# My apologies.



## jojoju2000 (Jan 5, 2021)

I want to apologize for creating such chaos revolving around a certain subject. ( It's easy to guess who. ). My lack of eloquence in explaining my most recent post was due to tiredness mostly. I apologize.

I want to restart my recent post.

It is my belief that Humans are wired to listen to the beautiful. The pretty. The romantic. It's why Mainstream America listens to Chopin more than they do Pierre Boulez or even Debussey rather than Arnold Schoenberg or John Cage.

If we truly, truly, want to make Ochesteral music great again, than why on earth in my view, are we still pursuing experimental music in the schools ? I have friends who have gone to study Music at many great schoolls in America, their " gateway " music wasn't Schoenberg or Cage, it was Chopin, Mozart, Debussey, Mahler, Strauss, and yes, even John Williams. Heck, I actually credit Williams with introducing me to the wider Classical World, I never even watched any of the films he scored.

One of my friends, who attends Eastman School of Music, said to me, " I wish my professors taught me how to write more like Mahler, Strauss, ". He also cites the man of Controversy as one of his influences.

Do we ever every wonder why people don't like 20th and 21st Century Classical Music anymore ? Why we see Classical Music attendence rates go down ?

And yet, people come out in droves to hear Film Music ( And not the Hans Zimmer variety. ).

https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2020/08/redeeming-film-music-avant-garde-roger-scruton-2020-timeless.html

" Maybe film music is the way forward for the tonal grammar and polyphonic architecture that are now so rarely heard in works by the musical avant-garde. Maybe film music is the only safe refuge for the ordinary musical ear, in a soundscape blasted by jagged orchestral explosions and wearisome post-modernist sound effects. "

" Perhaps we should be grateful to John Williams and Howard Shore for showing us that we can still use the tonal language to create music that resonates in the hearts of ordinary people. Perhaps we should be suspicious of those musical censors who leap to dismiss whatever is spontaneously likeable as cliché, and whatever touches the ordinary heart as kitsch. "

Maybe. Just maybe. Mr. Scruton has a point.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba (Oct 15, 2018)

Ever since I first began thinking , I've believed modern music is more rational and elemental than the mature older forms . This is why it should be a student's first lesson . An inventive and modernist method will lead to a more mindful discovery of the master-works , and a holistic epiphany of the classical music wonders need not take long .


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

How much is the music driven by the life philosophy of the composer. Does the difference in music over the centuries correlate to the difference in religious beliefs of the composers and of the societies they lived in? If so, then your taste in music may gravitate towards the era that most closely matches your own life philosophy.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

The mid-20th century was the period when the avant-garde movement with postmodernism took place in the school curriculums (and outside of schools). It was a period when the "new" or rather, the provocative, way of thinking came about after the first several decades of the 20th century that was still rooted mostly in traditional aesthetics. By the time some of the provocative aesthetics survived especially after World Ward II and with the advent of mass commercialization particularly in the west, much of such arts suited the new modern world of the 1950's and 1960's. It was a period of change and a period of modernization. Well, so they hoped ....

Looking back now from a historical perspective (and I was not born during those decades at all), it really hasn't done the avant-garde much favors with posterity. There is now more than ever before since the mid-20th century to aspire to earlier value of classical beauty, craftsmanship and timeless communication. Revival of older music together with musicology have made 2021 a better place when it comes to performing old music.

As for why they don't teach you and me to compose like Mahler or Bach, well, you can't teach unusual brilliancy. And much of that has been corrupted by the avant-garde movement in beliefs like anything can be music and the more outrageously provocative, the better. Well I say that is now outdated.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

There's nothing to apologize for: your position is the same as 95% or more of music lovers. Somewhere around 100 years ago, serious music split into different paths. Those composers who followed their hearts and strived to write beautiful music were scorned and ignored. The composers of ugliness thought they were doing some important service - music must express the horrors of the 20th c. Well, they were wrong. From ancient times mankind made music, originally by singing - be it the Navajo Indians, the natives of Bali, and cultures in China, South America and everywhere. Our western music evolved from that - and the further music moved from the importance of melody the worst it got. Most of my listening is actually 20th c music - those men who still wrote real tunes. At my age I have no desire or interest to spend one more minute of my time listening to the musical garbage of the atonal, chance, aleatoric composers. There's a reason that orchestras great and small still play the cherished warhorses from years gone by: they don't write 'em like that anymore.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

