supplant scorn any time soon. The rules delineated above, though full of the probity that is the hallmark of our community, throw into full light the problems that we will have in engaging the interest of the portion of society receptive to this kind of music. Is it intentional? I think it is, and this makes me sad. Nice post.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Outside of science, the word "should" is almost always followed by a value judgement.

I support the right for any lover of music to listen to whatever they want, with as much or as little related knowledge as they like. I place no "shoulds" on them, and I will happily ignore any they place on me.


----------



## Guest (Apr 21, 2016)

KenOC said:


> Outside of science, the word "should" is almost always followed by a value judgement.


science posted it.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Is your premise here that these shoulds exist, always will, there's nothing we can do about it, and so you want to warn newcomers about them? This seems fatalistic to me.

I also don't think things are quite as bad as you do. There are large gaps in my knowledge and I've never received scorn for them - not here and _certainly_ not in real life.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Sorry, Science. There are no "shoulds" in my world view. People should do what they feel is best for them and stay out of others' pursuits unless invited. That's the only one I can acknowledge.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

science said:


> Do you really think no one is going to care if you don't know Kleiber's Beethoven 5 or Hilary Hahn's Schoenberg concerto or Callas's Tosca? _Someone_ is gong to judge you.


Sure, but should they?

Someone out there will likely judge you (perhaps quietly) if you dislike their favorite composer, whoever that may be.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

If you change the "shoulds" into "musts," I think this list could replace our current Terms of Service. Some of us will have a lot of studying to do, but at least we'll then be able to go on digressive political rants and use swear words.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

nathanb said:


> science posted it.


I use the word "science" in its more usual sense. "If the two particles interact, we should see a secondary particle ejected..." That sort of should.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

science said:


> *Do you really think no one is going to care if you don't know * Kleiber's Beethoven 5 or Hilary Hahn's Schoenberg concerto or *Callas's Tosca? Someone is gong to judge you.*


Not necessarily.

One might not even 'notice' them.


----------



## D Smith (Sep 13, 2014)

I'm skeptical of rules and people telling me what I should or should not do. So I'll pass thanks and keep on enjoying classical music


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

isorhythm said:


> Is your premise here that these shoulds exist, always will, there's nothing we can do about it, and so you want to warn newcomers about them? This seems fatalistic to me.
> 
> I also don't think things are quite as bad as you do. There are large gaps in my knowledge and I've never received scorn for them - not here and _certainly_ not in real life.


Yes, it is fatalistic.

I suspect that the "large gaps" in your listening are gaps from a fairly elite POV - you know Beethoven's fifth and Brahms's fourth symphony and Bach's Mass in B minor and so on, but you mean that you don't know something like, oh, maybe Schubert's D. 664 sonata or Rossini's string sonatas or Baroque zarzuelas.

I also suspect that you've usually acknowledged the large gaps and stated an aspiration to remedy them, and humility always preempts scorn.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

KenOC said:


> Outside of science, the word "should" is almost always followed by a value judgement.
> 
> I support the right for any lover of music to listen to whatever they want, with as much or as little related knowledge as they like. I place no "shoulds" on them, and I will happily ignore any they place on me.





Weston said:


> Sorry, Science. There are no "shoulds" in my world view. People should do what they feel is best for them and stay out of others' pursuits unless invited. That's the only one I can acknowledge.


Even if you are accurately characterizing your response to other listeners, you aren't accurately characterizing the most vocal responses to other listeners.



D Smith said:


> I'm skeptical of rules and people telling me what I should or should not do. So I'll pass thanks and keep on enjoying classical music


Best of luck to you!


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Let's not be fatalistic, then. I don't think it's too high a bar. There's no reason anyone should be scorned for any of the things you listed. Let's not do it.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

science said:


> Yes, it is fatalistic.
> 
> I suspect that the "large gaps" in your listening are gaps from *a fairly elite POV* - you know Beethoven's fifth and Brahms's fourth symphony and Bach's Mass in B minor and so on, but you mean that you don't know something like, oh, maybe Schubert's D. 664 sonata or Rossini's string sonatas or Baroque zarzuelas.
> 
> I also suspect that you've usually acknowledged the large gaps and stated an aspiration to remedy them, and humility always preempts scorn.


Why fear elitism?

Embrace it.

Worship it.

Be it.

_Excellence.

Excellence.

Excellence. _


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

*


KenOC said:



Outside of science, the word "should" is almost always followed by a value judgement.

Click to expand...

*There's no such thing as a scientific 'ought.'

Science merely analyzes and describes.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Why fear elitism?
> 
> Embrace it.
> 
> ...


Like you do, I guess?

Are you really what you pretend to be?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Marschallin Blair said:


> *
> 
> There's no such thing as a scientific 'ought.'
> 
> Science merely analyzes and describes.*


*

As you know, Ken's "ought" was a prediction. As you know, science does make predictions.

Why be so obscurantist?

Congratulations on derailing another thread.*


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

I accept the rules imposed by board management.:tiphat:


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Bulldog said:


> I accept the rules imposed by board management.:tiphat:


You'd better! We'd all better!

But to be clear again, I have no affiliation with them. I aspire to describe the "shoulds" implicit in the classical music listening community, not to prescribe anything.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Just because there might be "shoulds" in the community doesn't mean that you have to pay them any attention.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Bulldog said:


> Just because there might be "shoulds" in the community doesn't mean that you have to pay them any attention.


It does unless I'm willing to pay the penalty for violating them.

And after all, I did violate #12, and sure enough, here you are enforcing it.


----------



## Guest (Apr 21, 2016)

KenOC said:


> I use the word "science" in its more usual sense. "If the two particles interact, we should see a secondary particle ejected..." That sort of should.


Well sure, but who's to say science isn't science?


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

science said:


> It does unless I'm willing to pay the penalty for violating them.


What's the penalty?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

nathanb said:


> Well sure, but who's to say science isn't science?


Come to think of it, I phrased the "shoulds" in a predictive way too. We can regard every violation as an experiment to see if they hold, and if not, we can revise our predictions or, in the extreme, shift our paradigm.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Bulldog said:


> What's the penalty?


As stated in the OP, scorn.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

science said:


> It does unless I'm willing to pay the penalty for violating them.
> 
> And after all, I did violate #12, and sure enough, here you are enforcing it.


Bulldog is no sense scorning you. He's disagreeing with you.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

science said:


> As stated in the OP, scorn.


You can handle any and all scorn. Just remember the source of it.


----------



## Casebearer (Jan 19, 2016)

I don't mind the word 'should' or 'must'. That's just semantics. I interpret that as just a strong way of conveying personal opinions. In fact I even like that and don't feel threatened by that at all.

What I don't like is that these shoulds are turned into a set of rules to subscribe and adhere to to become members of an elitist club. I have no problem with being elitist. It's the club-element I don't like. It reminds me of fascists, communists or Masonic Lodges or any other 'we'-group that sets itself apart as superhumans from the rest of the world. I don't need the rest of you to be a superhuman, ha ha! So *should* you.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

*


science said:



Like you do, I guess?

Are you really what you pretend to be?

Click to expand...

*No, I'm far more fierce than my inarticulate blonde self lets on.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

*


isorhythm said:



Bulldog is no sense scorning you. He's disagreeing with you.

Click to expand...

*
The right to agree is never in dispute.

Its the right to 'disagree' which is fundamental.

That's why authoritarian mindsets always try to blur the distinction between the two.


----------



## Autocrat (Nov 14, 2014)

I'm confused. I listened to Hahn playing Schoenberg just this morning - should I actively look for opportunities to scorn others or should I just wait around for someone to heap scorn on me?

Just asking.


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

Autocrat said:


> I'm confused. I listened to Hahn playing Schoenberg just this morning - should I actively look for opportunities to scorn others or should I just wait around for someone to heap scorn on me?
> 
> Just asking.


Just a second...what kind of soundsystem do you have?

What?! That kind?!

<scoff> It's like you haven't even heard the album, then.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

The Shoulds sounds like a punk rock group.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

isorhythm said:


> Bulldog is no sense scorning you. He's disagreeing with you.


Bulldog has expressed scorn for me on enough occasions that he can afford to play gentle with me this time.


----------



## Guest (Apr 21, 2016)

science said:


> Bulldog has expressed scorn for me on enough occasions that he can afford to play gentle with me this time.


Don't feel special on that note, science!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

starthrower said:


> The Shoulds sounds like a punk rock group.


Sam the Sham and the Shoulds?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

SimonNZ said:


> Just a second...what kind of soundsystem do you have?
> 
> What?! That kind?!
> 
> <scoff> It's like you haven't even heard the album, then.


Oh, good point. I totally omitted that issue. I don't understand the dynamics of the audiophile thing to articulate the should for it, but a later draft will have to include them!


----------



## Guest (Apr 21, 2016)

science said:


> Oh, good point. I totally omitted that issue. I don't understand the dynamics of the audiophile thing to articulate the should for it, but a later draft will have to include them!


I remember a very prominent poster once arguing that people that listened in lower bitrates weren't actually listening in the first place.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Marschallin Blair said:


> The right to agree is never in dispute.
> 
> Its the right to 'disagree' which is fundamental.
> 
> That's why authoritarian mindsets always try to blur the distinction between the two.


Yes, I'm very authoritarian.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

nathanb said:


> Don't feel special on that note, science!


