# Critics' ridiculous remarks about great composers and their compositions



## humanbean (Mar 5, 2011)

Throughout the history of classical music, there have been critics who have made absolutely vicious remarks about a composer or their music. Looking back at these remarks from a modern perspective, we can assess that their criticism is not at all accurate, and probably involved something completely unrelated to the music itself. Much of this occurred during the so-called War of the Romantics, but there are also several examples going into modern times.

For example, Chopin is reported to have said that Schumann's Carnaval was "not music at all." Really, Freddy? I don't even want to know how he would react after hearing a contemporary expressionist piece. :lol:

Shostakovich has also received a fair deal of harsh criticism from the likes of Boulez (surprise!) and others. This was taken from wikipedia:



> Pierre Boulez dismissed Shostakovich's music as "the second, or even third pressing of Mahler."[77] The Romanian composer and Webern disciple Philip Gershkovich called Shostakovich "a hack in a trance."[78] A related complaint is that Shostakovich's style is vulgar and strident: Stravinsky wrote of Lady Macbeth: "brutally hammering ... and monotonous."[79] English composer and musicologist Robin Holloway described his music as "battleship-grey in melody and harmony, factory-functional in structure; in content all rhetoric and coercion."


Of course, there are many in this forum who may either agree or disagree with these to a certain extent. But a "hack in a trance"? Oh please. 

Can anyone else think of any other critics' remarks that you find either ridiculous, inappropriate, or unmerited?


----------



## Lisztian (Oct 10, 2011)

There are several with the Liszt sonata. Of course, Brahms (who fell asleep when Liszt played it for him) and Clara Schumann (who called it "truly appalling, and even worse that I have to thank him for it") were both heavily critical of it, but they are not critics. Here are two:

“The structure rests on harmonic and rhythmic effusions that have not the slightest connection with beauty. Even the first theme must be dismissed as completely inartistic. Admittedly, what we get during the development is yet worse.” Gustav Engel.

“Anyone who has heard this and found it beautiful is beyond help.” Eduard Hanslick.

These remarks seem to have been consistent with the general public (with a few exceptions), and continued his whole life with most of his music which was heard.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Clara Schumann is enough to make one a misogynist. She called T&I the "most repugnant thing I've seen and heard my entire life". This in addition to the above and her own worthless repertoire of sentimental drivel.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Eduard Hanslick apparently said of Tchaikovsky's Violin Concerto, "For awhile the concerto has proportion, is musical, and is not without genius, but soon savagery gains the upper hand and lords it to the end of the first movement. The violin is no longer played. It is yanked about. It is torn asunder. It is beaten black and blue. ...(his) concerto brings to us for the first time the horrid idea that there may be music that stinks in the ear." 

He may have been considered a great critic, but I have always thought his views useless after reading that.


----------



## Guest (Mar 24, 2012)

We can quote from other Talk Classical threads, right?


----------



## jalex (Aug 21, 2011)

According to Wikipedia, some critics complained of a lack of melody in _Carmen_. Really?


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

Lisztian said:


> There are several with the Liszt sonata. Of course, Brahms (who fell asleep when Liszt played it for him) and Clara Schumann (who called it "truly appalling, and even worse that I have to thank him for it") were both heavily critical of it, but they are not critics. Here are two:
> 
> "The structure rests on harmonic and rhythmic effusions that have not the slightest connection with beauty. Even the first theme must be dismissed as completely inartistic. Admittedly, what we get during the development is yet worse." Gustav Engel.
> 
> ...


You surprise me. I haven't yet had the chance to study Liszt carefully, or really "study" him at all. I do know that he achieved such great financial security that he could have retired at a relatively young age and even helped other composers financially. I was thus under the impression that at least his piano works were financially rewarding. As a Liszt fan please tell me more.

Edit - sorry that request is off topic. This is a good idea for a thread!


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Couchie said:


> Clara Schumann is enough to make one a misogynist. She called T&I the "most repugnant thing I've seen and heard my entire life". This in addition to the above and her own worthless repertoire of sentimental drivel. What a stupid bitch.


I don't care if you're joking or not, this is just vile.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Stravinsky, who was never very fond of Wagner, stated that there was "more substance and invention in
'La Donna E Mobile' than in Wagner's entire Ring of the Nibelungen ", which he dismissed as being merely full of "rhetoric and voiciferation". Sheesh ! No offense to Stravinsky,, an undoubted genius, but this is probably the stupidest staement about classical music and opera ever made .
One little Verdian ditty is worth more than Wagner's towering Ring ? This statement is nothing short of mind-boggling .( I alsi admore Verdi greatly, but this one little aria by him is NOT superior to the whole Ring ).


