# A new challenge



## Guest (May 19, 2015)

Hah. Fooled you. It's an old challenge.

But given the continued abundance of greatest this or that threads, it's still challenging, I'm sure, so....

And that is simply to talk about music, the music you enjoy and the music you do not, without ever using any superlatives.*

Ready?

Begin.




*Probably this is challenging enough, but if it's not, then try going easy on the adverbs and adjectives, too. You know, just for fun.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

I like this.

Here's one truth: 18th century Baroque and Classicism are the core of all western classical music up to today's composed music.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Best. Thread. Ever.


----------



## Guest (May 19, 2015)

Best joke about a thread. Ever.

:tiphat:


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

I think that Beethoven is actually quite an unknown composer, Sibelius even less so, because of the sheer volume of music of theirs that is rarely performed. More than half of Beethoven's oeuvre is vocal music, despite his supposed trouble of writing for voices. And when was the last time you listened to Sibelius's Suite Mignonne or the Suite Champêtre? Sibelius's opus 98 contains some rather short pieces which for small orchestral forces which would be easily fitted into orchestral programs featuring Sibelius as a little 'extra.'


----------



## Guest (May 19, 2015)

Hope nobody minds the slight deviation, but here's how they (the press) used to talk about music in 1906. Has anything changed, do you think? http://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/may/18/edvard-grieg-london-concert-1906


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

More than half of Beethoven's oeuvre is vocal music, despite his supposed trouble of writing for voices.

More than half of Beethoven's oeuvre is vocal music... only when measured by the number of individual works... certainly not length. The majority of these vocal works are the 200+ songs... most never assigned an Opus no. Over half of these are in actuality arrangements of various folk-songs from various nations. A small box set (perhaps 8 or 10 discs) could easily contain the whole of these. There are several collections of Beethoven lieder including a set of the complete lieder (excluding the folksong arrangements) by Peter Schreier. Personally, I like this one:


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

I'm not annoyed by superlatives themselves, but words like "genius" and "great" which seem to imply some sort of objectivity.


----------



## Guest (May 19, 2015)

It's not so much the annoyance that's bothersome, though annoyance is indeed a bother--by definition--it's what the superlatives imply, the kind of thinking, or lack of thought, that they demonstrate, the flawed world view that they encourage.

You know, trivial things like that....

It is bothersome that words like "genius" and "great" can be said to imply objectivity. I'd say that what they actually imply is sloppiness.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

Objectivity meaning here "pretense of objectivity".


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

some guy said:


> It's not so much the annoyance that's bothersome, though annoyance is indeed a bother--by definition--it's what the superlatives imply, the kind of thinking, or lack of thought, that they demonstrate, the flawed world view that they encourage.
> 
> You know, trivial things like that....
> 
> It is bothersome that words like "genius" and "great" can be said to imply objectivity. I'd say that what they actually imply is sloppiness.


It must admitted that every man is the creative equal of an Aristotle, a Goethe, or a Bach.


----------



## Celloman (Sep 30, 2006)

_Tristan und Isolde_ is the gr - I mean, in my opinion it's the bes - no, what I meant to say was that I really really like it.

I acknowledge that it might _not_ be the greatest piece of music ever written.

There. Happy?


----------



## Guest (May 19, 2015)

Marschallin Blair said:


> It must admitted that every man is the creative equal of an Aristotle, a Goethe, or a Bach.


No, it must not.

It apparently is essential to counter any philosophical points about the utility of the idea of greatness with this jejune remark about equality, though, as it pops up inevitably in every single discussion of this concept.

To seriously question the utility of "greatness" however is also to deny the validity of the whole "equality" thing. That is, there is no such thing as a measure. Even Aristotle, Goethe, and Bach are not equally great. Neither is one or the other of them greater than the other two. They are different. They did different things. (Aristotle totally sucked at writing Baroque chorales, have you noticed?)


----------



## Guest (May 21, 2015)

The challenge was too difficult.

I'll see if I can come up with one a little bit easier than this, but please don't hold your breaths.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

Schubert's String Quintet isn't half bad. I rather like it! It's pleasing, overall. I'm not sure I agree with the first movement repeats. There, I win.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

some guy said:


> The challenge was too difficult.
> 
> I'll see if I can come up with one a little bit easier than this, but please don't hold your breaths.


I thought this one was too easy.


----------



## Guest (May 21, 2015)

Bold claim, Ukko. Any support for it?


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

some guy said:


> Bold claim, Ukko. Any support for it?


Sorry guy, that ain't a sufficient kickstart. If I don't use relativistic qualifiers, my discussions of music get even more boring than usual. I hope to spare you the pain.