Just to be clear, it doesn't actually bother me, and I shouldn't have allowed that to come up in this thread.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I stumbled on this thread at 11:15 PM, after a long, tiring day. The minute I saw the word "should" I knew that I should be in bed.

Maybe in the state of clarity induced by my morning coffee I will see what "should" has to do with the enjoyment of music.

G'night.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> I stumbled on this thread at 11:15 PM, after a long, tiring day. The minute I saw the word "should" I knew that I should be in bed.
> 
> Maybe in the state of clarity induced by my morning coffee I will see what "should" has to do with the enjoyment of music.
> 
> G'night.


Well, you appear to understand Should #12 in your current condition!


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Well....this is awkward. I was already striving toward most the goals mentioned in the OP 

Except for the recording thing...not that interested in the "various recordings" aspect of Classical Music at this moment in time.


----------



## Meyerbeer Smith (Mar 25, 2016)

So much here I wholeheartedly disagree with!

Here are mine:

You should listen to what you enjoy and enjoy what you listen to.
You should not listen to music simply for snob cachet.
You should develop your own tastes and should feel free to express your views.
You should explore music (and everything else! ).
You shouldn't set up barriers to people enjoying music (or anything else!). You shouldn't divide the world into true fans and the unwashed masses, or say that only true fans/listeners do this, that or t'other.
You should suggest music that you liked because you think other people will like it too. Hey, you like Beethoven? Awesome! Have you heard Mahler or Berlioz? They wrote some cool tunes. You might like them. Not "you should listen to Footmangler's rendition of the 5th, cos you're an inferior person if you haven't".
You should use guides as recommendations - - more like guidelines than actual rules.


----------



## Guest (Apr 21, 2016)

Bulldog said:


> I accept the rules imposed by board management.:tiphat:


You goddam **** licker.


----------



## Guest (Apr 21, 2016)

I can't see this level of commentary lasting long, so milk it while you can!!!!


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

science said:


> What are "the shoulds" for classical music listeners?


Though I have no doubt that these "shoulds" exist in some form (personally I don't live by them), I think you're conflating too many sets of listeners to produce a monolith that doesn't actually exist.
For instance, #8 - I don't think there's a huge overlap between people who are interested in the "classic" recordings of the major labels and those who support the indies (obviously, there _is_ an overlap, but it won't be anywhere close to 100% unless Gould, Callas et al are resurrected and start recording for Hyperion). And #11 - respect for jazz or Asian music? so soft racism is dead now?
Moreover, I suspect that the ground on which many of these "shoulds" stand is getting a little shakier by the year. People can come to classical music from so many different directions these days that it's harder to control who gets in - harder even to know who's in.


----------



## Guest (Apr 21, 2016)

Nereffid said:


> Moreover, I suspect that the ground on which many of these "shoulds" stand is getting a little shakier by the year. People can come to classical music from so many different directions these days that it's harder to control who gets in - harder even to know who's in.


It's a club hardly worth joining! Would Groucho?

Perhaps if the ToS required a recent full length photo as part of our public profile? Or would that just open a new front for the scorn?


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Life is too short. If I followed Science's prescriptions.I wouldn't have time for other things that make it worth living -- art, literature, theater, walking in the woods, playing with grandchildren, trying to understand quantum mechanics . . .


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

I just read through this thread for the first time. I'm not sure whether any of it is to be taken seriously. After another 15 seconds of thought, I think I won't.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

If one esteems highly the music of a composer generally thought to be 2nd tier or less, they should still always have a sense of the inferiority relative to the 1st tier greats. With ranking in general, you are obliged to scorn it heavily in general because we are not sport's fans, but please remember that Richard Strauss is at core empty and without substance relative to Mahler, Bach is infinitely superior to Handel, Shostakovich is a 2nd rater looming far too large in the classical music scene, and Cage is greater. Your idiosyncratic personal opinions only have the possibility of value in ranking when you are talking of 20/21st century composers.


----------



## Guest (Apr 21, 2016)

SimonTemplar said:


> So much here I wholeheartedly disagree with!
> 
> Here are mine:
> 
> ...


Yeah but I already do these so it'd make a redundant thread.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Science, I "should" imagine you are having a laugh. 

In fact, should this thread not have started on April 1st?


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

science said:


> What are "the shoulds" for classical music listeners?
> 
> (These "shoulds" are of course meant as guides to polite social behavior, not equivalent to the Terms of Service of this site, which have the internet's equivalent to the force of law. These are merely my suggestions, and I have absolutely no affiliation with the moderators of this site!)
> 
> ...


 I apologize as a relative latecomer to this thread. And obviously I must have missed something. So I have to ask: Who died and put you in charge?


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

I don't really believe in "shoulds", especially when it's what other people think I should do.


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

There are no "shoulds" or "scorn" (responding to both science's OP and KenOC's thread).

Mahlerian and I have overwhelmingly been interested in getting facts straight about what's in Schoenberg. People interpret that as criticism of taste, but "Schoenberg has no melodies" is a statement as false as "The Holocaust didn't happen" or "1+1=3 for the un-modded integers". There's melody, phrase, goal of line, progression of harmony, primary and secondary chords, cadences, and it's all in a published score regardless of whether one wants to acknowledge it. To Mahlerian and I, "Schoenberg has no melodies" is a syntactical statement, not a taste statement. It is responded to in the same way if someone would say "Potassium-argon dating of geological rock sample proves that the world is 4000 years old". So there's no scorn at all. Merely factual demonstration.

As far as "second tier composers" v.s. "first tier composers" mentioned by clavichorder, just because Mahlerian likes Schoenberg over Shostakovitch doesn't mean that it's required that you do the same, or anyone else do the same. Taste is neutral. And if Mahlerian provides musicological reasons for his like of Schoenberg over Shostakovitch, even if those reasons have a musicological basis, that still doesn't mean that he's scorning, even implicitly, those who prefer Shostakovitch.

I view the "scorn" idea as highly, highly, unfair to Mahlerian or the more modern-leaning/informed members here. It's clear from the OP that someone is doing some scorning, if not them, then who? Who is the enemy here?


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

SeptimalTritone said:


> As far as "second tier composers" v.s. "first tier composers" mentioned by clavichorder, just because Mahlerian likes Schoenberg over Shostakovitch doesn't mean that it's required that you do the same, or anyone else do the same. Taste is neutral. And if Mahlerian provides musicological reasons for his like of Schoenberg over Shostakovitch, even if those reasons have a musicological basis, that still doesn't mean that he's scorning, even implicitly, those who prefer Shostakovitch.
> 
> I view the "scorn" idea as highly, highly, unfair to Mahlerian or the more modern-leaning/informed members here. It's clear from the OP that someone is doing some scorning, if not them, then who? Who is the enemy here?


Mahlerian have never been much for attacking music he don´t like and he have always been clear that he likes the music that he likes because he think it is beautiful for that I respect him a lot. I can also say that Mahlerian have led at least me to discover some fine music I would not have known of otherwise.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Triplets said:


> I apologize as a relative latecomer to this thread. And obviously I must have missed something. So I have to ask: Who died and put you in charge?


Science is not seeking to impose these shoulds on anyone and does not believe himself to be in charge of anything. He is codifying the unwritten standards he believes to be operating in the interactions on TC and other fora whether anyone wishes to acknowledge them or not. Failing to attain any of them can result in the unleashing of scorn by other members. Note, my interpretation of Science's intentions has no Scientific basis and has not been endorsed by Science or his representatives.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

SeptimalTritone said:


> I view the "scorn" idea as highly, highly, unfair to Mahlerian or the more modern-leaning/informed members here. It's clear from the OP that someone is doing some scorning, if not them, then who? Who is the enemy here?


Probably me, I've been a little more aggressive than usual lately.


----------



## Dedalus (Jun 27, 2014)

All of these shoulds just seem like good suggestions for anybody who wants to learn about classical music. Almost of all of them are things that I do already. Things like learning about instruments, learning the most famous pieces, the most famous performers, learning the background about pieces. This is all just stuff that seems fun to me to learn and is part of music exploration as I perceive the hobby.

However 4, 5, and 12 don't fit into this category. I barely understand 12, and insofar as I do it just seems like something to throw in the face of those who disagree with the list. It's like the list's built in immune system against criticism. As for 4 and 5, I just think it's obvious that you can say a warhorse sucks, or that a commonly disparaged piece is much greater than the consensus gives it credit for. There's nothing wrong with that in any particular instance, in fact, I think hearing an uncommon opinion can at least make you think, even if it doesn't change your mind.

Edit: scorn, respect, honor, or anything like that doesn't enter into my calculus of what to listen to, learn, and like.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Dedalus said:


> All of these shoulds just seem like good suggestions for anybody who wants to learn about classical music. Almost of all of them are things that I do already. Things like learning about instruments, learning the most famous pieces, the most famous performers, learning the background about pieces. This is all just stuff that seems fun to me to learn and is part of music exploration as I perceive the hobby.


This is what I was thinking. I don't understand why anyone on this forum would be obstinately against the idea of listening to all the composers considered great at the moment, for instance.


----------



## Guest (Apr 22, 2016)

Just to be clear, I'm in this whole classical music thing for the chicks, and the shoulds will make me more appealing in that category, right?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

EdwardBast said:


> Science is not seeking to impose these shoulds on anyone and does not believe himself to be in charge of anything. He is codifying the unwritten standards he believes to be operating in the interactions on TC and other fora whether anyone wishes to acknowledge them or not. Failing to attain any of them can result in the unleashing of scorn by other members.


