# The man can do no wrong...



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Or the woman (not being sexist).

What I'm talking about is various debates on this forum, such as the current one about whether Mozart is overrated or not. Or the one about whether John Cage is underrated. But we've had similar debates here about other composers, especially more controversial ones (eg. the Second Viennese School). But it can be anything (even say 'God' himself, J.S. Bach).

I think that these get polarised because there is little give and take between fans of a particular composer who think he 'can do no wrong' and those who question the whole thing of composers being basically infallible.

I think that you are going to get a variety of opinions on anything. Even put a bunch of musicologists in the room and you will get disagreements. Probably even if they are musicologists in the same field. So given that 'level playing field' you still will get a diversity of views - some of them reasonable, some of them more 'out there.'

So I think denying valid criticisms - or valid good things for that matter - about composers like this in these debates is kind of a fallacy. It's just one side of the story, a sign of black and white thinking. & also a feeling of it being a competition, of being afraid to own up to certain views which you say you don't agree with but deep down in your heart you know there is at least a shred of truth in it.

So I'm just opening up a discussion about this. Please note I DON'T want to play games or score points. Best if people just say what they think rather than fool around...


----------



## Turangalîla (Jan 29, 2012)

It's true...while I loathe the view that much of Mozart's music is purely "fluffy", there are plenty of musical, knowledgeable people who hold that view, so I suppose that denying that "valid criticism" is a sort of fallacy. It's really difficult to "prove", per se, that your musical opinion is superior (quite unlike a trigonometry proof, which are quite objective).

However, most people (I would suspect) wonder why others do not think the same way about music as _they_ do...that is what can get quite frustrating. "Why on earth wouldn't _everyone_ exalt Messiaen as the greatest 20th-century composer? Are they all crazy?"


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

This is more prevalent in the pop or non-classical music field. "Yeah, well Pantera kicks Metallica's ***, man." But classical buffs are not above it. I suppose it is an integral part of human nature. We learn to mature beyond it, but it is always there under the surface. 

I'm a type of person who has rarely seen the world in black and white. It's always shades and nuances of gray, and vibrant color. It's often hard to make a quick decision and people get frustrated with me because of that. There are twelve sides to every story. But even I often feel resentment when my favorite composer or band is bashed. Insult my favorites and you are insulting my tastes, therefor me.

Luckily the feeling doesn't last but an instant these days. I may think of Beethoven as god-like, but all I need to do is look at Wellington's Victory to abolish that notion. 

There is also an iconoclastic yearning in human nature. Once something is placed on a pedestal we must try to knock it off. At the same time, championing our icons on the slightly lower pedestals affirm our serious intentions toward the arts, both to ourselves and to others.

Dang! I'm always so long winded.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

[ADD: The Short Version = the distinction between the fully trained / professional musician TC members and those TC members, non-professional and without said training.

The Long Version: End Add]

I was brought up in a home environment where you were certainly allowed both opinion and tastes of your own, but that atmosphere also included acknowledging those were 'opinion and taste.' Both at home and further training (from early childhood on…) with seriously good and intelligent music teachers only honed and reinforced that to a higher degree.

All that training / conditioning adds up to this: as long as a good argument is made for, and without being defensive or coming up with more than fallible rationales ("tonality is 'organic' and a mathematical law!" LOL) -- then 'discussion' is a real possibility and becomes both possibly interesting and lively, even, while remaining civil.

I'm certain that M.O. is not innocently 'spontaneous,' but come from family first, and the later consistent exposure to the mores and ways of training with music professionals - those like that roomful of musicologists with varying opinions of Mozart, for instance. Both the manner of thought and the accompanying decorum are expected and 'part of the rules' for the higher learned and professional musician, while this forum has a collection of all sorts.