I just realized I can use the following post as an example of non-qualifiers:

"Adams, Schoeberg & Heras-Casado/SFSO "Sorry guy, but at least it's short.


----------



## binkley (Feb 2, 2013)

DiesIraeCX said:


> Schubert's String Quintet isn't half bad. I rather like it! It's pleasing, overall. I'm not sure I agree with the first movement repeats. There, I win.


I count 3 modifiers and one disclaimer. Try again.


----------



## Guest (May 21, 2015)

Yesterday my day consisted mostly of early Schubert, bookended by Boulez on the front end and Lopez for my nachtmusik. 

Early Schubert is rather Haydn-esque and I like it. Lopez is my main man when it comes to music I listen to in the still darkness. Is "main man" too close to a superlative implication? Ok, scratch that. Lopez is a guy and a good one at that.


----------



## Guest (May 21, 2015)

I've just been listening to "The Art of Fugue". It is beyond comparatives, superlatives, similes, metaphors and hyperbole.


----------



## Guest (May 21, 2015)

TalkingHead said:


> I've just been listening to "The Art of Fugue". It is beyond comparatives, superlatives, similes, metaphors and hyperbole.


I feel like "beyond" is being used here as a comparative. Your post has been flagged for further observation and critique.


----------



## Guest (May 21, 2015)

nathanb said:


> I feel like "beyond" is being used here as a comparative. Your post has been flagged for further observation and critique.


Ah, I see. Let me rephrase that: _I've just been listening to "The Art of Fugue". It *escapes attempts at* comparatives, superlatives, similes, metaphors and hyperbole_.


----------



## Guest (May 21, 2015)

Actually, funny though they are, the actual point of this challenge was to encourage thinking differently, not to come up with various semantic stratagems for expressing superlatives without actually using them.

This has happened before, too. I shoulda known better. I quibbled at the word "best" in a post awhile back, and, I kid you not, the responder responded with "OK, greatest, then. Is that better?" Oops!

For TalkingHead, since his or her post is the one immediately preceding, the challenge is to try to describe Art of the Fugue and how it effects you.

It's not easy. I find it terribly difficult myself. (I'm surprised no one has challenged me to take the challenge. I expected that first thing, actually.)


----------



## Guest (May 21, 2015)

TalkingHead said:


> Ah, I see. Let me rephrase that: _I've just been listening to "The Art of Fugue". It *escapes attempts at* comparatives, superlatives, similes, metaphors and hyperbole_.


As long as it doesn't escape by means of being better than the competition! Perhaps a zip-line or a grappling hook escape?


----------



## Guest (May 21, 2015)

some guy said:


> For TalkingHead, since his or her post is the one immediately preceding, the challenge is to try to describe Art of the Fugue and how it effects you.
> 
> It's not easy. I find it terribly difficult myself. (I'm surprised no one has challenged me to take the challenge. I expected that first thing, actually.)


I like Francisco Lopez because it's so clear and easy to say how he effects me without superlatives. His concrete pieces make my brain tingle, and his field recordings heighten my awareness and reflection of time and space in music. The end. No greater, greatest, better, best required.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

Dear some guy,

I enjoy Beethoven's late period music because I find profundity in some of its childlike simplicity and its refusal to stay focused on one idea (evidence in its numerous Variations), its nonchalant jumps from one mood to another, the lyric tenderness of its melodies, and the subtlety of its structures. I hear in it almost a return to innocence (no, not the Enigma song. ) with its return to classical and baroque principles that he learned in his youth. I hear an introspective, intimate, and personal quality in the late piano sonatas. In the late string quartets I hear something else almost entirely, I find them to be wonderfully esoteric, music for music's sake, and difficult, there is something highly elusive about the quartets. Simultaneously, I hear intimacy in them as well, but it's different than the raw intimate quality of the piano sonatas. I sometimes get the sense that they were written for himself, as if we aren't supposed to be listening. On account of the aforementioned qualities, I find the music to be inexhaustible and continually rewarding.

Is that OK?


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

DiesIraeCX said:


> Dear some guy,
> 
> I enjoy Beethoven's late period music because I find profundity in some of its childlike simplicity and its refusal to stay focused on one idea (evidence in its numerous Variations), its nonchalant jumps from one mood to another, the lyric tenderness of its melodies, and the subtlety of its structures. I hear in it almost a return to innocence (no, not the Enigma song. ) with its return to classical and baroque principles that he learned in his youth. I hear an introspective, intimate, and personal quality in the late piano sonatas. In the late string quartets I hear something else almost entirely, I find them to be wonderfully esoteric, music for music's sake, and difficult, there is something highly elusive about the quartets. Simultaneously, I hear intimacy in them as well, but it's different than the raw intimate quality of the piano sonatas. I sometimes get the sense that they were written for himself, as if we aren't supposed to be listening. On account of the aforementioned qualities, I find the music to be inexhaustible and continually rewarding.
> Is that OK?