I thought this was obvious. But I guess it wasn't.

I despair of being widely understood.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

SeptimalTritone said:


> As far as "second tier composers" v.s. "first tier composers" mentioned by clavichorder, just because Mahlerian likes Schoenberg over Shostakovitch doesn't mean that it's required that you do the same, or anyone else do the same. Taste is neutral. And if Mahlerian provides musicological reasons for his like of Schoenberg over Shostakovitch, even if those reasons have a musicological basis, that still doesn't mean that he's scorning, even implicitly, those who prefer Shostakovitch.


There isn't direct scorning of those who like Shostakovich, but it's common for those who have formed view on the nature and progress of music (and to whom this view is a reality, and not just the localized perspective that it is), to state as though it were fact that Shostakovich is not among the top, or that he's mediocre.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

clavichorder said:


> we are not sport's fans


Oh, this reminds me of one that should go in:
Classical music is _serious_ and _profound_, it is not mere entertainment. OK, yes, you are allowed to merely enjoy yourself at times, but the non-intellectual pleasure you get should pertain to higher and nobler emotions. Thus: a piece may be _joyful_ but not _fun_; _beautiful_ but not _pretty_.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

SeptimalTritone said:


> To Mahlerian and I, "Schoenberg has no melodies" is a syntactical statement, not a taste statement. It is responded to in the same way if someone would say "Potassium-argon dating of geological rock sample proves that the world is 4000 years old". So there's no scorn at all. Merely factual demonstration.


Well, yes, but what if I told you there was no scorn at all in me pointing out that "To Mahlerian and I" is really poor English? Would you believe me if I told you I am solely concerned with maintaining high standards of usage and that there's absolutely nothing personal intended in singling out your obvious error?

(Just to be clear: this post isn't about grammar or about you or me, it's about intentions and perceptions relating to how and why people respond in threads)


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Nereffid said:


> Well, yes, but what if I told you there was no scorn at all in me pointing out that "To Mahlerian and I" is really poor English? Would you believe me if I told you I am solely concerned with maintaining high standards of usage and that there's absolutely nothing personal intended in singling out your obvious error?


"Me 'n Lem Briggs and old Bill Brown,
We took a load of corn to town"

The 1912 Missouri Dog Song. Sometimes it just sounds better wrong.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Whatever, nvm.......


----------



## Guest (Apr 22, 2016)

Nereffid said:


> Well, yes, but what if I told you there was no scorn at all in me pointing out that "To Mahlerian and I" is really poor English? Would you believe me if I told you I am solely concerned with maintaining high standards of usage and that there's absolutely nothing personal intended in singling out your obvious error?
> 
> (Just to be clear: this post isn't about grammar or about you or me, it's about intentions and perceptions relating to how and why people respond in threads)


This is clearly an oblique dig at me.


----------



## Richard8655 (Feb 19, 2016)

science said:


> So my question would be, is that discouragement intentional or accidental?
> 
> *I believe it's intentional*.
> 
> We intend to communicate to less experienced or less committed listeners that they had better know their place in our implicit hierarchy of listeners - that is, to be clear, _below us_ - and until they are more experienced and/or more committed we are not going to respect them very much. If they choose instead simply to give up, our judgment is only the more severe, and our satisfaction the more complete.


Interesting thoughts and point of view. But to be clear, if you mean it's the listener's lack of background knowledge (the shoulds) that's intentional, I'm not so sure. Of course we want our fellow classical music listeners to be less superficial and passive and seek more depth and knowledge of the music. Your list is the ideal goal. But the notion that the typical listener intentionally avoids this is not what I would suspect.

As others have mentioned, people are just too busy in their hectic lives. To be able to catch a classical piece, love it, and know nothing more is in its own way just as equally wonderful in my opinion.


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

Nereffid said:


> Well, yes, but what if I told you there was no scorn at all in me pointing out that "To Mahlerian and I" is really poor English? Would you believe me if I told you I am solely concerned with maintaining high standards of usage and that there's absolutely nothing personal intended in singling out your obvious error?
> 
> (Just to be clear: this post isn't about grammar or about you or me, it's about intentions and perceptions relating to how and why people respond in threads)


Do you really think I'm trying to nitpick, as one would nitpick grammar?

Here's the problem: Schoenberg having melody or not is not a nitpicking or semantics question. Even if one strongly dislikes Schoenberg's music, it would sound vastly, vastly different if it didn't have melody: it would be as different as if Beethoven didn't have motivic development.

For example, if Schoenberg, as a matter of fact, didn't have melody, it could potentially sound pointillistic like Cage's individual point-like notes here or like Stockhausen's orchestral gestures and fragments here. Or it could sound like Xenakis's soundscapes here or Penderecki's soundscapes here. It wouldn't sound like Schoenberg actually does, for example here.

If the character behind "intentions and perceptions relating to how and why people respond in threads", as you put it, is being put into question for things like this, than does that mean you don't approve of people making statements that demarcate Schoenberg from many other composers at the most basic level? If Schoenberg fans aren't allowed to do that, then when can we do? Do you really think that the difference between the composers I mentioned above (melody vs. pointillism vs. soundscape) is as clearly insignificant as the issue of English grammar? If so, then what can one talk about on this forum, other than "I like it" and "I don't like it"?

There are many statements made on this forum that Schoenberg is only for intellectuals, which are not only factually wrong but directly and unfairly put into the question the character of those who listen to him and like him. And yet, for you, the worst thing is the factual pointing out of basic demarcation between composers? And you equate this to the pointless nitpicking of English grammar? If "Schoenberg has no melodies" is true, we've lost the differences between him and Cage or Stockhausen, or him and Penderecki and Xenakis. And even if one dislikes all of these composers (like I have repeatedly said, I'm taste neutral), it still would be incredibly incorrect to not distinguish their basic elements. Not being able to distinguish Schoenberg and Penderecki would be analogous to not being able to distinguish Mahler and Debussy, and I do not view the pointing out of that as scornful.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

^ You misread my intention. Which was, I suppose, the point I was trying to make, although by making it I was hoping you wouldn't make it for me.

Nobody is under obligation to respond to anything. It's always a choice, and always a choice made in the context of other previous choices.

Here is another problem. I attempt to raise a point by analogy, and now because you've chosen to interpret my intention one way, according to you I "equate" grammatical nitpicking with, oh, whatever the hell it is you think I'm equating it with. And there's _my_ character being questioned.

And so it goes on.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

SeptimalTritone said:


> Do you really think I'm trying to nitpick, as one would nitpick grammar?
> 
> Here's the problem: Schoenberg having melody or not is not a nitpicking or semantics question. Even if one strongly dislikes Schoenberg's music, it would sound vastly, vastly different if it didn't have melody: it would be as different as if Beethoven didn't have motivic development.
> 
> ...


Here is what I believe the problem is. The pro pantonalists are too extreme in the way they set out to try and correct fellow posters here. I know it's disheartening to see several posts in a week denigrating Schoenberg or say Cage or others whose music some here claim is "just noise, or not real music", but there has to be a better way to educate the uninitiated. For some pro pantonalists it seems as if all they ever do is to lie in wait for those who make such uninformed posts, then they pounce and it comes off as unseemly because it's comes off as angular and self righteous.

Many of the people who post things like "sounds like noise" are new to such music and to jump down their throats with such vociferousness (not to mention how most pro pantonalists are incredibly well versed and schooled on such matters) it comes off as intimidating and understandably is not well received by newbies (probably some other well informed members here) because it strikes them as disagreeable and unsympathetic.

I'm not trying to say being well informed or incredibly intelligent is in any way a bad thing, but there is more than one way to inform others and honey will always catch more flies than vinegar. As much as the propantonalists know better they seem to lack understanding of how to express their understandings in a way that brings people to it rather than puts a bitter taste in their mouths.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Thank you for your courage to make this post. When I first read it last night it was like a railroad tie through my heart. I am sorry that people felt that had to dismiss this post with humor so quickly. Just in case anyone else reacted like me to this post, please don't give up your explorations and I would be glad to form a group or talk via private messages.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Oh jeeze, seriously? I understand I got a little confrontational lately, but the only way you could possibly be any less aggressive than Mahlerian or ST is to turn in a docile, servile, simpering performance.

So this is how I am supposed to respond to people saying falsehoods about the music I listen to?

"W..w..well sir, thank you so much for you unique and valuable opinion...but...I think...you might be.....well, maybe, might be....a little bit...wrong, BUT BUT BUT not really wrong wrong, because..ya know wrong is subjective....you're right in your own special way, but maybe, perhaps, pleesy cheesy consider that you may perhaps be not as right as you might think...but if not that's totally okay!!! You're correct if you really want to be! And remember, your "opinion" based off almost nothing is AMAZING and just as valuable as any one else's in the world!" 

At that point you could just castrate me. I wouldn't be needing those anymore. :lol:


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

"I fully endorse the OPie's thread."


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

I know so many people that would like to explore Classical Music more but are discouraged by the snobbiness and patronizing attitudes of the self appointed Guardians of the Flame that they stay away. Some of the comments on this thread are textbook displays.
Enjoy making and discussing your rules, guys. Have fun in your little tree house. I'll be having fun on the big playground across the street


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

So many times i have heard from CM novices-what should I listen for? Which books should I read?