The 'less than fully equipped' (the phrase matter of fact and not pejorative) are those without the inculcated by-laws of academic collegiality -- as specifically turned towards the arts vs. other disciplines -- in play in their 'arguments.' They will and do come to defense of their stance and opinion based more upon their feelings, often getting emotional in their constructs of 'dissing' composers they do not get or care for, or between the lines revealing a wall of defense about music they do not care for or understand; that wall -- I firmly believe -- is built to defend their personal familiarity and comfort zones, outside of which they feel grossly uncomfortable, ill at ease, or misunderstand not getting something as intellectual failure, ergo 'inferiority.' _[This is where you get the 'unreasonable' retro-conservative who behaves as if the Ottomans are still camped just outside of the gates of Vienna, which prompts that sort to say, "There is no classical music after 1900." Or, 'classical music died when tonality was abandoned." Of course those are ludicrous, absurd, but there you have it....]_

I have had a good degree of success in changing individual people's minds, sometimes but not necessarily over what they like, but at least opening them up to realizing what they do not like or care for might be as 'valued' or worthwhile as what they do care for and love. (That has only been effective in a one-on-one discussion in real time.) I think in a written forum format, with others variously equipped and with multiple standpoints adding to the fray, the dream of more rational discussion _vs. argument with rationale_ is a very charming one but most likely "just a nice dream"

I am, after a full lifetime of being active in, studying and listening to classical music, highly opinionated -- that is not anything surprising. Those opinions though, I know are opinion; they are based on a consciously defined aesthetic which I know too, is a matter of my personal 'taste.' That developed sense has me allowing that I am now no less 'impressed' yet pretty damned weary of a lot of Beethoven, not caring for romantic music much after Schumann until Mahler came along, etc. _but while very well knowing 'why,'_ and not being naive / silly / arrogant / enough to say 'Brahms was a bad composer,' for example, or to assess the wild yet still somehow almost always childishly tonal Messiaen as 'the greatest 20th century composer." (Others, since it is a hoi-polloi mix on this forum, will and do say such crazed things. 

_While one would like to think an 'expert' opinion backed up by a lifetime of professional training and experience, including a like lifetime full-time involvement of depth of thought on and about music might have a titch more weight than the opinion of an 'amateur expert,' the fact is the opinions of either plus the fare gets each on the bus. Initial wait period aside, this is an open forum, with no prerequisite qualifications. While that has its definite push-pull elements, I still find it 'healthy.'_

ERGO: There is no stopping any reasonable being from thinking of Mozart as 'Rococo' and 'fluffy,' nor another from thinking Chopin weirdly 'effete' (the word I'm sure misused to mean 'sissy-like effeminate.') Ditto for all arguments pro or anti 'atonality.' though amongst most actual practicing classical musicians tonality / atonality is not an issue, while one does find preferences pro or con within the professional community as well as in the general world.... How they are discussed, how 'opinion' is couched and in what terms, is another story.

What I would like which could stop some from making those sort of pronouncements would require much training and a certain professional detachment which it seems is mainly exclusive to those who are music professionals.

What is between the lines of your post, I think, is a desire that all involved in Talk Classical were further and better trained than many here are... On TC, "school is out," I have to keep reminding myself  One could wish for more of the "learned" exactitude of language, terminology, and 'rules of argument,' but, unless some members wish to, had the time for, and could afford to obtain a second or third four-year university level education (at least a bachelor's degree worth), this time concentrated upon classical music, that just ain't gonna happen.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

CarterJohnsonPiano said:


> It's true...while I loathe the view that much of Mozart's music is purely "fluffy", there are plenty of musical, knowledgeable people who hold that view, so I suppose that denying that "valid criticism" is a sort of fallacy. It's really difficult to "prove", per se, that your musical opinion is superior (quite unlike a trigonometry proof, which are quite objective).
> 
> However, most people (I would suspect) wonder why others do not think the same way about music as _they_ do...that is what can get quite frustrating. "Why on earth wouldn't _everyone_ exalt Messiaen as the greatest 20th-century composer? Are they all crazy?"


I have heard many remarks about Mozart,many of then crass and ill informed but "fluffy" ??


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

PetrB.

The above should be on Sid's other thread, "Make Your Own Pretentious Statement On Music!"---sorry.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I've noticed the omniscient composer thing too. 

I wonder about it because I'm not well-educated enough or insightful enough about music to judge for myself. 

In literature, I am educated and insightful enough to judge for myself, and I know that very few people's evaluations of, for instance, Kafka or Garcia Marquez or Salinger or Shakespeare have any insight or value. But a kind of mystique builds up around the name. You get people who barely understand Shakespeare and think he's boring, people who understand him fairly well but miss most of his cleverness and think he's God, people who are afraid to read him because they're afraid they'll feel foolish, people who praise him because they think it makes them look good. A lot of people like to know what they're supposed to think, so that they can blend in with intellectuals. 