----------



## Dimboukas (Oct 12, 2011)

Brahms' First Piano Concerto, according to them, was 'banal, unorthodox and horrid'. It was later hissed.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Oops. Should read "I also admire Verdi Greatly." For some reason, I always tend to hit i when I want to hit o, and o when I want to hit i. On another forum ,I accidentally spelled the Bible as the "Boble !". Embarrassing !


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

superhorn said:


> Stravinsky, who was never very fond of Wagner, stated that there was "more substance and invention in
> 'La Donna E Mobile' than in Wagner's entire Ring of the Nibelungen ", which he dismissed as being merely full of "rhetoric and voiciferation". Sheesh ! No offense to Stravinsky,, an undoubted genius, but this is probably the stupidest staement about classical music and opera ever made .
> One little Verdian ditty is worth more than Wagner's towering Ring ? This statement is nothing short of mind-boggling .( I alsi admore Verdi greatly, but this one little aria by him is NOT superior to the whole Ring ).


Well this is perhaps more a reaction against crazy Wangerites and the general attitude of people at the time than the actual music itself. In a different cultural and historical context perhaps Stravinsky would have enjoyed it a bit more.


----------



## Lisztian (Oct 10, 2011)

Truckload said:


> You surprise me. I haven't yet had the chance to study Liszt carefully, or really "study" him at all. I do know that he achieved such great financial security that he could have retired at a relatively young age and even helped other composers financially. I was thus under the impression that at least his piano works were financially rewarding. As a Liszt fan please tell me more.
> 
> Edit - sorry that request is off topic. This is a good idea for a thread!


Sure, Liszt did have his followers and some fans - but during his time very few regarded him as a truly worthwhile composer, and many were VERY critical of his music.

Most of Liszt's money, I believe, come from his career as a touring concert pianist. He was perhaps the greatest pianist of his day, as well as being a 'rockstar' and sex symbol - and this career earned him a fortune early in his life. By the time he retired from concert platform in 1848, he was financially secure.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

Listening to Liszt's b-minor sonata right now and thinking the exact same thing as Couchie's last sentence. As a musician I find it hard to criticize anyone's compositions, especially out loud and to be quoted on. Say I didn't really care for a certain work, I wouldn't feel an overwhelming need to share it with the world. Bad form. More so even when one is just plain wrong.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

violadude said:


> I don't care if you're joking or not, this is just vile.


Try reading her letters if you want to see something vile.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

I don't find Boulez' remarks on Shostakovich ridiculous; he was referring to his symphonies, which are, as a whole, undeniably overrated for historical-cum-biographical reasons.


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

Couchie said:


> Clara Schumann is enough to make one a misogynist. She called T&I the "most repugnant thing I've seen and heard my entire life". This in addition to the above and her own worthless repertoire of sentimental drivel. What a stupid bitch.


I remember using the word "bitch" in a similar joking manner and getting an infraction along with my post edited by a mod. Yet, when you say it, everything is perfectly fine.

Why?


----------



## chee_zee (Aug 16, 2010)

my own works have received criticism that you could tell the people are clearly hateful and jelly of my screet skillzz. "it's nihilistic" (lulque?) or "it sounds like random notes strung together" (in a 4 voice dense contrapuntal texture the human brain cannot interpret everything, thus representing the omniscient One, sorry if you are too stupid to interpret it), things such as these I can see right through the person and it makes me laff.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Couchie said:


> Clara Schumann is enough to make one a misogynist. She called T&I the "most repugnant thing I've seen and heard my entire life". This in addition to the above and her own worthless repertoire of sentimental drivel. What a stupid bitch.


Thank you, now I can add your little 'thought to be clever' snippet to my list of "repugnant thing I've seen and heard in my life."

... what a class act you so consistently prove yourself to be.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

PetrB said:


> Thank you, now I can add your little 'thought to be clever' snippet to my list of "repugnant thing I've seen and heard in my life."
> 
> ... what a class act you so consistently prove yourself to be.


It is plain you fancy yourself seated at Clara's long oak table with fine wine and crumpets, proudly demonstrating the fruit bourn of months of etiquette lessons as a silent unstated racist stillness hangs in the air as you both admire your high birth, broken only by Clara's sharp intake of air through her nostrils at sight of your occasional slip up of keeping your lips glued together while you chew. Then there is a clamour as I burst into the room, jump up, and take a long, coiled **** on the table.