My reply is always the same: listen to CM the same as you would any of your pop music. No research or special skills required.

Your purpose is to simply enjoy it and that comes from repetition-becoming familiar with the music.

I would then give CD's from baroque, classical, romantic and modern periods. No pressure. Listen at your leisure. Relax. Enjoy!

Nobody has destroyed potential CM lovers than those darn college music appreciation courses where the professors indeed are slaves to the "SHOULDS". Those "lecturers" should all be arrested!

Get SHOULD out of the discussion and replace it with ENJOY!


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Nereffid said:


> ^ You misread my intention. Which was, I suppose, the point I was trying to make, although by making it I was hoping you wouldn't make it for me.
> 
> Nobody is under obligation to respond to anything. It's always a choice, and always a choice made in the context of other previous choices.
> 
> ...


It's astonishing how arguments will occur on these boards, where the points of contention are entirely different between the two debaters or teams of debaters. It's a general internet phenomenon, especially rampant in youtube comments, and it's too bad that it's here too. You see really one-sidedly intelligent responses made from both sides( or perhaps just one side as there are some posters who seem to actually wholly engage what the other poster is saying, only to find that they are only partly engaged in response, hammered at in only particular points). This is probably what happens when body language and real time activity aren't present to guide people to the same wavelength, where they can begin to honestly debate.

Nope, we often only know what points we ourselves are trying to make, and only notice the parts of others points and views that infringe. We are seeing it in this thread. If I say too much more about this, I could be pretending to understand other's psychologies, which when seen that way, is only going to be offensive. Unfortunately I may represent a set of viewpoints to the minds of others posters, so even when I get at things that have some truth and my intentions are good, there are implicitly wrong angles that I'm coming from.

Let this be understood ultimately as a frustration of how people communicate on the internet.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

hpowders said:


> So many times i have heard from CM novices-what should I listen for? Which books should I read?
> 
> My reply is always the same: listen to CM the same as you would any of your pop music. No research or special skills required.
> 
> ...


I didn't realize that listening intently or reading books was so intimidating.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

violadude said:


> I didn't realize that listening intently or reading books was so intimidating.


That's not the point, vd. He's saying they are not at all a requisite to enjoying or knowing about the music. Before most of us were reading anything about composers, theory, style, etc, we were listening and loving it.

Also, I generally aim to listen to music intently, but I try to make it unimportant to engage my ears so I am aware of it in a music theory sense, as there are much deeper and more interesting things to observe in music(like the music itself) than how that voice leading resolved, or that development took shape(I love to pay attention to the architecture of pieces, but I don't usually take the time to categorize them in formal terms).

Those of us who love it and even study it, benefit greatly from the substance of good books written on it, and the other available tools.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

clavichorder said:


> That's not the point, vd. He's saying they are not at all a requisite to enjoying or knowing about the music. Before most of us were reading anything about composers, theory, style, etc, we were listening and loving it.
> 
> Also, I generally aim to listen to music intently, but I try to make it unimportant to engage my ears so I am aware of it in a music theory sense, as there are much deeper and *more interesting things to observe in music(like the music itself) than how that voice leading resolved, or that development took shape(just parts, and one way learned way of looking at the parts). *
> 
> Those of us who love it and even study it, benefit greatly from the substance of good books written on it, and the other available tools.


Those parts are what make up the whole though...what else would you consider "the music itself" besides the musical content of it. I don't see the distinction.

As to your last sentence, yes I agree. So are those books and tools useful or are they snobby? Can I get a consensus here?


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

violadude said:


> Those parts are what make up the whole though...what else would you consider "the music itself" besides the musical content of it. I don't see the distinction.
> 
> As to your last sentence, yes I agree. So are those books and tools useful or are they snobby? Can I get a consensus here?


First off, "the musical content of it" is more than what is defined by theory. What is defined by theory is only designed to either be a pointer towards musical content, or a way to validate a perception of musical content in terms that some will be able to understand.

It's snobby to impose on would be classical music lovers a sense that they must be reading these books to know what's its truly about. They have to figure that out for themselves, and we have to remember that the music itself is what its all about.

It's nice to be aware of the music details, but the highest level music appreciation is above all that where you have a really personal understanding of a work or you just have open ears without a conventional frame of reference to measure every detail that enters your ear. You can be even more conscious of the music without having these complex mechanical rules fitted to your auditory experience.


----------



## Casebearer (Jan 19, 2016)

EdwardBast said:


> Science is not seeking to impose these shoulds on anyone and does not believe himself to be in charge of anything. He is codifying the unwritten standards he believes to be operating in the interactions on TC and other fora whether anyone wishes to acknowledge them or not. Failing to attain any of them can result in the unleashing of scorn by other members. Note, my interpretation of Science's intentions has no Scientific basis and has not been endorsed by Science or his representatives.





science said:


> I thought this was obvious. But I guess it wasn't.
> 
> I despair of being widely understood.


Edward that is a sympathetic and emphatic approach to Science's OP. Science also agreed with you on it. I appreciate your approach, nevertheless I don't buy it from Science. Read rule nr. 12. This seems to be the core to me, the rule that wraps it up into a social project aimed at dividing the world in 'us and them' by developing a hermetically closed social system. You don't even have to be authentic to be part of 'us', as long as you defend the traditional near-consensus in the 'us'-group to the group outside by claiming it's your own developed taste. So this is not about classical music, it's about social status and forming a caste system. And it's dangerous social behaviour inviting us to form a Ku Klux Klan of Classical Music.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

clavichorder said:


> It's nice to be aware of the music details, but the highest level music appreciation is above all that where you have a really personal understanding of a work or you just have open ears without a conventional frame of reference to measure every detail that enters your ear. You can be even more conscious of the music without having these complex mechanical rules fitted to your auditory experience.


I agree that music theory is just a way of describing the musical content, I have never been talking about "just theory" here, but how the theory relates to how the music expresses what it does.

But this last paragraph makes no sense to me at all really. A higher level of musical experience is one in which you don't notice the details? I've always presumed that a higher level of musical experience would be one in which you are so familiar with a work that you feel every detail in your bones, where you are fully entrenched by every nuance of every aspect of the music.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

violadude said:


> But this last paragraph makes no sense to me at all really. A higher level of musical experience is one in which you don't notice the details? I've always presumed that a higher level of musical experience would be one in which you are so familiar with a work that you feel every detail in your bones, where you are fully entrenched by every nuance of every aspect of the music.


The details AS LABELLED in music theory terms with that accompanying style of logic. No, I do not mean not notice the details. Perhaps the distinction seems fine and insignificant to you, but to me it is an important one. I can hear the counterpoint but when I'm most deeply appreciating the music, I wouldn't be using any such labels in language, just halfway visualizing a few swirling lines and their relationships, or zooming out for the bigger picture of the piece.

Just think if we didn't know what the musical scales were and didn't have labels for pitches, but we could still really perceive the music, we could sense the pitches and so forth but weren't calling them A or F. It's more like sensing and raw pattern recognition then, no overlay of music theory concepts.

I do like to make sport out noticing these details through music theory labels, don't get me wrong. Music theory is fun and interesting. But I believe the most intense and perceptive listening occurs beyond these games.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

clavichorder said:


> The details AS LABELLED in music theory terms with that accompanying style of logic. No, I do not mean not notice the details. Perhaps the distinction seems fine and insignificant to you, but to me it is an important one. I can hear the counterpoint but when I'm most deeply appreciating the music, I wouldn't be using any such labels in language, just halfway visualizing a few swirling lines and their relationships, or zooming out for the bigger picture of the piece.
> 
> Just think if we didn't know what the musical scales were and didn't have labels for pitches, but we could still really perceive the music, we could sense the pitches and so forth but weren't calling them A or F. It's more like sensing and raw pattern recognition then, no overlay of music theory concepts.
> 
> I do like to make sport out noticing these details through music theory labels, don't get me wrong. Music theory is fun and interesting. But I believe the most intense and perceptive listening occurs beyond these games.


Okay, I see what you mean now. That's mostly how I listen to music too. I'm not actively labeling this or that in musical theory terms when I listen. But for me it did take music theory classes to make me pay attention to many of these finer details, initially. For example, I might not have felt a secondary dominant's relationship to the tonic if it had not been brought to my attention in such a way.

So what is the point of contention here?


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

Fugue Meister said:


> Here is what I believe the problem is. The pro pantonalists are too extreme in the way they set out to try and correct fellow posters here. I know it's disheartening to see several posts in a week denigrating Schoenberg or say Cage or others whose music some here claim is "just noise, or not real music", but there has to be a better way to educate the uninitiated. For some pro pantonalists it seems as if all they ever do is to lie in wait for those who make such uninformed posts, then they pounce and it comes off as unseemly because it's comes off as angular and self righteous.
> 
> Many of the people who post things like "sounds like noise" are new to such music and to jump down their throats with such vociferousness (not to mention how most pro pantonalists are incredibly well versed and schooled on such matters) it comes off as intimidating and understandably is not well received by newbies (probably some other well informed members here) because it strikes them as disagreeable and unsympathetic.
> 
> I'm not trying to say being well informed or incredibly intelligent is in any way a bad thing, but there is more than one way to inform others and honey will always catch more flies than vinegar. As much as the propantonalists know better they seem to lack understanding of how to express their understandings in a way that brings people to it rather than puts a bitter taste in their mouths.