A post of mine from another thread:

"My experience growing up was of hearing all around me mostly the CM of 1900-1950. Memories and influence of the Impressionists, the Russians, many still living, people like Bartok, Villa-Lobos, British composers, Respighi, so many others, were all around still. These composed a huge spectrum of music--way bigger than anything heard before--yet mostly tonal and often brimming with melody. Modern film music sprang from this milieu, as did works of real emotional power (Bartok, Shostakovich), new and even "exotic" (and erotic) beauty, and just plain great new ways of writing symphonies and concertos (Prokofiev, Martinu, etc.) In many, many ways a Golden Half-Century, the Best Ever in CM. Just what the outer boundary of public acceptance of this sort of music was or is, is unknown to me, but the diversity of music within that elastic boundary was and still is immense.

Now that we can hear anything, any time, via recordings, YouTube, etc., any audience can be satisfied sitting at home--I know I am. but I think certain paths that have clearly turned out to be musical dead ends as far as an actual public is concerned are and will be quietly abandoned, and whatever the Secret Sauce of the first half of the 20th century will be rediscovered, perhaps using, as suggested above, non-standard instruments in orchestral performances: the flexatone in Khachaturian's PC is one example; also Prokofiev's use of wood blocks occasionally (4th Symphony)--but now with synthesizers of every sort, electric guitars, the theremin, bongos, the tabla, all sorts of exotic "ethnic" instruments, etc., the possibilities are almost infinite. Rather than Back to the Future, I would like to see a Forward to the Past of the music of the 1900-1950 era, continuing to mine that incredibly diverse and rich seam of musical ore.

We may have to wait until the grey- and white-haired audience dies out (I am older than many of them) but I would rather go into a concert hall and hear Prokofiev's 3rd Symphony or 2nd PC than yet another performance of Beethoven or Brahms (even my beloved Brahms)."


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Perhaps "beautiful" may not have such a narrow meaning as some of you think it does.

_"There are more things in heaven and Earth..."_


----------



## Tikoo Tuba (Oct 15, 2018)

jojoju2000 said:


> I want to apologize for creating such chaos


Chaos may be orderliness rudely subverted . Too bad chaos is confounded with anarchy . Orderly music is a subset of anarchy . An artist will know the anarchy , and an orchestra when tuning and listening to the hall acoustics may seem divine like Tibetan temple music .


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

I don't know what this thread is about.

I do know that I'm glad there is a wide range/variety of music available to hear, and that I am free to hear it -- whatever and whenever I want. If I could have one wish, it might be that there were even a greater variety.


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

jojoju2000 said:


> ...
> It is my belief that Humans are wired to listen to the beautiful. The pretty. The romantic. It's why Mainstream America listens to Chopin more than they do Pierre Boulez or even Debussy rather than Arnold Schoenberg or John Cage...


...Boulez, Debussy, Schoenberg, and Cage ARE beautiful in their way. Just because the there no catchy melodies to seize upon doesn't mean that beautiful developments, harmonies textures and moods, aren't present; it just means that it's less obvious. The following by the above mentioned composers are works that I think are quite beautiful and listenable:

Boulez: _Le Marteau sans maître_

Debussy: _La Mer_, _Prelude to a Faun_, _Jeux_, _String Quartet_, piano music etc. (The piano music practically borders on Romantic; and it's not a huge jump from Schumann's _Prophet Bird_ to Debussy's _Girl With the Flaxen Hair_).

Schoenberg:_Serenade_

Cage: _Sonatas for Prepared Piano_


----------



## classical yorkist (Jun 29, 2017)

Artists should be allowed to create the art they're driven to create and not have artificial constraints like 'it must be pretty' enforced upon them in my opinion.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

classical yorkist said:


> Artists should be allowed to create the art they're driven to create and not have artificial constraints like 'it must be pretty' enforced upon them in my opinion.


I agree. And they likely do create the art of their dreams and desires. But the Marketplace is a cruel place for dreams. After they've heard it , or part of it, once, will they come again? Will they pay?