I have already written at length of the dissolution of good taste and decency that _the Passion_ provokes, I can only offer mere apologies for the assault on your facade of pretentiousness.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Dodecaplex said:


> I remember using the word "bitch" in a similar joking manner and getting an infraction along with my post edited by a mod. Yet, when you say it, everything is perfectly fine.
> 
> Why?


I was expecting it to become *****, if a mod wishes it to be that way then I invite them to change it.


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

Couchie said:


> I was expecting it to become *****, if a mod wishes it to be that way then I invite them to change it.


Did you get any infractions?


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Dodecaplex said:


> Did you get any infractions?


In the past? Yes.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

chee_zee said:


> my own works have received criticism that you could tell the people are clearly hateful and jelly of my screet skillzz. "it's nihilistic" (lulque?) or "it sounds like random notes strung together" (in a 4 voice dense contrapuntal texture the human brain cannot interpret everything, thus representing the omniscient One, sorry if you are too stupid to interpret it), things such as these I can see right through the person and it makes me laff.


Your spelling makes me laff. But good point I suppose. :lol:


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

I hate women, but to be fair I hate everyone else too.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

regressivetransphobe said:


> I hate women, but to be fair I hate everyone else too.


You hate me too?


----------



## Blanchard (Mar 3, 2012)

I find it funny that Stravinsky had the nerve to call anyone else's work "brutally hammering".


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Couchie said:


> It is plain you fancy yourself seated at Clara's long oak table with fine wine and crumpets, proudly demonstrating the fruit bourn of months of etiquette lessons as a silent unstated racist stillness hangs in the air as you both admire your high birth, broken only by Clara's sharp intake of air through her nostrils at sight of your occasional slip up of keeping your lips glued together while you chew. Then there is a clamour as I burst into the room, jump up, and take a long, coiled **** on the table.
> 
> I have already written at length of the dissolution of good taste and decency that _the Passion_ provokes, I can only offer mere apologies for the assault on your facade of pretentiousness.


Only a cretin would eat crumpets with fine wines, but we'll let that pass--do you chew with your mouth open? The more I hear from you the more I notice the dissolution of good taste and decency.


----------



## SottoVoce (Jul 29, 2011)

Couchie said:


> It is plain you fancy yourself seated at Clara's long oak table with fine wine and crumpets, proudly demonstrating the fruit bourn of months of etiquette lessons as a silent unstated racist stillness hangs in the air as you both admire your high birth, broken only by Clara's sharp intake of air through her nostrils at sight of your occasional slip up of keeping your lips glued together while you chew. Then there is a clamour as I burst into the room, jump up, and take a long, coiled **** on the table.
> 
> I have already written at length of the dissolution of good taste and decency that _the Passion_ provokes, I can only offer mere apologies for the assault on your facade of pretentiousness.


How old are you?


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

How old is Wagner?


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

SottoVoce said:


> How old are you?


Young. But aren't we all in the broad strokes of history?


----------



## SottoVoce (Jul 29, 2011)

Couchie said:


> Young. But aren't we all in the broad strokes of history?


Sure, but some tend to show it more than others


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

It all comes down to ideology. But I've spoken enough of this on this forum.

An example of that is below, my response to the OP on this thread (Boulez and the whole serialist dictatorship after WW2 is mentioned) -

http://www.talkclassical.com/17299-narratives-twentieth-century-music.html

Here is a thread I started on ideology related to music a while back, a list of ideologies that effect how we respond to different types of music (the way I see it) -

http://www.talkclassical.com/12748-whats-your-ideology-ideologies.html

To be balanced with regards to that once young fiery anti-establishment ideologue, and now firmly establishment dinosaur of the cretaceous period, Boulez has (kind of) apologised for his bullying in the post war period. But I think it's too little too late. Caused too much fallout, imo. A bit like the vibe here at TC lately?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...erre-Boulez-I-was-a-bully-Im-not-ashamed.html


----------



## Meaghan (Jul 31, 2010)

Nicolas Slonimsky's _Lexicon of Musical Invective_ is a treasure trove of ridiculous criticism. One of my music history professors used to read to us from it in class, for the entertainment value.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Couchie said:


> Young. But aren't we all in the broad strokes of history?


Why are you so mysterious? How old are you really?


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

clavichorder said:


> Why are you so mysterious? How old are you really?


47. Although I should point out that I age non-linearly.


----------



## Meaghan (Jul 31, 2010)

Couchie said:


> Clara Schumann is enough to make one a misogynist. She called T&I the "most repugnant thing I've seen and heard my entire life". This in addition to the above and her own worthless repertoire of sentimental drivel. What a stupid bitch.