I don't see what you're describing ever being done to "newbies" who are doing no more than expressing confusion or seeking guidance. This response is usually only for those who have exhausted much polite discourse by endlessly doubling down on their proud ignorance, refusing to so much as even consider explanations or listen to examples, and increasing the volume of their accusations of "just noise" etc. That's not "disheartening", its actively rude and insulting, and the "pan tonalists" shouldn't be taking the blame for the tone of the conversation being brought down to that level when they're trying to do their best to bring it up.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

SimonNZ said:


> This response is usually only for those who have exhausted much polite discourse by endlessly doubling down on their proud ignorance, refusing to so much as even consider explanations or listen to examples, and increasing the volume of their accusations of "just noise" etc. That's not "disheartening", its actively rude and insulting, and the "pan tonalists" shouldn't be taking the blame for the tone of the conversation being brought down to that level when they're trying to do their best to bring it up.


So you're back to the 'one side is on the side of the angels' premise.


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

DaveM said:


> So you're back to the 'one side is on the side of the angels' premise.


If you want to make a counterargument could you do it in the form of a counterargument?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Or at least in the form of a pear?


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

SimonNZ said:


> If you want to make a counterargument could you do it in the form of a counterargument?


IMO, all that has to be said on the subject has been said. Round and round and round...


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

violadude said:


> So what is the point of contention here?


It basically grew out of our respective responses to HPowder's comment. Contention was more in tone, less in content, as usual.

With regards to music theory drawing your attention to new things, yes it is pretty nifty that way. It's a weird thing that ultimately benefits, but I found that as I was learning it, I started thinking more rigidly about music. I had to relax from the music theory for a while to feel the full benefits of it's integration into a more natural listening process.


----------



## Guest (Apr 23, 2016)

science said:


> What are "the shoulds" for classical music listeners? [etc etc ]


An amusing caricature of the worst excesses on display from time to time here at TC. Like all 'worst excesses' they do not represent the majority and like all caricatures (written for humorous effect) they should be taken with a pinch of salt. I mean, is this really what Beethoven looked like?
View attachment 83805


Most dialogue here is polite, thoughtful, occasionally provocative (in a helpful way), but since all human life is here, the rude, the thoughtless and the dictatorial inevitably creep in from time to time. It would be a shame to allow a perception to grow that such poor behaviour dominates the Forum.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

I might answer with a question of "should": "Should people like what classical music I like"?

I think the answer is obvious but in practice clearly leads to much discussions.


----------



## sloth (Jul 12, 2013)

I guess there are many paths to reach musical enjoyment, no one should be considered wrong. The aim I think is to become good listeners (of music, and of other people's opinion). P.S. I sometimes find it difficult to say if I really like a piece or not, but that's the fun of it. I don't trust my opinions too much


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Triplets said:


> I know so many people that would like to explore Classical Music more but are discouraged by the snobbiness and patronizing attitudes of the self appointed Guardians of the Flame that they stay away. Some of the comments on this thread are textbook displays.
> Enjoy making and discussing your rules, guys. Have fun in your little tree house. I'll be having fun on the big playground across the street


Novices think it's forbidding and too intellectual, so are scared away. Hollywood's portrayal of opera and classical music listeners as anti-social and un-hip at best and serial killers at worst, doesn't help either.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

If there are any shoulds I think it is to show respect and to not use too negative words.


----------



## Guest (Apr 23, 2016)

hpowders said:


> Novices think it's forbidding and too intellectual, so are scared away. Hollywood's portrayal of opera and classical music listeners as anti-social and un-hip at best and serial killers at worst, doesn't help either.


I didn't know about the serial killer thing. Is that just the opera types?


----------



## Dedalus (Jun 27, 2014)

dogen said:


> I didn't know about the serial killer thing. Is that just the opera types?


We need to start telling all the death metal enthusiasts that they're not listening to the evilest of music. Like, peh, you think death metal makes you look dark and mysterious? Try opera!


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Dedalus said:


> We need to start telling all the death metal enthusiasts that they're not listening to the evilest of music. Like, peh, you think death metal makes you look dark and mysterious? Try opera!


Opera has that pop culture cache with the movie villains. But we all know that plenty 20th century orchestral works can be darker than dark.


----------



## Guest (Apr 23, 2016)

Dedalus said:


> We need to start telling all the death metal enthusiasts that they're not listening to the evilest of music. Like, peh, you think death metal makes you look dark and mysterious? Try opera!


Only if you're referring to _The Devils Of Loudun_ and things like that.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

The "shoulds". Ah, we _should_ not listen to anyone who tells us what we should or should not be saying or behaving when we listen to music. In my opinion this is a very disheartening thread. Have we come to this that we need a dubious set of rules and standards dictating how we react to music? I feel that this thread is being taken far too seriously. I really thought that it was a spoof thread that was being posted for its comic value. Never for an instant did I think it was being taken seriously. How wrong was I?


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Barbebleu said:


> I feel that this thread is being taken far too seriously. I really thought that it was a spoof thread that was being posted for its comic value. Never for an instant did I think it was being taken seriously. How wrong was I?


Threads about posting etiquette always get a lot of serious, lengthy, and nuanced replies.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Blancrocher said:


> Threads about posting etiquette always get a lot of serious, lengthy, and nuanced replies.


Unnecessarily so, I feel.


----------



## Casebearer (Jan 19, 2016)

Barbebleu said:


> The "shoulds". Ah, we _should_ not listen to anyone who tells us what we should or should not be saying or behaving when we listen to music. In my opinion this is a very disheartening thread. Have we come to this that we need a dubious set of rules and standards dictating how we react to music? I feel that this thread is being taken far too seriously. I really thought that it was a spoof thread that was being posted for its comic value. Never for an instant did I think it was being taken seriously. How wrong was I?


The topic starter explicitly mentioned he was serious about it. That's what scared me...


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Via PM, I've been made aware that some people might perceive this as a response to something some particular individual poster recently wrote. I'm not aware of whatever that poster wrote that this would appear to be a response to.

Instead, I've tried to express the "shoulds" that operate within our community as a whole. I don't know of any single person who tries to enforce all of those principles (and the ones I left out, such as the audiophile shoulds), anyway. It takes a village, I guess. 

And again - this really upsets me - I DO NOT INTEND THESE RULES AS EXPRESSIONS OF MY PERSONAL VALUES. These are the values I perceive in our behavior collectively. 

STOP PORTRAYING THIS AS AN EXPRESSION OF MY PERSONAL VALUES. THAT IS VICIOUSLY UNFAIR TO ME.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

To be clear, I believe I have to live by these shoulds or face the consequences. I believe that by being honest about them, we make them weaker. 

(That's what happens to most social posturing, which the shoulds are largely about, when people break the taboos against stating them directly.) 

I suspect that not a little of the hostility to stating them honestly is intended to defend them from that critical attention.


----------



## Casebearer (Jan 19, 2016)

science said:


> Via PM, I've been made aware that some people might perceive this as a response to something some particular individual poster recently wrote. I'm not aware of whatever that poster wrote that this would appear to be a response to.
> 
> Instead, I've tried to express the "shoulds" that operate within our community as a whole. I don't know of any single person who tries to enforce all of those principles (and the ones I left out, such as the audiophile shoulds), anyway. It takes a village, I guess.
> 
> ...


My impression was you acted as a spokesman and advocate of these rules. If your intent was to have social conduct on this site reviewed critically you fooled me by the very indirect way you chose to do that. But I'm all with you if that is your intent. I mean that sincerely.

It would also be interesting to know your personal views on the 12 rules you codified for us from your experience with this forum. We might be getting somewhere then...

PS You don't mean me but I don't like abstract references to 'some particular individuals'.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Casebearer said:


> You don't mean me but I don't like abstract references to 'some particular individuals'.


Me neither, but naming names tends to get me in trouble on this site so I need to be on the safe side. I'm trying to clear it up by PM so that no one is offended. But if I wrote that it wasn't poster X then maybe someone would think it must be poster Y or Z, so I just want to make sure everyone knows it's no one.



Casebearer said:


> My impression was you acted as a spokesman and advocate of these rules. If your intent was to have social conduct on this site reviewed critically you fooled me by the very indirect way you chose to do that. But I'm all with you if that is your intent. I mean that sincerely.
> 
> It would also be interesting to know your personal views on the 12 rules you codified for us from your experience with this forum. We might be getting somewhere then...


I didn't do anything indirectly. It's obvious that I can't make anyone be rude to anyone else. I'm describing what does happen, not what I think should happen.

My own attitude to these things isn't a matter of a sentence or two, so I'll be back later to clarify that. But it's irrelevant anyway. I don't matter; my attitudes don't matter. Who am I? I could get run over by a bus in a moment and no one would miss me. What matters is the larger community, our attitudes, how we treat each other.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

This really upsets me - I DO NOT INTEND THESE RULES AS EXPRESSIONS OF MY PERSONAL VALUES. These are the values I perceive in our behavior collectively.

STOP PORTRAYING THIS AS AN EXPRESSION OF MY PERSONAL VALUES. THAT IS VICIOUSLY UNFAIR TO ME.[/QUOTE]

It was *extremely* clear to me that you were not expressing your personal values! I could not imagine any two people less likely to hold these views or express it in their behavior than Mahlerian and SeptimalT (and I KNOW that you were not thinking of them, Science).