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

> It is my belief that Humans are wired to listen to the beautiful. The pretty. The romantic. It's why Mainstream America listens to Chopin more than they do *Pierre Boulez* or even *Debussey* (sic) rather than *Arnold Schoenberg* or *John Cage*.


I have no idea what, if anything, humans are wired to listen to. I can only speak for myself. I prefer to listen to all the composers you listed, except Chopin whose music I do not find interesting.

Also, why is "Mainstream America" an important demographic for making sweeping statements about classical music?


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Composers are also 'wired' - they are human too the last time I looked. If they choose dissonance then as far as I'm concerned, it's as valid as the pretty tune or immediate appeal as a means of expression and just might be worth getting to know and understand. I believe that to be a far better and more rewarding attitude to have, rather than bemoaning any lack of qualities that can reduce the art to popcorn entertainment.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

I don't think the OP should take these things personally. In fact, I would gladly see a dozen young and energetic posters like him/her, shaking things up.



SanAntone said:


> *I have no idea what, if anything, humans are wired to listen to.*


That much is known already. Neither did Schönberg.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Then again, an awful lot of people seem to "like" Heavy Metal, or hard boiled eggs, or cabbage for that matter. . l


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

jojoju2000 said:


> It is my belief that Humans are wired to listen to the beautiful. The pretty. The romantic. It's why Mainstream America listens to Chopin more than they do Pierre Boulez or even Debussey rather than Arnold Schoenberg or John Cage.





Coach G said:


> ...Boulez, Debussy, Schoenberg, and Cage ARE beautiful in their way. Just because the there no catchy melodies to seize upon doesn't mean that beautiful developments, harmonies textures and moods, aren't present; it just means that it's less obvious.


I agree with Coach G here. We may disagree about which pieces we find beautiful, but that's the point. The OP's comment could be more realistically revised to "humans are wired to listen to a certain kind of beautiful" (while also noting that "wired" needs a reasonable definition too!)

Also, I must admit I don't have much time for the view of music history implied by the OP: "1. Beautiful music up until the start of the 20th century - so many great composers! 2. 20th century: ugh Schoenberg Cage Boulez! 3. Present day: hurrah for John Williams and Alma Deutscher!" If you don't like the avant-garde, fine, but there's _so much more_ to 20th (and 21st) century music. This vision of a gaping pit of misery stretching for decades is really irritating.


----------



## milk (Apr 25, 2018)

I came to CM late in life, in my forties. The Goldberg Variations got me started. I very much like early music and then baroque. I listen to 19th century romantic music once in a while but it’s not my favorite kind of music. I don’t listen to symphonies at all. I do enjoy Debussy, Shostakovich, and early 20th century music. 
I think a lot of minimalism-type music is beautiful. I like the eclectic experimental stuff like La Monte Young and Terry Riley. Steve Reich seems very mainstream and accessible to me and my favorite “modern” composer is Feldman. I think his music is sublime, certainly beautiful. 
I’ve been following this debate as it manifests in all these different threads. I really can’t imagine any point to contemporary composers trying to compose in the romantic idiom. I can understand why a child would do it. On the other hand, I do know what people are talking about when they complain about the avant garde. It demands a lot on the listener. Time is short and I have to be reasonably confident that the music is worth my attention. I’m sure Stockhausen and Cage were serious geniuses but I also suspect there are a lot of mediocre charlatans and sound-nerds getting money from foundations to make bleeps and bloops and a lot of audience members clapping because they just realized that the piece has finally ended and their friends are clapping. I’d like to believe that all the arts haven’t run their course, that some band today can make the equivalent of Led Zeppelin IV, but I can’t help feeling like we already reached that peak. I do not believe that the way forward is back. That never works. Sentimentality is a trap. We must move ahead but I don’t know about what the direction is. No direction home...


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

What I perceive of as the *wonderful diversity of music and audiences*, is described by some TC members as a defect or decadence. This contrary opinion is hard for me to understand since nothing is lost by the introduction of new music. Bach and Beethoven and Chopin do not disappear. New recordings of all of the canonical composers appear each month.

I just don't understand the animosity toward new music which does not answer to the taste of the traditional classical music members.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> What I perceive of as the *wonderful diversity of music and audiences*, is described by some TC members as a defect or decadence. This contrary opinion is hard for me to understand since nothing is lost by the introduction of new music. Bach and Beethoven and Chopin do not disappear. New recordings of all of the canonical composers appear each month.
> 
> I just don't understand the animosity toward new music which does not answer to the taste of the traditional classical music members.