Not only is it 'okay,' but its _fabulous_ that some people have a highly-developed sense of aesthetic discernment to begin with.

Beauty should be recognized and praised, not brought down. . . and certainly never 'leveled.'


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

some guy said:


> No, it must not.
> 
> It apparently is essential to counter any philosophical points about the utility of the idea of greatness with this jejune remark about equality, though, as it pops up inevitably in every single discussion of this concept.
> 
> To seriously question the utility of "greatness" however is also to deny the validity of the whole "equality" thing. That is, there is no such thing as a measure. Even Aristotle, Goethe, and Bach are not equally great. Neither is one or the other of them greater than the other two. They are different. They did different things. (Aristotle totally sucked at writing Baroque chorales, have you noticed?)


A place for everything and everything in its place- sure.

Aristotle's supreme in zoology and logic and Bach's the master of the fugue.

There's certainly different 'types' of genius (or even 'species' within genius), but this is not to deny the validity of the concept.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Marschallin Blair said:


> A place for everything and everything in its place- sure.
> 
> Aristotle's supreme in zoology and logic and Bach's the master of the fugue.
> 
> There's certainly different 'types' of genius (or even 'species' within genius), but this is not to deny the validity of the concept.


Agree. There were composers of genius and there were composers who were not genius, not even close. Those who were tended to write the greatest works.


----------



## Celloman (Sep 30, 2006)

Erik Satie is bad, but in a good way.


----------



## MoonlightSonata (Mar 29, 2014)

I am moderately fond of Beethoven.


----------



## TradeMark (Mar 12, 2015)

I like this cantata by Stravinsky


----------



## Guest (May 22, 2015)

DiesIraeCX said:


> Is that OK?


Well, that's another distraction, one I did not anticipate, though I could have--turning this all into pleasing (seriously or sarcastically, either one) me.

I threw this out to see if anyone would have any interest in rethinking the idea of thinking largely or even exclusively in superlatives. To think about the consequences of that kind of thinking.

We see one of the consequences of that in MB's last post, where he (yes, rumor has it) uses the word "leveling." But leveling is from the same world as the superlatives. And inside that world, yes, the opposite of ranking everything is to level everything.

But what if you can escape from that world? Then you very quickly see that ranking and leveling both are equally (!!) inappropriate for describing or for thinking about actual events and actual objects, which will always and forever resist attempts to categorize them vertically, even if those attempts include the one that creates a vague über-category that pretends to allow the comparing incomparable things zoology and fugues.

The genuine, real-world opposite of ranking is to recognize difference, and to recognize that value, such as it is, is neither in the object nor in the subject (the latter enshrined in the phrase "beauty is in the eye of the beholder") but in what happens when objects and subjects interact. Denying that and setting the source of beauty as a static thing, as an independent quality of objects, effectively denies the dynamic nature of reality. That can't be good.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

some guy, that post was genuine and I took your challenge of thinking in a different way seriously. I can assure you of that. I wouldn't have chosen late Beethoven if I weren't serious. ;-) I'm aware that the "Is that OK?" could have been taken the wrong way.

I think that your challenge is healthy and should be encouraged. The first thing one thinks about shouldn't be if this or that is the "greatest". That can poison the well from the beginning. We should focus on how how it affects us, if it resonates with us, whether we're stimulated intellectually, and yes, emotionally. We should address a work on its _own_ merits.

That said, I believe that ranking, the attributing of superlatives is natural. We're humans and hierarchical thinking is just a fact. However, that type of thinking may be _positively_ utilized. I may compare two works and determine which one is "better" (to me), I may do this as an positive and informative exercise, as a way of better learning music, techniques, developing a better ear, and most importantly what resonates with me and _why_. I enjoy probing into why the music of one composer resonates me more than another composer of the same era, or why one work is largely considered better or more important by the same composer. I'm recognizing that there are differences and there is beauty in that fact, I'm just celebrating those differences by comparing, contrasting, and analyzing. I want to know why Beethoven's 14th string quartet is better than his 1st and I have my reasons as to why. I enjoy both works, but I still want to know why. The other day, I heard a Scelsi piece that reminded me of an aspect of a certain Beethoven work (believe it or not) and I want to know why, I want to know which work affected me more effectively with regard to that aforementioned musical aspect. I may be "hierarchically" thinking, but these exercises help me discover things about myself, for the better I think. Again, I reiterate that I still enjoy both works (Scelsi, Beethoven).