:Violadude You might not realize that being non-confrontational or writing in non-insulting ways is a way of showing respect (and self-respect) and sometimes it takes self-discipline and self-restraint; by no means is it an indicator that the writer is weak, non-authentic, or unable to fight for something they believe.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

"Shoulds" like this exist in fact, whether we like it or not; or better, whether we want to admit it or not. One of the main reasons for us not to admit is that admitting it makes it harder for us to enforce them.

I regard that as a fact. I regard anyone who says that classical music listeners do not look down on other classical music listeners for liking or not liking certain music, or listening to it with the wrong attitudes, and so on, as either naive or dishonest.

As for myself, I do not care what music anyone likes or listens to. But that doesn't matter. I really don't think there's anyone who has chosen to listen to something or not listen to something based on me bullying them. If that has happened, wow, I am VERY sorry about that. That was not my intention. Please do not do that! Put me on ignore or something, but don't let me affect you like that.

But when someone else tries to make you feel bad about your classical music tastes and pleasures, I will be on your side regardless of what those tastes and pleasures are. This is not just lip service from someone who pretends not to believe in such shoulds but then insults people who listen to the wrong thing.

I have very often fought _as hard as I could get away with under the TOS_ for people having the ability to listen to and enjoy any music they want, or not listen to or not enjoy any music they want, without anyone being a jerk to them about it. I don't care if it's Schoenberg or Cage or Strauss II or Whitacre or Higdon, HIPPI or not, major labels or not, old recordings or not, living artists or not, classical guitar or not, opera or not, whatever: as long as you're not a jerk to people who enjoy it or who don't enjoy it, do your thing!

I've been accused of all kinds of ridiculous ideas - that I don't value expertise or excellence, that I value the opinion of someone who knows nothing as much as the opinion of someone who has studied an issue for decades; implicitly, that I'm trying to undermine society or government or something - but I think think this the first time that I've been accused of standing for the actual opposite of what I've stood for the rest of the time.

For MYSELF, and strictly for MYSELF, however, I want to know what the "shoulds" are. I DO NOT INTEND TO ENFORCE THEM, I intend to fight against that enforcement, but I intend to follow SOME of them. I will fight against the bullies bullying anyone else, but for myself, I intend to submit to the degree that I am able given the limitations of my finances and balancing the other things that I want to do. I have been bullied and insulted, and heck, I can out-snob most snobs, but I intend to fight back by knowing as much as possible the things that the bullies attack people for not knowing. Where knowledge is concerned, I will submit to the best of my ability. One of the reasons I learn about things like classical music is so that I can have the bona fides to stand up to such people without appearing to be making excuses for myself. They will accuse me of being lazy or whatever anyway, but their accusations will be less founded. I think some other people also share that desire, whether they intend to become bullies themselves or not. But not only that, I intend to learn as much as I can about the music that people get bullied for liking, and I intend to enjoy it if I can in order to provoke the bullies. With the bullies of one side, that's easy for me: I love listening to Cage, Schoenberg, Babbitt, Stockhausen, pretty much anything like that. With the other side, it's harder for me because of my own personal preferences, but I have succeeded with some of that music - Strauss II, Bernstein, Vivaldi, neoclassical Stravinsky, for example. I have succeeded in enjoying the music of HIPPI musicians on HIPPI instruments and the music of old romanticist on modern instruments, not to mention transpositions for "totally inappropriate" instruments. Anything that I can enjoy that will tempt someone to insult me for it, I am going to try to enjoy that, because screw them. And I'm going to know my crap to make it all the more difficult for them to get away with their insults, for the same reason.

So, yeah, I really am serious. I really do want to know what the "shoulds" are.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

JosefinaHW said:


> You might not realize that being non-confrontational or writing in non-insulting ways is a way of showing respect (and self-respect) and sometimes it takes self-discipline and self-restraint; by no means is it an indicator that the writer is weak, non-authentic, or unable to fight for something they believe.


Well, as for myself, I will never surrender the low ground without a fight.


----------



## Guest (Apr 24, 2016)

Barbebleu said:


> I feel that this thread is being taken far too seriously.


Not by me it isn't.



science said:


> I regard that as a fact. I regard anyone who says that *classical music listeners *do not look down on other classical music listeners for liking or not liking certain music, or listening to it with the wrong attitudes, and so on, as either naive or dishonest.


All of us here at TC and all those you've met elsewhere? Just a handful at TC?

Perhaps some do. Perhaps also all of us on occasion. I'll admit to that very human frailty of prejudice, and maybe it has occasionally been on show in my exchanges here (for all I know, it's been glaringly obvious and I'm too thick-skinned to have noticed).

But I disagree that it needs to be confronted in the systematic way that this thread implies. If I show prejudice (disdain, scorn, superiority...whatever), call me on it. That's a should.

And if there really are _illegitimi _here, then another should is '_non illegitimi carborundum'._


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

MacLeod said:


> All of us here at TC and all those you've met elsewhere? Just a handful at TC?


Of course it's not everyone.

But, what do you think the shoulds are?

I'm willing to accept the shade I get for asking the question, because I want to know the answer!



MacLeod said:


> If I show prejudice (disdain, scorn, superiority...whatever), call me on it. That's a should.


I don't know about you showing any prejudice or anything, but I think that'd be a really bad idea.... I'm pretty sure my participation here will end with a permanent ban eventually, but hopefully later rather than sooner.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

JosefinaHW said:


> :Violadude You might not realize that being non-confrontational or writing in non-insulting ways is a way of showing respect (and self-respect) and sometimes it takes self-discipline and self-restraint; by no means is it an indicator that the writer is weak, non-authentic, or unable to fight for something they believe.


Alright alright, I guess I'm the bad guy in this thread. Sorry I challenged anyone's assertions on here. You guys can all go back to hating music you've barely listened to. Don't let little old me spoil your fun. Maybe I'll come back to TC once I've mastered my doormat impression...


----------



## Guest (Apr 24, 2016)

science said:


> I don't know about you showing any prejudice or anything, but I think that'd be a really bad idea.


I don't see why. As one or two seem keen to point out to Violadude (for whom, by the way, I have much respect, and whose posting style I do not object to) there are ways of 'calling' that don't entail breaching the rules.

You ask what I think the 'shoulds' are - but your 'shoulds' are what you perceive to be the ways people are subliminally compelled to behave in order to 'belong' or to be seen to say the right thing and hold the right opinions. I get that. I acknowledged it in my earlier post about caricature.

My 'shoulds' would be nothing more than are already explicitly required - accompanied by an exhortation to keep true to your own opinions; allow others room to express theirs; enjoy the music - or not - but listen and let listen; and share the responsibility to maintain a healthy debate that moderately challenges the excesses of prejudice and rudeness - usually through self-restraint than confrontation.


----------



## Guest (Apr 24, 2016)

violadude said:


> Alright alright, I guess I'm the bad guy in this thread. Sorry I challenged anyone's assertions on here. You guys can all go back to hating music you've barely listened to. Don't let little old me spoil your fun. Maybe I'll come back to TC once I've mastered my doormat impression...


No, you're not...and no doormat impression is required!


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

1. A person should be familiar with a work/style/(...) [subject] before speaking about it in that aspect seriously. Failure to do so should result in recommendations of books and sites like this one, etc, and thrown sticky popcorn from Ludwig Wittgenstein's spirit every time they listen to a piece written for his brother.

2. A person should be familiar with "should" 1.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

violadude said:


> Alright alright, I guess I'm the bad guy in this thread. Sorry I challenged anyone's assertions on here. You guys can all go back to hating music you've barely listened to. Don't let little old me spoil your fun. Maybe I'll come back to TC once I've mastered my doormat impression...


I was not calling you a "bad guy," I don't hate music that I've barely listened to, I was not telling you not to assertively defend or describe music you like. I was telling you that I know that *not everyone* who does not respond in a confrontational manner is a "doormat" or "weak". I thought you were insulting Mahlerian and SeptimT: Your words: "the only way you could possibly be any less aggressive than Mahlerian or ST is to turn in a docile, servile, simpering performance." I think Mahlerian and SeptimT should be honored for the way they handle themselves on here. I for one am extremely grateful that both of them are on here: despite the vast difference in our knowledge levels, Mahlerian has always taken the time to respond to the questions I have asked.


----------



## Guest (Apr 24, 2016)

JosefinaHW said:


> *I thought you were insulting* Mahlerian and SeptimT: Your words: "the only way you could possibly be any less aggressive than Mahlerian or ST is to turn in a docile, servile, simpering performance." I think Mahlerian and SeptimT should be honored for the way they handle themselves on here. I for one am extremely grateful that both of them are on here: despite the vast difference in our knowledge levels, Mahlerian has always taken the time to respond to the questions I have asked.


I didn't read it that way. I read it that VD thinks they are non-aggressive and non-insulting - not that they are simpering docile and servile.

Actually, I've seen Mahlerian get quite 'robust' in defence of his opinions, a long way from docile - perhaps VD just missed those posts!


----------



## Johann Sebastian Bach (Dec 18, 2015)

I'm both intrigued and depressed by what I read here. I'd been a less frequent visitor to TC recently and this thread may well result in even fewer visits. For me, classical music is about inclusiveness, it's about encouraging others to enjoy one's passion. It's not a competition of knowledge or intellect, which TC posters often seem to be driven by.

When I was at music college 40 years ago, I was inculcated with the belief that I must always de-mystify classical music as much as possible. This principle has led me to always talk to audiences before and during a concert, describing something salient about the piece(s) they're about to hear. I also ensure programme notes are as accessible as possible.