With music, that's about where I am. No insight at all, I just like some stuff, and I like to hear what people, who know more than I do, think about it.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

moody said:


> PetrB.
> 
> The above should be on Sid's other thread, "Make Your Own Pretentious Statement On Music!"---sorry.


It is more about angles of approach, and that which accounts for the type of statements / attitude mentioned in the OP than anything to do with music itself.

*"That and the fare gets anyone on the bus." is pretty much central there....*

Every post on TC is worth exactly what members have paid for it, and we're all free to do with them what we want.

P.s. Unless you said something really outrageous, and you did not, there is no need to apologize for your opinion!


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

We have those who love Cage and also the same folks who don't think much of Mozart, and vice-versa. It honestly doesn't matter in this tiny part of the world-wide-web at TalkClassical. I mean, I can parade as hard as I like about Monsieur Boulez, who is no way as popular as Mozart, and probably never will be as popular as Mozart for centuries to come. I accept that as probable conjecture that will be true. But more importantly by far, it does not make one tiny difference to my own personal appreciation of music by Boulez (and Mozart, incidentally which I do enjoy as well).

My advice is this is merely an internet discussion forum, where opinions expressed here often do not resemble that of the larger listening world.


----------



## Novelette (Dec 12, 2012)

Most people are surely inclined to black-or-white, either-or thinking, of course. I am certainly not innocent of saying something like "this composer's no good", or "this composer made no mistakes". 

But hopefully a clear-sighted self-awareness will slowly purge that tendency. For a long time, I thought Mozart was dull and uninteresting, and while there is undoubtedly a cult of Mozart, I have come to appreciate much of his music as I've listened more carefully to it. Most of his music is uninteresting to me, as is the case with most composers' output, but some of his works are truly great. Only an example, but hopefully a more nuanced view comes with maturity and time.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

In the few months I have been away from TC upon my recent return here I sense a definate shift away from making sweeping statements about Mozart's music - being fluffy or whatever - either the board had become wiser or the anti Mozart people have found another board.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

I'm skeptical that we are ever able to fully recognize our bias in our own judgments, however rooted in fact they may be (and there are judgments more and less rooted in fact). This of course differs from individual to individual, but simply recognizing that some of your views are opinions and not objective judgments does not automatically allow one to "get outside of oneself" to recognize these across the board. Our personal opinions will always affect our judgments, whether we recognize it or not, and although it is admirable to try to minimize the opinion in the opinion/objective judgment ratio, I think it is at the least impossible to eliminate it from all of our judgments. That's just not the way the human brain works.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

JS Bach is definitely not God, because he has no sense of humor. My biased opinion, of course!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

moody said:


> I have heard many remarks about Mozart,many of then crass and ill informed but "fluffy" ??


The French still think of / categorize Mozart as a Rococo composer: for many that is 'too many notes' and something superficially overwrought, or, LOL, fluffy.

A friend and colleague of mine goes so far as to say 'If you don't get Mozart, you don't get Music.'

Since I don't care for the music of a handful of the (undeniably) greatest of composers of the Romantic period; I'm the first to have to cut those who find 'Mozart fluffy' -- or the opinions of some other which I might find anywhere from odd to startling -- some slack, though I'm flummoxed how it is they hear it / think it 'fluffy.'

Every one is a world....


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

Sid James said:


> I think that these get polarised because there is little give and take between fans of a particular composer who think he 'can do no wrong' and those who question the whole thing of composers being basically infallible.


I've always though that some people are "gushers." They like to gush praise at people and their works, not just in classical music, but also books, movies, sports, etc. Others have an easier time accepting faults in things they love.

The difference isn't about how much people enjoy things. Maybe it has something to do with whether you ultimately care about the person or artist independent of his works. I tend not to. Others seem to relish the payoff -- "This shows what a genius Beethoven was!" -- but that doesn't do anything for me. I get a lot out of the works themselves and out of listening to them critically (as best I can, not being a musician or expert).

In the Mozart thread, I appreciated the specific criticisms. I went to YouTube, listened to those pieces, and tried to decide whether the guy had a point. I love that kind of stuff. It doesn't alter my perception of Mozart in general, and doesn't ruin the works for me. That isn't the point.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

starthrower said:


> JS Bach is definitely not God, because he has no sense of humor. My biased opinion, of course!