It's anecdotal, but for many years I had a chamber music group that performed at business conventions, banquets, street fairs, trade shows, etc., sometimes for modest pay, sometimes for fun. We had some "popular" repertoire -- Gershwin, Cole Porter, show tunes, etc. -- and conventional 'serious' classical -- Bach, Telemann, Mozart, opera excerpts -- but we also sought out and found some contemporary music for our ensemble and played that. To my surprise, not only did most audiences prefer the 'serious' classical music to the popular tunes, we consistently made our biggest hit with the contemporary pieces, which were mostly but not entirely tonal, and in some cases were rather heavy-duty stuff. I remember playing one of these at a busy street fair, and afterwards one listener walked up to me, introduced himself, and wanted to talk about the piece, which impressed him, at some length. (I later found out from my wife that this guy was a major network soap opera TV star, but had no musical background to speak of.)

One big factor here is context. A relaxed environment with a non-paying audience with no expectations who can walk away at any time is not the same as an audience paying big bucks to sit in a prestigious concert hall who expect to hear what they think of as classical music. But you need to find some audience, in some context, who want to listen. Composers who say they don't care about the audience are either lying, kidding themselves, or are referring to the conventional classical music audience.

As for those like the OP who insist music must be 'beautiful', whatever that means, that seems like a bogus statement on its face. People want to see beautiful movies and read beautiful stories. But they also want to see harsh and ugly movies and to read harsh and ugly stories, which can be at least as emotionally moving and intellectually engaging. That is why those things exist and often are big hits.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

milk said:


> Time is short and I have to be reasonably confident that the music is worth my attention. I'm sure Stockhausen and Cage were serious geniuses but I also suspect there are a lot of mediocre charlatans and sound-nerds getting money from foundations to make bleeps and bloops and a lot of audience members clapping because they just realized that the piece has finally ended and their friends are clapping.


All facets of music have their mediocre composers. One serious genius is enough to legitimize an entire style.

As for Stockhausen, I just listened to some-15 hours of Licht that I could find on Youtube and it kept my attention the whole way through. Additionally, I ordered some semi-expensive headphones so I could hear it again with better sound quality.

I can't say that any other piece of music has inspired me to buy a better listening experience.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

fluteman said:


> *As for those like the OP who insist music must be 'beautiful', whatever that means, that seems like a bogus statement on its face. * People want to see beautiful movies and read beautiful stories. But they also want to see harsh and ugly movies and to read harsh and ugly stories, which can be at least as emotionally moving and intellectually engaging. That is why those things exist and often are big hits.


Thank you! Saved me some work. There are many qualities in music more important to me than beauty, "whatever that means," like powerful, moving, fascinating, fresh, mind-bending, intricate, and subtle, to cite a few.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

jojoju2000 said:


> I want to apologize for creating such chaos revolving around a certain subject. ( It's easy to guess who. ). My lack of eloquence in explaining my most recent post was due to tiredness mostly. I apologize.
> 
> I want to restart my recent post.
> 
> ...


Maybe humans are wired to listen to the beautiful, but we don't all agree on what is beautiful.

For example, people constantly go on about the beauty of a rainbow over a meadow. I have a friend who finds that scene trite.

Many don't find Indian music that pleasant, but I am sure the Indian continent finds beauty in it. Tuvan throat singers are able to create atonality with their overtone singing, yet I doubt their fellow Tuvans complain about their 'ugly' singing. I am sure there are probably other examples of cultures who do not follow your simplistic ideas of beauty in music.

Some of the composers you list as examples of music that is not beautiful, I find beauty. The beauty may be implied, and not explicit. Or the beauty may be found in other structures of the music, without an obvious beautiful melody. Maybe there is beauty to be found in other interrelationships, that you write off as not being beautiful.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

fluteman said:


> As for those like the OP who insist music must be 'beautiful', whatever that means, that seems like a bogus statement on its face. People want to see beautiful movies and read beautiful stories. But they also want to see harsh and ugly movies and to read harsh and ugly stories, which can be at least as emotionally moving and intellectually engaging. That is why those things exist and often are big hits.