Wagner is enough to make one a misandrist.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Meaghan said:


> Wagner is enough to make one a misandrist.


Oh please. All Ringers know that Wagner is the original feminist.


----------



## peeyaj (Nov 17, 2010)

A certain critic, when comparing Schubert and Beethoven to Mendelssohn', called Schubert *a talented amateur*.

The guy has big guts.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Couchie said:


> It is plain you fancy yourself seated at Clara's long oak table with fine wine and crumpets, proudly demonstrating the fruit bourn of months of etiquette lessons as a silent unstated racist stillness hangs in the air as you both admire your high birth, broken only by Clara's sharp intake of air through her nostrils at sight of your occasional slip up of keeping your lips glued together while you chew. Then there is a clamour as I burst into the room, jump up, and take a long, coiled **** on the table.
> 
> I have already written at length of the dissolution of good taste and decency that _the Passion_ provokes, I can only offer mere apologies for the assault on your facade of pretentiousness.


All that?

You seem to be hobbled -- perhaps from the more immediate British heritage attached to the commonwealth of your birth -- with vestigial notions of "station."

I was just commenting on what us common folk consider bad manners and uncalled-for remarks.

You do know that Wagner has been holding his own (and very well thank you very much) for nearly 120 years without you, don't you?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

moody said:


> Only a cretin would eat crumpets with fine wines, but we'll let that pass--do you chew with your mouth open? The more I hear from you the more I notice the dissolution of good taste and decency.


More and more I suspect the party of being, like, twelve years old: not an excuse, but at least a reason


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

brianwalker said:


> I don't find Boulez' remarks on Shostakovich ridiculous; he was referring to his symphonies, which are, as a whole, undeniably overrated for historical-cum-biographical reasons.


Whatever he was referring to, Boulez's remarks of Shostakovich being Mahler rehash is, to paraphrase Boulez himself, criticism of totally "useless" kind (the tag he gave to post-war composers who were not writing in avant-garde styles, etc.).

Of course, also heavily biased against "modern tonal" music (my post above re ideology covers this). & maybe a bit of sour grapes as well. Boulez's music is not, will probably never be, as popular as Shostakovich. But Boulez was a loose cannon and criticised many other composers who didn't match his own ideology, eg. Xenakis.

Having said that, I don't mind some of Boulez's music (eg. his piano sonatas and song-cycles are very fine, no one could really doubt that), but it is very complex, even to musicians playing it. When Yvonne Loriod, the pianist to premiere the second sonata, first saw the score, she burst into tears at it's difficulty. But she was able to perform it brilliantly after all. So I do not judge listeners, esp. with no musical training, for being daunted by Boulez's music.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

Those kind words are a nice gift to Boulez from you for his birthday today. I was just listening to his piano sonatas earlier and was reading the story of Yvonne Loriod and her reaction to the piece. I want to obtain a score and hand it to all my friends who are pianists and get their reaction and see how they managed it. Too bad the majority of them hate contemporary classical.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

Anything Hanslick ever wrote falls into this category.


----------



## Glissando (Nov 25, 2011)

Some egregious examples that come to mind:

-- Chopin saying that Schumann's Carnaval "was not music," a comment which I find truly bizarre 
-- Benjamin Britten saying that Puccini's music is cheap, worthless and empty
-- Stravinsky was particularly fond of saying outlandish things, like, "Germans have never understood the true nature of music," (what??) and he also dissed Vivaldi, Wagner, and Mahler
-- Mahler said something like "Brahms is a mannequin with a narrow heart" 
-- As has been mentioned, Wagner's music came in for a huge amount of criticism by people who had not been prepared for the radical musical departures seen in Tristan and Isolde. Lots of people heard it as a pointlessly discordant, screeching mess
-- But perhaps the most ridiculous criticisms made of music are the ones quoted in Soviet Russia, with regard to Shostakovich and other composers. The Soviets' blinkered ideology didn't allow for a genuine aesthetic appreciation of musical talent. Instead, every artist came in for an inquisition on whether or not he or she fostered class unity and national pride.


----------



## Glissando (Nov 25, 2011)

"I don't find Boulez' remarks on Shostakovich ridiculous; he was referring to his symphonies, which are, as a whole, undeniably overrated for historical-cum-biographical reasons."