This thread proposes that each audience member should sit an examination before entering a concert hall, with questions like:
1. how many demisemiquaver triplets are there in a breve tied to a minim? (apologies to US forum members);
2. how would you connect "sturm und drang" with polychromaticism in Lithuania? and
3. is a Wagner tuba in Eb or Bb?

Classical music audience in the UK are falling (I suspect this is a world-wide phenomenon) and I face an often-agonising struggle to keep music alive. This isn't some vague statement of interest for me, music is both my life and life blood - it's an all-consuming passion. Music isn't what I do, it's who I am.

So some of you guys want to make music less accessible to the masses by a set of exclusive hurdles. Do you realise the consequences: to see this "industry" become smaller, even more niche-market than it is already? Those of us who work in it earn our daily bread from it and you want to make even more of us unemployed and turn passionate music students away from their work. I'm lucky in that my career is established - but I see so much sadness in students who've spent thousands of hours practising being unable to find work.

My only "should" is that classical music should be available to everyone and those who already love it should be missionaries to the uninitiated.


----------



## Guest (Apr 24, 2016)

Johann Sebastian Bach said:


> *This thread proposes that each audience member should sit an examination before entering a concert hall*, with questions like:
> 1. how many demisemiquaver triplets are there in a breve tied to a minim? (apologies to US forum members);
> 2. how would you connect "sturm und drang" with polychromaticism in Lithuania? and
> 3. is a Wagner tuba in Eb or Bb?


No it doesn't. It ironically proposes the seriously held view that TC is affected by a tendency among some (an influential some?) to look with disdain on those who think the wrong things about CM. If you missed the irony, it's illustrative of the problem that affects all internet exchanges. Reading and writing - the words - are only part of the business of communication.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

JosefinaHW said:


> I was not calling you a "bad guy," I don't hate music that I've barely listened to, I was not telling you not to assertively defend or describe music you like. I was telling you that I know that *not everyone* who does not respond in a confrontational manner is a "doormat" or "weak". I thought you were insulting Mahlerian and SeptimT: Your words: "the only way you could possibly be any less aggressive than Mahlerian or ST is to turn in a docile, servile, simpering performance." I think Mahlerian and SeptimT should be honored for the way they handle themselves on here. I for one am extremely grateful that both of them are on here: despite the vast difference in our knowledge levels, Mahlerian has always taken the time to respond to the questions I have asked.


No, my point was that Mahlerian and ST seem very calm and patient most of the time and people still sometimes take issue with their "attitude". I'm saying any less aggressive than them and you would just start to sound like a subjugated non-entity.


----------



## Haydn man (Jan 25, 2014)

Interesting idea this 'shoulds'
You could use this as a basis to start your own forum with these as the TOS
Then you could heap scorn on me to your hearts content, if I tried to join.
Most people here have helped me learn and enjoy much more classical music in the past 2 years, and they have my thanks. If anybody here thinks I am unworthy, then my only comment is. 'Up yours'


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Johann Sebastian Bach said:


> I'm both intrigued and depressed by what I read here. I'd been a less frequent visitor to TC recently and this thread may well result in even fewer visits. *For me, classical music is about inclusiveness,* it's about encouraging others to enjoy one's passion. It's not a competition of knowledge or intellect, which TC posters often seem to be driven by.
> 
> When I was at music college 40 years ago, I was inculcated with the belief that I must always de-mystify classical music as much as possible. This principle has led me to always talk to audiences before and during a concert, describing something salient about the piece(s) they're about to hear. I also ensure programme notes are as accessible as possible.
> 
> ...


Indeed, and which is more inclusive, a group of people who generally accept and even love all varieties of directions classical music has taken, or a group of people determined to undermine, dismiss and slander entire genres...sometimes an entire century, of music? Choose wisely now.

Really, your caricature of what anyone expects of a listener is outlandish at best. I expect people to become familiar with a style of music before attempting to tarnish it. Ranting about music that you have so little experience with that you cannot even hear the melodic contours of seems...er...premature if I'm putting it nicely.

But this brings up another question. If you love something, why *wouldn't* you want to know everything there is to know about it? I was generally under the impression that that's how passions worked...


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

violadude said:


> Alright alright, I guess I'm the bad guy in this thread. Sorry I challenged anyone's assertions on here. You guys can all go back to hating music you've barely listened to. Don't let little old me spoil your fun. Maybe I'll come back to TC once I've mastered my doormat impression...


I certainly didn't have you in mind when I made it. *I didn't have anyone in mind when I made it.*

It's hurtful to me that after all the times I've expressed respect for you you think I would make a thread attacking you.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Anyway, this was obviously a big mistake. Evidently this is yet another subject that we can't talk about. 

Now is the time to start talking about politics or religion so that the mods can lock the thread and it can be forgotten.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)




----------



## Guest (Apr 24, 2016)

Richannes Wrahms said:


>


I meet RW's bluff in the poker-game syrup stakes and raise him 200$ with this:


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

^^ Well done, TH--I think that's probably the highest card that could have been played.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

GreenMamba said:


> Sure, but should they?
> 
> Someone out there will likely judge you (perhaps quietly) if you dislike their favorite composer, whoever that may be.


Yeah, I'm not sure what the point is of this attempt at conformism, especially since the status quo is, as usual on this planet, a very imperfect thing.

For my part, I can't take any listener seriously if they don't admire the credo from Dufay's Missa L'homme arme. The status quo isn't on my side though, so **** the status quo.


----------



## Guest (Apr 24, 2016)

For Chordalrock:
Yes, that certainly rocks! In the YouTube extract hereafter (with score) there are some discrepancies between the notation and what is sung (missing accidentals) but these only barely impact on the overall result. Love this stuff!


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

TalkingHead said:


> For Chordalrock:
> Yes, that certainly rocks! In the YouTube extract hereafter (with score) there are some discrepancies between the notation and what is sung (missing accidentals) but these only barely impact on the overall result. Love this stuff!


I'd recall that score is a little too accidental-heavy. The Oxford Camerata are probably closer to what it should sound like than that score.

There's another score here with fewer accidentals, though of course still a speculation regarding how Dufay intended it:

http://josquin.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/jrp?a=notationEditText&f=Duf1004

This version has fewer accidentals even than the Oxford Camerata version (and has been recorded by Cut Circle), I'd suppose still closer to Dufay's intentions, but I kinda prefer some passages in the Oxford Camerata credo (particularly "et homo factus est" and "in remissionem peccatorum").


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

It isn't just Science who has suspected that many people (here and I'm sure 100X more off of here) scorn others in the ways listed in his post.

1. There are *great* injustices on* both *sides of the question of 20th-century music. Please read or at least glance through the following doctoral dissertation:

_Two Centuries in One: Musical Romanticism and the Twentieth Century_, Herbert Pauls, 2014.

http://www.musicweb-international.co...ies_in_one.pdf

2. It is not only the 20th-century question where I see or have suspected the scorn. How many times have the words "idiot", "moron", "stupid', "unclean masses" been used on here! How many examples of the wicked-delight in scorning the cashier who likes Beethoven--she's got him and other stuff on a disc, and of course the piece on the disc is "Fur Elise"! You had a *perfect* teaching moment there, Sir, and instead you delighted in mocking her! (Moderators let me voice this personal example this one time...

3. _(Johann Sebastian Bach and others who don't know me at all, I am one of the classical music listeners on here who has listened for years but has never previously learned the construction of the music--from not having perfect pitch and thereby not being able to know by ear what note or exact key is being performed to not being able to properly describe what I have heard, but now I am trying.)_ Who are you and those like you to scorn the cashier and those of us whom you don't think have the emotional maturity, knowledge, and/or the intelligence to make posts on here?!? Yes, like Violadude I have had the dreaded suspicion that I am scorned when I post--most of the time I think the scorn directed at me is expressed by ignoring my questions and posts. I am extremely grateful to those who do and have responded to me. I'd like to just know once and for all if I am making a jackass out of myself on here when I post or ask a question? Are me and others like me being directed to other forums because you want to get rid of us? I'm not going to leave, but if I am making an *** out of myself then I will form a group where we newbies, emotionally retarded, overly emotional, stupid, not-very-articulate can gather and help each other learn together.

Please will someone have the decency to tell me straight out where I stand.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

JosefinaHW said:


> 2. It is not only the 20th-century question where I see or have suspected the scorn. How many times have the words "idiot", "moron", "stupid', "unclean masses" been used on here! How many examples of the wicked-delight in scorning the cashier who likes Beethoven--she's got him and other stuff on a disc, and of course the piece on the disc is "Fur Elise"! You had a *perfect* teaching moment there, Sir, and instead you delighted in mocking her! (Moderators let me voice this personal example this one time...


I can´t remember if someone have been called stupid or moron. Unclean masses have I seen in ironic contexts.
But Für Elise can´t be the most heard work by Beethoven I would guess the fifth and the ninth symphony.
I think it was much worse earlier here when one had to tip on toes for not having to be scorned for liking "pretty" music. Now it is not so bad that people object to when people say something negative about music is not really scorning. If something negative should be said I think it should be clear that it based on personal aesthetic values and not as objective statements.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

JosefinaHW said:


> --most of the time I think the scorn directed at me is expressed by ignoring my questions and posts. I am extremely grateful to those who do and have responded to me. I'd like to just know once and for all if I am making a jackass out of myself on here when I post or ask a question?