I often bring up Picasso's painting "Guernica".

It is considered a masterpiece by critics and the public alike, yet, on its surface, it could be said to be "ugly". But on deeper levels (the symbolism, the expressions of the characters, etc), it is also beautiful.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Simon Moon said:


> I often bring up Picasso's painting "Guernica".
> 
> It is considered a masterpiece by critics and the public alike, yet, on its surface, it could be said to be "ugly". But on deeper levels (the symbolism, the expressions of the characters, etc), it is also beautiful.


A favorite painting of mine from earliest childhood. The screaming horse is impossible to forget.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Beauty? Much Boulez is beautiful (I would have thought, by anyone's terms). I find a lot of the new music recommended in the OP is appallingly ugly, sickeningly so, and it really upsets me when it is compared with the great music of the past just because it uses similar language. I'm also bemused to see Roger Scruton brought in as a witness in support of a post. A clever man but many of his views were deeply unpalatable.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

jojoju2000 said:


> It is my belief that Humans are wired to listen to the beautiful. The pretty. The romantic.


Babies prefer soft sounds and melodies in fifths and octaves.

As Humans mature, they get more adventurous, and enjoy challenging music. Pretty soon Trout Mask Replica is playing.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Enthusiast said:


> Beauty? Much Boulez is beautiful (I would have thought, by anyone's terms).


I wonder how many on the planet find Boulez's music beautiful.


> I find a lot of the new music recommended in the OP is appallingly ugly, sickeningly so, and it really upsets me when it is compared with the great music of the past just because it uses similar language. I'm also bemused to see Roger Scruton brought in as a witness in support of a post. A clever man but many of his views were deeply unpalatable.


"Unpalatable" or wrong? I've seen the name Scruton pop up a lot, mainly from those who seem to object to Scruton's politics more than anything.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Simon Moon said:


> I often bring up Picasso's painting "Guernica".
> 
> It is considered a masterpiece by critics and the public alike, yet, on its surface, it could be said to be "ugly". But on deeper levels (the symbolism, the expressions of the characters, etc), it is also beautiful.


I've long used the example of the Alien creature in the _Alien_ movie. It's an "ugly" creature. Yet, the artistry behind its creation is nothing less than beautiful, and in that sense the ugly creature itself is a beautiful work of artistic design. It took great skill and imagination to formulate that image.

It took great skill and imagination to formulate the Penderecki _Threnody_, too, which I have long heard as a beautiful piece of ugly music. But the idea behind its title is an ugly one -- mass extinction by way of nuclear weapons. How does one express this in saccharine, consonant tones?

One doesn't have to _like_ a work of art to appreciate the fundamental beauty of its design and creation. Artistic creativity is a beautiful thing, and in that sense humans do seem to crave beauty.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

consuono said:


> I wonder how many on the planet find Boulez's music beautiful.
> "Unpalatable" or wrong? I've seen the name Scruton pop up a lot, mainly from those who seem to object to Scruton's politics more than anything.


I wonder how many on the planet have actually given some quality time to listening to Boulez' music? I do feel that most of those who have will hear beauty in some of it even if they find what Boulez does with it to be boring or mystifying.

I'm not really qualified to say much about Scruton's philosophy. As for his politics, what I have heard from him is unpleasant and I am not sure it is viable to present this as merely a disagreement between two acceptable views.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Roger Scrouton was a Black Conservative, so he got attacked from several sides. He was a very smart, articulate commentator on a number of subjects. Just because you do not agree with his politics does not cheapen his intellect or analysis. 

However, I would not place particular importance on his commentary on art or music.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

> I wonder how many on the planet find Boulez's music beautiful.


I know I do, and I am sure I am not alone. But I guess you think because his music is not as accessible as the _1812 Overture_, then he was a failure.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

One of the most popular musical forms of the 20th century is characterized by adding distortion to guitar chords. 

The 7-note scale is objectively more dissonant and "ugly" than the pentatonic scale.

(i.e. the idea that we're naturally drawn *exclusively* to beauty is silly, etc)


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

I refer to a thread Mandryka started about confounding expectations - from memory.

For me it is not whether music is deemed beautiful or not which matters, but it must within its structure involve the listener having expectations, and then there is interest in how or to what extent those expectations are confounded or fulfilled or reset. This is why (pace John Cage) random environmental noises are not music.