I disagree. I find Shostakovich's symphonies really compelling and challenging. I concede that too much is often made of the socio-cultural aspects of Shostakovich's career, but that may be because those more tangible details are easier for writers to talk about than it would be to analyze the music. I think Shostakovich's work will stand the test of time long after the Soviet experiment has faded into a chapter of cultural history.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I believe that Shostakovich's symphonies are uneven (although I think one could say that about everyone's symphonies or music in general), but I agree that he wrote a core of symphonies that are justly considered important works.

The term "undeniably overrated" seems hard to understand. I assume what it means is that the person using it believes strongly that the works are not as good as most others do. If works truly were "undeniably overrated", everyone would believe the works were overrated, which of course, is impossible.


----------



## poconoron (Oct 26, 2011)

I always found this one rather humorous:

"_Beethoven always sounds to me like the upsetting of bags of nails, with here and there an also dropped hammer._"
--John Ruskin to John Brown, 1881

I can get somewhat of an inkling of what he was referring to when listening to Symphony #7 - which is (btw) perhaps my favorite of the Beethoven symphonies.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

mmsbls said:


> I believe that Shostakovich's symphonies are uneven (although I think one could say that about everyone's symphonies or music in general), but I agree that he wrote a core of symphonies that are justly considered important works.
> 
> The term "undeniably overrated" seems hard to understand. I assume what it means is that the person using it believes strongly that the works are not as good as most others do. If works truly were "undeniably overrated", everyone would believe the works were overrated, which of course, is impossible.


There are Holocaust deniers.

I'm not what your point is.

Wait, I know what your point is, and it's a terribly pointless.

Is the Holocaust undeniable?


----------



## Trout (Apr 11, 2011)

brianwalker said:


> There are Holocaust deniers.
> 
> I'm not what your point is.
> 
> ...


The rating of Shostakovich's symphonies is subjective, whereas the Holocaust is an actual event that took place in history which, of course, cannot be denied. The thought of comparing the two in any way makes no sense, whatsoever.

My question to you is what is _your_ point?


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Trout said:


> The rating of Shostakovich's symphonies is subjective, whereas the Holocaust is an actual event that took place in history which, of course, cannot be denied. The thought of comparing the two in any way makes no sense, whatsoever.
> 
> My question to you is what is _your_ point?


My point is that just because some people deny something doesn't make something not undeniable.



Trout said:


> The rating of Shostakovich's symphonies is subjective


Nope.

They're pretty awful, and the most overrated symphony cycle out there.


----------



## jalex (Aug 21, 2011)

brianwalker said:


> They're pretty awful, and the most overrated symphony cycle out there.


Convince me.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

jalex said:


> Convince me.


Convince me otherwise.

Many composers have made that remark, not just Boulez. Salonen too, thought it was pretty miserable stuff. Barenboim, I'm sure you know his remarks about Shostakovich.

The point was this thread was that these remarks, and it is the remarks of these conductors that we are talking about, are ridiculous.

Well, these are well respected and talented people, it's our burden to prove them wrong.

edit: for reference even on TC

http://www.talkclassical.com/14199-greatest-symphonist.html

*Shostakovich has 10 more votes than Mozart, and has bested Schubert, Brahms, and Bruckner.*


----------



## Trout (Apr 11, 2011)

brianwalker said:


> Convince me otherwise.
> 
> Many composers have made that remark, not just Boulez. Salonen too, thought it was pretty miserable stuff. Barenboim, I'm sure you know his remarks about Shostakovich.
> 
> ...


You are implying that your opinion as well as that of a few other critics create the definite "fact" that is considered "right"?


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Trout said:


> You are implying that your opinion as well as that of a few other critics create the definite "fact" that is considered "right"?


No, but their opinions are more factual than our judgments.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

But Shostakovich's symphonies have been praised by equally respected musicians....


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

violadude said:


> But Shostakovich's symphonies have been praised by equally respected musicians....


They don't count right now because it's not convenient to the point he's trying to make.


----------



## jalex (Aug 21, 2011)

brianwalker said:


> No, but their opinions are more factual than our judgments.


Does the phrase 'more factual' actually mean anything?


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Well anyway, to answer the question at hand. Of course any critic that says something negative about a piece I like is a ridiculous criticism.


----------



## Clementine (Nov 18, 2011)

brianwalker said:


> No, but their opinions are more factual than our judgments.


Oh gosh, I never thought I'd have so many problems with one sentence.

First, lets not use 'opinion' and 'judgment' as if they have different meanings. Secondly, please revisit the phrase 'their opinions are more factual' and see if you can identify the paradoxes, there are actually two! Also, I'm rather fond of Shostakovich, and I have a large nose, which I'm told counts for something (see http://www.talkclassical.com/18829-how-big-your-nose.html).