Yes, I think God does have a sense of humour. After all, He made us!


----------



## Turangalîla (Jan 29, 2012)

moody said:


> I have heard many remarks about Mozart,many of then crass and ill informed but "fluffy" ??


Yes, one of the most common criticisms of Mozart's music is that it has no musical substance and is simply something you would put on in the background while you have your afternoon tea (just like Pärt-just kidding! That was terrible... :lol.

This, of course, is preposterous...


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

CarterJohnsonPiano said:


> Yes, one of the most common criticisms of Mozart's music is that it has no musical substance and is simply something you would put on in the background while you have your afternoon tea (just like Pärt-just kidding! That was terrible... :lol.
> 
> This, of course, is preposterous...


The dictionary gives "pre-Pärsterous."


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

prePärsterous - (pre-PAIRS-chew-us) adj. of or characterized by the use of the music of Arvo Pärt sonic wallpaper, as accompaniment to afternoon tea


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

PetrB said:


> It is more about angles of approach, and that which accounts for the type of statements / attitude mentioned in the OP than anything to do with music itself.
> 
> *"That and the fare gets anyone on the bus." is pretty much central there....*
> 
> ...


I wanted to apologise,which I don't do too often, because you had put a lot of effort behind it---certainly more than I did with my post.


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

CarterJohnsonPiano said:


> Yes, one of the most common criticisms of Mozart's music is that it has no musical substance and is simply something you would put on in the background while you have your afternoon tea (just like Pärt-just kidding! That was terrible... :lol.
> 
> This, of course, is preposterous...


But you said many knowledgeable, musical people make this statement, which I doubt.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

starthrower said:


> JS Bach is definitely not God, because he has no sense of humor. My biased opinion, of course!


The Coffee And Peasant Cantatas are both fairly funny. He let his hair -- I mean wig -- down with those two.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Reading all your posts has been great, I'll try to drop by later and respond to what some of you are saying, but for now I'm glad the thread has generated such interesting responses...


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> I'm skeptical that we are ever able to fully recognize our bias in our own judgments, however rooted in fact they may be (and there are judgments more and less rooted in fact). This of course differs from individual to individual, but simply recognizing that some of your views are opinions and not objective judgments does not automatically allow one to "get outside of oneself" to recognize these across the board. Our personal opinions will always affect our judgments, whether we recognize it or not, and although it is admirable to try to minimize the opinion in the opinion/objective judgment ratio, I think it is at the least impossible to eliminate it from all of our judgments. That's just not the way the human brain works.


I think it is completely impossible, objectivity, that is. Best go is being aware that no matter how 'clinical' one gets, no one can be wholly objective. That in mind tempers most any response, and also reactions to things said, wild or tame.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Just a couple of quick replies.



science said:


> ... A lot of people like to know what they're supposed to think, so that they can blend in with intellectuals.
> ...


I think that there is that sense of tribalism, or cliques. Its natural for people to bond with a common reference point in mind. Just good I think to be aware of taking this thing too far, or making it a kind of barrier.



PetrB said:


> ...
> 
> I am, after a full lifetime of being active in, studying and listening to classical music, highly opinionated -- that is not anything surprising. Those opinions though, I know are opinion; they are based on a consciously defined aesthetic which I know too, is a matter of my personal 'taste.' That developed sense has me allowing that I am now no less 'impressed' yet pretty damned weary of a lot of Beethoven, not caring for romantic music much after Schumann until Mahler came along, etc.* but while very well knowing 'why,' *...


Well that echoes how I see it too. Being aware of why I form an opinion. & saying them openly, even saying that the other side has some valid point.

I have a friend who worked in the arts industry years back. I have told this anecdote on this forum before. This person said that most of what's written and said about art is bull****. I would personally not go so far as that and be so cynical as that, but our reaction to art is very subjective. To try to lock down the hows whys and wherefores of my reaction is not always useful, sometimes no use at all.



> ...
> and not being naive / silly / arrogant / enough to say 'Brahms was a bad composer,' for example, or to assess the wild yet still somehow almost always childishly tonal Messiaen as 'the greatest 20th century composer." (Others, since it is a hoi-polloi mix on this forum, will and do say such crazed things.  ....