Please forgive the tangents.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Just waiting to discover more of the joys of Nancarrow.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

On glancing back over some of my current listening posts, I find little in the way hyperbole or superlatives. Of course I sometimes use exaggeration for comedic effect, or an attempt at it, but there are no "greatest," "best," "most under-appreciated's" to be found, though I did not go back very far. So in this exercise I may have already succeeded by accident. However I confess I may not fully understand the exercise.

But let me have another go at it just for the experience.

I've posted elsewhere that I recently found Kagel's "Schwarzes Madrigal" to hit the spot for me. It's mysterious, contemporary enough to sound fresh and to hold my interest, yet it harkens back to tradition by quoting, either by accident or design, some of the vocal timbres from Debussy's Three Nocturnes. It calls to me like a siren song while satiating at the same time.






Sorry I had to use a bit of simile there at the end, but still found I could not do this without seeming dry and unemotional. I advise anyone with a significant other to use hyperbole and superlatives if you expect a relationship to last.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Lately I have been intrigued by some of Schnittke's works whose generative material sounds at the end, specifically, the Seventh Symphony and the Concerto for Piano and String Orchestra. By this method the initial, or at least purest and simplest, statement of a theme, a dirge in the symphony and a 12-tone row in the concerto, distills and embodies the expressive weight and history of the entire work. It is a wonderfully effective way of imparting direction and dramatic continuity. And isn't this more or less an ideal toward which composers have been striving for a couple of centuries: a peroration that perfectly sums and integrates the most disparate impressions from the past?

The Seventh Symphony ends with a dirge entrusted to rare soloists, tuba, contrabassoon and principal bass. I especially like this choice since the work begins at the other end of the spacial continuum with a solo violin and with an idea related, in a way I have yet to fully parse, to the dirge. (I have not listened with a score, so I am working these relationships out slowly by ear. In general I like to listen to a work many times before consulting a score. Not sure why. I guess I like to approach the score with long-standing questions and hypotheses rather than beginning with answers? Makes the experience more meaningful for me somehow.) The dirge is a melody in the minor mode that could have been composed any time in the last two hundred years. Anyway, highly dissonant chords in the second movement are created by verticalizing phrases of the dirge. In the finale, the purest solo statement of the dirge, in tuba, contra and then bass, is anticipated by varied statements with interpolations, little stretti on short phrases, and then an initial canonic statement in brass choir. This gradual process of distillation and simplification infuses the solo statements at the end with a wonderful power. Damn it. I just realized it is time to get the score!

Edit: Eeks! I have had the Seventh Symphony on in the background and I just now realized that right before the first solo statement of the dirge in the finale, the derivative from the symphony's opening and then the verticalized version from the second movement are stated in that order. Sort of an encapsulated synopsis of the whole symphony. Sorry, I am apparently slow on the uptake not to have figured this out before!

The tone row at the end of the Concerto for Piano and String Orchestra is stated by single notes of the piano, each of which is then sustained by a string instrument until all pitch-classes hang in the air simultaneously and dissolve. The uncanny power of this statement derives from the fact that most (or all?) of the earlier themes of the concerto, themes in a broad range of styles, are generated from cells in the row. And yes, I need to see this score now too.

This kind of distillation and simplification is a feature of individual movements in Schnittke's work as well. I love the way the strands of a densely woven texture in his Symphony no. 3/i emerge in ever sharper relief as the cloud of sound gradually clears to reveal the individual threads. Same sort of effect as the above I guess.


----------



## Guest (May 23, 2015)

some guy said:


> It's an old challenge [...] simply to talk about music, the music you enjoy and the music you do not, without ever using any superlatives.*


This week, I have been mostly listening to, and enjoying, Beethoven's Symphonies. I think I've decided that the only one I like in its entirety, without reservation, is the 5th. The 3rd rambles in the slow movement, but the other three seem to me to be more complete and without excess. The 9th is the same, though even the 2nd movement goes on a bit. I like the last movement; I know some do not enjoy that part.

The 4th seems to me to have less (comparative, not superlative) character than the others, so it's at the bottom of my list.

There. Will that do? It's possible to write in this way, but in trying to be careful, I've probably drained it of all colour!


----------



## Guest (May 23, 2015)

Try another tactic then. Instead of trying to avoid superlatives, try to actively use all the other things you've been avoiding by using only superlatives.* I think you'll find that the other things are quite colourful.

*Yes, I know. But it made a nicely balanced sentence, so....


----------