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

I once read a critic that said Shostakovich's Symphonies are "undeniably overrated". Such rubbish.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

jalex said:


> Does the phrase 'more factual' actually mean anything?


Does the phrase "mean anything" mean anything?

What they say carries more weight, that satisfy you?


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

PetrB said:


> All that?
> 
> You seem to be hobbled -- perhaps from the more immediate British heritage attached to the commonwealth of your birth -- with vestigial notions of "station."
> 
> ...


I might agree more with you, given my preference for more decent language, but we're talking about Clara, after all.


----------



## jalex (Aug 21, 2011)

brianwalker said:


> What they say carries more weight, that satisfy you?


Yes, but it also destroys the point you were trying to make.

Even if all the prominent musicians alive today regarded Shostakovich's symphonies as worthless (which is far from the case), that does not make their worthlessness an objective fact like the fact that the Holocaust occurred; it makes it inter-subjectively agreed upon, which is quite different.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

brianwalker said:


> No, but their opinions are more factual than our judgments.


Remarkable sophistry, in that it deserved a remark, nothing more.



> Does the phrase "mean anything" mean anything?
> 
> What they say carries more weight, that satisfy you?


I don't imagine so, considering that you have tacked on yet another unsupported statement. A and B don't imply C. Demonstrate that they do, if you will. As of yet, you have been using two variants of the genetic fallacy, called the appeal to authority fallacy, and the appeal to celebrity fallacy.

Argumentum ad verucundium. Translation: "argument from respect/modesty". Ipse dixit: "He, himself, said it".



> _t is not what the man of science believes that distinguishes him, but how and why he believes it. His beliefs are tentative, not dogmatic; they are based on evidence, not on authority or intuition.
> 
> Source: Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy (Book-of-the-Month Club, 1995), p. 527.
> 
> ...


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Lukecash12 said:


> Remarkable sophistry, in that it deserved a remark, nothing more.
> 
> I don't imagine so, considering that you have tacked on yet another unsupported statement. A and B don't imply C. Demonstrate that they do, if you will. As of yet, you have been using two variants of the genetic fallacy, called the appeal to authority fallacy, and the appeal to celebrity fallacy.
> 
> Argumentum ad verucundium. Translation: "argument from respect/modesty". Ipse dixit: "He, himself, said it".


There are too many things in life that you can't verify yourself but rely on trust and common sense.

For example, I'm sure no one in this forum can begin to explain why Godel's Incompleteness Theorem is true, but we take it to be true on trust. If someone started a ruckus and denied GIT and said that Principia Mathematica did prove that closed systems were logically consistent it would be ridiculous to try and refute him. Most people take the authority of physics on faith and faith alone, of course with inference thrown in, but there's always inference in listening to the voice of authority.

There are so many things that we take on authority as long as the source is authoritative and trustworthy. You take hundreds of things on authority everyday, such as the veracity of that article by Russells.

We take history on authority. No one can corroborate it but the original, authoritative documents.

They could all be forgeries.

In the Russell article the "authority" was not authoritative. Politics taints these things.

What motives does Salonen have in bashing Shostakovich?



jalex said:


> Yes, but it also destroys the point you were trying to make.


Why? That Shostakovich is undeniably overrated? When he receives no praise from the most respected figures in music and is paraded for his biographical elements that still makes his reputation precarious? No, it's undeniably overrated.



> Even if all the prominent musicians alive today regarded Shostakovich's symphonies as worthless


Did I ever say that anywhere? Strawmanning it up I see.



> objective fact


I'd like to see one of those, really.



Cnote11 said:


> I once read a critic that said Shostakovich's Symphonies are "undeniably overrated". Such rubbish.


I'm not a critic.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Moreover, your arguments are red herrings, because they distract us from the actual merits of the works. I'm sure you are brilliant in your own little world, but each of your arguments has had a label since the Stoics.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Lukecash12 said:


> Moreover, you arguments are red herrings, because they distract us from the actual merits of the works. I'm sure you are brilliant in your own little world, but each of your arguments has had a label since the Stoics.


But we weren't discussing the actual merits of the work, but the relative merits of the *remarks of critics, that's what this thread is about; can you read the title? That makes it pretty clear.* People are dismissing the remarks, not carelessly made, by people who know far more about the music than they do in all probability.