Posts are ignored all the time for many reasons.

- The "right" people don't see them. I have missed responses with questions to my posts because they appeared too far back in a thread and I didn't think to check. 
- People don't have time to formulate a "proper" response. 
- People misunderstand the post or question and don't think it's relevant or interesting. Personally I think forum members vastly underestimate how often posts are misunderstood, and I'm rather surprised that members don't ask for clarification much more often.
- etc.

I view questions as integral to TC. I know that _sometimes_ people ask questions to troll, to joke, or even to insult. I think that's rare. I try to assume that all questions are honestly felt and answer as though the questioner honestly wishes information. Most importantly, if I have _any_ doubt, I err on the side of believing the questioner's sincerity. I don't care if someone asks "Did Beethoven write any piano music?", "Why does Schoenberg's music sound so awful?", or "How can any human believe Mozart's music is beautiful?" Unless I _know_ they are joking or trolling (almost impossible to know), I assume they are serious. So please, ask away. People who condescend to make fun of questions or who dismissively state a question is stupid make TC a less enjoyable place for all of us.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Thank you very much, mmsbls.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Thank you, Sloe. (You are probably right about Beethoven's 5th or 9th) "Fur Elise" was chosen probably because it is viewed by that person as a sweet "little" piece whose only value is for beginning piano students.


----------



## Guest (Apr 25, 2016)

JosefinaHW said:


> Please read or at least glance through the following doctoral dissertation:
> 
> _Two Centuries in One: Musical Romanticism and the Twentieth Century_, Herbert Pauls, 2014.
> 
> http://www.musicweb-international.co...ies_in_one.pdf


I would, but the link doesn't work.

Try this...http://www.musicweb-international.com/books/Pauls_two_centuries_in_one.pdf


----------



## Guest (Apr 25, 2016)

JosefinaHW said:


> It isn't just Science who has suspected that many people (here and I'm sure 100X more off of here) scorn others in the ways listed in his post.
> 
> 1. There are *great* injustices on* both *sides of the question of 20th-century music. Please read or at least glance through the following doctoral dissertation:
> 
> ...


I'm sure you're just another poster like the rest of us, possibly with busy lives, who dip in and out here, perhaps not in an entirely systematic manner. The position of jackass is currently filled, and you're not it.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

1. You should eat coconut flavoured cookies while reading this post. Failure to do so will result in the desire to be eating coconut flavoured cookies.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

ogen and McLeod Thank you.

I read about the Scandalkonzert on the Current Listening Thread and I just had to share the following:


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

I should listen to music instead.


----------



## Johann Sebastian Bach (Dec 18, 2015)

JosefinaHW said:


> 3. _*(Johann Sebastian Bach and others who don't know me at all, I am one of the classical music listeners on here who has listened for years but has never previously learned the construction of the music--from not having perfect pitch and thereby not being able to know by ear what note or exact key is being performed to not being able to properly describe what I have heard, but now I am trying.)*_* Who are you and those like you to scorn the cashier and those of us whom you don't think have the emotional maturity, knowledge, and/or the intelligence to make posts on here?!? * Yes, like Violadude I have had the dreaded suspicion that I am scorned when I post--most of the time I think the scorn directed at me is expressed by ignoring my questions and posts. I am extremely grateful to those who do and have responded to me. I'd like to just know once and for all if I am making a jackass out of myself on here when I post or ask a question? Are me and others like me being directed to other forums because you want to get rid of us? I'm not going to leave, but if I am making an *** out of myself then I will form a group where we newbies, emotionally retarded, overly emotional, stupid, not-very-articulate can gather and help each other learn together.
> 
> Please will someone have the decency to tell me straight out where I stand.


JosefinaHW,

Pseudonyms can be confusing. I use this name to post. Do you mean me, or another JSB - or the real JSB?
If you mean me, please show me where I have scorned you.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

JosefinaHW said:


> Thank you, Sloe. (You are probably right about Beethoven's 5th or 9th) "Fur Elise" was chosen probably because it is viewed by that person as a sweet "little" piece whose only value is for beginning piano students.


At all I think orchestral music have a larger appeal to the "unwashed masses" than piano music.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Sloe said:


> At all I think orchestral music have a larger appeal to the "unwashed masses" than piano music.


Orchestral also has larger appeal to the TC population.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Bulldog said:


> Orchestral also has larger appeal to the TC population.


Most of the TC population belongs to the so called "unwashed masses".
With that I mean is that most users on Talk Classical do not belong to some elite but are ordinary persons that happens to like a certain kind of music.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Johann Sebastian Bach said:


> JosefinaHW,
> 
> Pseudonyms can be confusing. I use this name to post. Do you mean me, or another JSB - or the real JSB?
> If you mean me, please show me where I have scorned you.


Dear Johann Sebastian Bach, You have shown me no scorn and I'm truly sorry that it appeared that way. The following is what I had hoped you would hear me say in the midst of the rest of my post:

1. I carefully read your post.

2. What you said was very meaning to me; I share your concern for the success of the classical music world, but...

3. I wanted you to know that I'm a newbie with a lot to learn and no-way a professional in the music world or the best person on TC to be responding to your post.

4. I couldn't elaborate on anything at that moment because I first had something to say that was very important to me.

5. I would have liked--preferably someone else to tell you--that I (we) hoped you would become a member, stay on here, share your knowledge, give us tips on how to take advantage of teaching moments, and share your humor--in the midst of the sandstorm, I chuckled at your "test" examples, especially the bit about chromaticism in Lithuania.

Yes, I slip into that error that people can read our minds and hearts in a sentence.

I hope you will post frequently on here.

Jo


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Johann Sebastian Bach said:


> JosefinaHW,
> 
> Pseudonyms can be confusing. I use this name to post. Do you mean me, or another JSB - or the real JSB?
> If you mean me, please show me where I have scorned you.


I would not dare to use a pseudonym after a composer or even as avatar because that feels like I would pose as someone of that persons calibre. By the way I do not like my user name and the reason I have not changed it is because I do not know what to call me.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Sloe said:


> I would not dare to use a pseudonym after a composer or even as avatar because that feels like I would pose as someone of that persons calibre. By the way I do not like my user name and the reason I have not changed it is because I do not know what to call me.


There are probably many different reasons people pick the name they do. I have no idea what his intentions were but picking JSBach could be seen in a great light, too, Sloe: He wants the world to see the name Johann Sebastian Bach as much as possible--I'm all for that! And/Or he could take that name to try and model himself on Bach/like a person takes a confirmation name of a saint they want to emulate. And/or he just picked it because he loves Bach, no other reason than that.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

JosefinaHW said:


> There are probably many different reasons people pick the name they do. I have no idea what his intentions were but picking JSBach could be seen in a great light, too, Sloe: He wants the world to see the name Johann Sebastian Bach as much as possible--I'm all for that! And/Or he could take that name to try and model himself on Bach/like a person takes a confirmation name of a saint they want to emulate. And/or he just picked it because he loves Bach, no other reason than that.


I don´t judge others I only say how I personally feel for user names.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Sloe said:


> Most of the TC population belongs to the so called "unwashed masses".
> With that I mean is that most users on Talk Classical do not belong to some elite but are ordinary persons that happens to like a certain kind of music.


I spend most of my time with regular folks, and most TC members are not ordinary at all; just my opinion.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Bulldog said:


> I spend most of my time with regular folks, and most TC members are not ordinary at all; just my opinion.


Have you asked all of them?


----------



## Johann Sebastian Bach (Dec 18, 2015)

JosefinaHW said:


> Dear Johann Sebastian Bach, You have shown me no scorn and I'm truly sorry that it appeared that way. The following is what I had hoped you would hear me say in the midst of the rest of my post:
> 
> 1. I carefully read your post.
> 
> ...


Dear Jo,

Thank you for your posts, which I appreciate very much. TC can sometimes feel like the 10,040th time you play a Czerny Etude because stale arguments and pomposity are trotted out again and again - that's why I was asking myself whether I should leave.

I came on TC largely because of my conducting prof who would often give me far more tuition than his contract indicated. I once asked him why he was so generous. He simply said, "pass it on".

So, now I'm old enough to have grandchildren, I want to encourage young people to love classical music as much as I do - and for them also to "pass it on".

The very basis of this thread bothered me because it seemed to be a perhaps unintentional vehicle for people to show how clever they are - how much they know about music. Superiority in the concert hall isn't something I like (even though you get plenty of it on the platform). I used to be a pompous *** myself, so I'm not preaching. Because we're such a small community of music-lovers, it's not a good idea for people to alienate either the young or those who don't know much about classical music.

It's true to say that knowing more about music theory and practice helps one appreciate the art form more, but it's no means a prerequisite. I have a member of one of my choirs (an experienced singer) who steadfastly insists he doesn't want to know the circumstances in which a particular work was composed. His colleagues believe, as I do, that it aids understanding and leads to a better performance. But I must respect his position and believe that he gets as much from a performance as his more-informed singers

As to pseudonyms, I used the JSB handle on a entirely different thread - in order to spread the name of the man whose music inspires me more than any other. I use it on here simply because I already have too many noms de plumes, passwords and user names to remember.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

So I read all the "shoulds" quickly and realized that I don't meet any of these standards. On the bright side, I am looking forward to all those scones--thanks in advance, everybody.


----------