Well I think that Messiaen did produce one of the finest and well known chamber works in 20th century repertoire, Quartet for the End of Time. It got me into music of that time and since then. I'd say he was one of the greatest of his time but of course there have been many others.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

& I'd add the exchange below, and the conversation between these two members following it, is an example of how people put their differences aside and talk about the composer at hand. Its an exchange of ideas and opinions. No wonder current listening thread is where most people feel 'safe' here. I talk from experience, since not all people are this civil and good at this sort of open communication which I value strongly, but most people here know the limits (implied or otherwise).



Conor71 said:


> *Messiaen: Turangalila-Symphonie*
> 
> I have a bit of a love/hate relationship with this Composer - on one hand I think this work and Quator Pour La Fin Du Temps are incredible and on the other I think his Piano and Vocal Music is really awful. I always feel like I want more Messiaen in my collection after hearing this work but maybe I will just content myself with what Ive got knowing that I find at least half of the Messiaen Edition which I bought a couple of years ago unlistenable





Mahlerian said:


> What makes those works awful, in your opinion? I love pretty much all of Messiaen's music.





Conor71 said:


> I just find the Piano Music and Songs I have heard to be too disonnant and tuneless. Thats not something I dont like across the board - I enjoy quite a lot of dissonant music and even some atonal works. Just in this case I find the works repellant. I really like the idea behind the pieces Catalogue D'Oiseaux, its a stroke of brilliance I think but I dont find the music itself to be compelling. In general I dont like lieder/songs and Messiaens are no exception. As I said I also really love some of Messiaens music and find it to be quite otherwordly - I just bought 2 new Messiaen recordings today too (check out the Purchases thread)





Mahlerian said:


> It all just sounds like Messiaen to me. It does seem weird to call music like Harawi "tuneless", but if you don't like lieder/art songs at all, I suppose it's not surprising that Messiaen wouldn't change that. Well, thanks for the explanation at any rate.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

CarterJohnsonPiano said:


> Yes, one of the most common criticisms of Mozart's music is that it has no musical substance and is simply something you would put on in the background while you have your afternoon tea (just like Pärt-just kidding! That was terrible... :lol.
> 
> This, of course, is preposterous...


That same criticism is turned into praise including wonderment: there is a 'species' of music which is known as _*"Music Made of Nothing," *_meaning having used as basic material none but a few of the simplest configural gestures, an arpeggiated triad, a bit of a scale-like tune, the composer whips those simple materials into something miraculous and sublime. Mozart is the most often cited for music of that species.

The other buzz about Mozart, compared to most of the North European composers, and his fellow 'Germans,' is he could turn on a dime, most often using _*"Just Three Pitches"*_  [blame the 'Italian Taste,' those neopolitan sixths, etc.]


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

science said:


> prePärsterous - (pre-PAIRS-chew-us) adj. of or characterized by the use of the music of Arvo Pärt sonic wallpaper, as accompaniment to afternoon tea


Then there is also* postPärtum depression*, a serious condition not to be sneezed at :-/


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

trazom said:


> But you said many knowledgeable, musical people make this statement, which I doubt.


In the early 90s I realised a dream of opening a classical CD and LP music shop in Nottingham. It was successful for a number of years but is now sadly closed down.

In the early years when I was there - I talked to hundreds of customers and overheard many debates - I also travelled around to other record shops in the country and heard many many views on Mozart. Nearly always what one would expect. However,

There was a small but notceable faction that dismissed Mozart - there was a little welsh chap that used to come in and buy bel canto repertoire and never missed the chance to wave his hand at the "chocolate box music" if Mozart happened to be playing. He was an intellect so there is one at least. Then there was a philosophy professor (jewish) who sold me his LP collection - 500 LPs - all post 1950s music - and he simply shook his head with a momentary expression of pain when I asked if there was any Mozart. There was a double bassist who loved Handel - he dismissed Mozart totally as an opera composer. In Gramex in London - a famous LP shop near Waterloo station - the owner is a big fan of singers past and present - would never listen to Mozart - I was there when a customer jibed him about it and whistled through the contessa perdona scene in Figaro. There were many many incidents and it is true that there are knowlegeable people who hold the fluffy view, I can testify to that.


----------