This thread is not devoted to the "actual merits" of Shostakovich's works.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

brianwalker said:


> There are too many things in life that you can't verify yourself but rely on trust and common sense.
> 
> For example, I'm sure no one in this forum can begin to explain why Godel's Incompleteness Theorem is true, but we take it to be true on trust. If someone started a ruckus and denied GIT and said that Principia Mathematica did prove that closed systems were logically consistent it would be ridiculous to try and refute him. Most people take the authority of physics on faith and faith alone, of course with inference thrown in, but there's always inference in listening to the voice of authority.
> 
> ...


1. You are pointing out a default position, and not defending it's logic.
2. Your appraisal of different works and their authority, is sophomoric at best, because you did not critique their methodology. The fallacy has already been pointed out, yet you perpetuate it by trying to display how your fallacy fits. A and B don't imply C, brian.
3. I take the veracity of Russell's article on the grounds that I agree with his methodology. He is a philosopher, and I have been studying philosophy for most of my life, so I don't just take him for his word.
4. You aren't dumb, and you aren't a child. I am appraising you as neither. You are free to share your opinion, in fact encouraged. However, neither will your assertions receive any credit if they are based on an easily recognizable fallacy. We all step out of our paygrade, so to speak. And that is fine, we shouldn't be impolite to one another for that, or disparage their character or intelligence. Not all of us admit this, though. That so many don't, is not so meet.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

brianwalker said:


> But we weren't discussing the actual merits of the work, but the relative merits of the *remarks of critics, that's what this thread is about; can you read the title? That makes it pretty clear.* People are dismissing the remarks, not carelessly made, by people who know far more about the music than they do in all probability.
> 
> This thread is not devoted to the "actual merits" of Shostakovich's works.


Actually, you set out to defend remarks that have been vilified in this thread. Your course has been precisely opposite that of the OP. Even if we accept your universe of discourse, my critiques have been on point. We can discuss the merits of the remarks of critics, without perpetrating basic fallacies. Factors like critical consensus, methodology, etc. come into play, not just sophomoric lines of argument.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Lukecash12 said:


> 1. You are pointing out a default position, and not defending it's logic.
> 2. Your appraisal of different works and their authority, is sophomoric at best, because you did not critique their methodology. The fallacy has already been pointed out, yet you perpetuate it by trying to display how your fallacy fits. A and B don't imply C, brian.
> 3. I take the veracity of Russell's article on the grounds that I agree with his methodology. He is a philosopher, and I have been studying philosophy for most of my life, so I don't just take him for his word.
> 4. You aren't dumb, and you aren't a child. I am appraising you as neither. You are free to share your opinion, in fact encouraged. However, neither will your assertions receive any credit if they are based on an easily recognizable fallacy. We all step out of our paygrade, so to speak. And that is fine, we shouldn't be impolite to one another for that, or disparage their character or intelligence. Not all of us admit this, though. That so many don't, is not so meet.


1. I'm pointing out a position that everyone takes. Denying that "authority" is meaningful is among the stupidest conclusions of logical positivism. If the authority of these critics are to be attacked they deserve something backed up behind it. 
2. "Their methodology"? Who's "their"? 
3. My point is that Russell was not at his best in that article, as he was not at his best in many, many places, such as his disastrous History of Western Philosophy. I'm sure you realize how incredibly horrific the chapter on Hegel was. 
4. The notion that there is a book of "fallacies" that can be used to correct "recognizable fallacies" in a discussion is in itself sophomoric. This is a forum, we're not academics writing papers. The fact is I'm jeering at the OP jeering. If I'm committing a logical fallacy so is everyone else in this thread, including the threader starter, whose first post was an ad hominem at best.

The fact of the matter is (please, this is a common phrase, no need to quibble over the word "fact") is that critical opinion is what makes history, not audience attendance. If you want to dismiss the remarks of eminent musicians, you better have damn good reasons yourself, because the default position is with authority. Boulez is not known in recent years to make disparaging remarks carelessly, and his remark on Shostakovich is famous because it is out of character. If you disagree with him it's your burden to prove him wrong.


----------



## jalex (Aug 21, 2011)

brianwalker said:


> Why? That Shostakovich is undeniably overrated? When he receives no praise from the most respected figures in music and is paraded for his biographical elements that still makes his reputation precarious? No, it's undeniably overrated.


Well I only waded in to the debate when you started acting like Shosty's symphonies were objectively bad by comparing the logic of their champions to that of Holocaust deniers, that's really all I was concerned to clear up. But clearly it is deniable: Rostropovich, Britten and Walton all rated them highly.



> Did I ever say that anywhere? Strawmanning it up I see.