This takes you to a tradition, which is a way in which expectations can be set.

I have little interest in avant-garde music, because I don't find that it sets any expectations for me, and so I am bored because I don't know whether they are being confounded or not. If I devoted myself to that world then that might well change, and I might enjoy it more, but I am not short of things to explore in traditions that I am more familiar with, and life is short.

I also had a nice exchange (with mikeh whatever number it is, I think) where he was talking about people at a compositional school who did not know about fugues or indeed much about anything before Webern. For them, I guess, the expectations of the pre-Webern world mean little. To some extent that exchange settled for me the question of whether avant-garde music is Western classical music. It suggested that it is not, because it has disconnected itself from the tradition of Western classical music. The expectations of that tradition have no meaning for its adherents, and they do not appear to study it. This is, of course, fine.

The references to Scruton (a deeply humane and subtle thinker) interested me. He would certainly have been someone who saw value in music coming from, developing within, and extending a tradition. That does not mean an absence of progress: it is starting from scratch and ignoring the bulk of a tradition that denies progress, and instead substitutes rootless invention. That rootless invention might be great (but if so that is likely to be by chance), whereas progress within a tradition is more likely to be great because it has foundations that have been tested over many years. As Schoenberg said: C major .....


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

SONNET CLV said:


> I don't know what this thread is about.
> 
> I do know that I'm glad there is a wide range/variety of music available to hear, and that I am free to hear it -- whatever and whenever I want. If I could have one wish, it might be that there were even a greater variety.


I'm with you on that. All of it.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

SONNET CLV said:


> I've long used the example of the Alien creature in the _Alien_ movie. It's an "ugly" creature. Yet, the artistry behind its creation is nothing less than beautiful, and in that sense the ugly creature itself is a beautiful work of artistic design.


H.R. Giger was a mad genius.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

I don't know if anyone else has posted this oft-related saying but 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder'. What I found beautiful 10 years ago is not always what I find beautiful today. Whether old or new, each piece I listen to either resonates or it doesn't. What I find beautiful is not what others do and vice versa.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

Good points Merl, and I'll add a twist. Sometimes "beauty" isn't the most important thing about music or a piece of art. Sometimes Mozart and Hallmark Cards™ aren't very fulfilling.

Sometimes _*challenging*_ art, art that pulls you up short, art that forces you to re-evaluate your preconceptions is more impactful.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Merl said:


> I don't know if anyone else has posted this oft-related saying but 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder'. What I found beautiful 10 years ago is not always what I find beautiful today. Whether old or new, each piece I listen to either resonates or it doesn't. What I find beautiful is not what others do and vice versa.


For me it changes with each new day.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

SanAntone said:


> Roger Scrouton was a Black Conservative, so he got attacked from several sides. He was a very smart, articulate commentator on a number of subjects. Just because you do not agree with his politics does not cheapen his intellect or analysis.


I'm not sure what is meant by "black conservative" and I agree he was a clever and articulate guy. But there have been too many times when he spread falsehoods (particularly about Jews and also about Muslims) that he was certainly clever enough to know were falsehoods. Discomfort with that goes beyond merely "disagreeing with his politics".


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

*Reminder to all: 
Please refrain from discussion of politics in this forum, unless directly related to music, and then only in the sub-forums Politics and Religion in Classical Music. Thank you.*


----------



## milk (Apr 25, 2018)

I really think authenticity is much much (much) more important than beautiful. I mean the detection of the quality of "realness" and that the author/composer is expressing something that they truly believe, feel, understand, etc. or that the audience senses is "real." Now, I cannot say I think this is objective but if I HAD to make a case for what makes objectively great music, it would definitely be authentic over beautiful.


----------



## milk (Apr 25, 2018)

chu42 said:


> All facets of music have their mediocre composers. One serious genius is enough to legitimize an entire style.
> 
> As for Stockhausen, I just listened to some-15 hours of Licht that I could find on Youtube and it kept my attention the whole way through. Additionally, I ordered some semi-expensive headphones so I could hear it again with better sound quality.
> 
> I can't say that any other piece of music has inspired me to buy a better listening experience.


 I really can't stand opera but I will keep at it with his chamber and instrumental work. I kind of like Mantra.


----------