No, it was a hypothetical situation.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

Logic doesn't deny that authority is meaningful, brianwalker. Any argument to authority is not automatically a fallacy. It is an informal inductive argument which can be strong and therefore bypass being a fallacy.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

However, I should point out that because it is an inductive argument it can never be said to be 100% true, although it can have an extremely strong possibility. Logic recognizes the merit of experts, so if you can back up your claim with a myriad of expert opinions that come to the same conclusion, it can be said that your argument is a strong argument.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

jalex said:


> Well I only waded in to the debate when you started acting like Shosty's symphonies were objectively bad by comparing the logic of their champions to that of Holocaust deniers, that's really all I was concerned to clear up. But clearly it is deniable: Rostropovich, Britten and Walton all rated them highly.


The example was contextual; the parallel wasn't between the occurrence of the Holocaust and the overratedness of Shostakovichs's symphonies, but a reductio ad absurdum of the assertion that if there is no universal consensus on something then it must be subjective. My example was in reply to this and this only.



mmsbls said:


> The term "undeniably overrated" seems hard to understand. I assume what it means is that the person using it believes strongly that the works are not as good as most others do. *If works truly were "undeniably overrated", everyone would believe the works were overrated, which of course, is impossible.*


The bold was what I was replying to. The bold insinuates that if something is not universally agreed upon it would be absurd to say that it's undeniably so; *my point is that there are many undeniable truths that are not universally agreed upon.*



Cnote11 said:


> However, I should point out that because it is an inductive argument it can never be said to be 100% true, although it can have an extremely strong possibility. Logic recognizes the merit of experts, so if you can back up your claim with a myriad of expert opinions that come to the same conclusion, it can be said that your argument is a strong argument.





Cnote11 said:


> Logic doesn't deny that authority is meaningful, brianwalker. Any argument to authority is not automatically a fallacy. It is an informal inductive argument which can be strong and therefore bypass being a fallacy.


Try to follow the conversation please, I never said that logic denies that authority is meaningful.


----------



## jalex (Aug 21, 2011)

brianwalker said:


> The example was contextual; the parallel wasn't between the occurrence of the Holocaust and the overratedness of Shostakovichs's symphonies, but a reductio ad absurdum of the assertion that if there is no universal consensus on something then it must be subjective. My example was in reply to this and this only.


My bad. Still, it isn't undeniable.

Have you read his entry in Grove? It's pretty favourable.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

1. I'm pointing out a position that everyone takes. Denying that "authority" is meaningful is among the stupidest conclusions of logical positivism.

Sorry, you said "logical positivism". What I said still holds though. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it doesn't differ as far as I'm aware.


----------



## peeyaj (Nov 17, 2010)

All of these bantering made my head hurt.. Can we just moved on?


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

peeyaj said:


> All of these bantering made my head hurt.. Can we just moved on?


This entire thread was bantering, from the very beginning.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

In response to my saying, "If works truly were "undeniably overrated", everyone would believe the works were overrated, which of course, is impossible."



brianwalker said:


> The bold was what I was replying to. The bold insinuates that if something is not universally agreed upon it would be absurd to say that it's undeniably so; *my point is that there are many undeniable truths that are not universally agreed upon.*


I think you missed my point, but perhaps I'm using your words differently than you intended. I take "undeniably" to mean "difficult to deny." In other words the majority (or even vast majority but certainly not everyone) would have to agree to something that is undeniable. I'm not sure how else to interpret that. If the majority agrees that Shostakovich's symphonies are overrated, then the majority do not rate Shostakovich's symphonies highly. If the majority don't rate his symphonies highly, then they are not overrated. Basically, the majority determines ratings, and it's impossible for a majority to overrate or underrate it's own views. The majority rates its own views exactly correctly - by definition.

If you actually meant that experts believe that Shostakovich's symphonies are overrated, then, of course, you could be correct. I have said in other threads that anyone who suggests that works or composers are overrated is essentially just saying that they disagree with the majority opinion.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

brianwalker said:


> 1. I'm pointing out a position that everyone takes. Denying that "authority" is meaningful is among the stupidest conclusions of logical positivism. If the authority of these critics are to be attacked they deserve something backed up behind it.
> 2. "Their methodology"? Who's "their"?
> 3. My point is that Russell was not at his best in that article, as he was not at his best in many, many places, such as his disastrous History of Western Philosophy. I'm sure you realize how incredibly horrific the chapter on Hegel was.
> 4. The notion that there is a book of "fallacies" that can be used to correct "recognizable fallacies" in a discussion is in itself sophomoric. This is a forum, we're not academics writing papers. The fact is I'm jeering at the OP jeering. If I'm committing a logical fallacy so is everyone else in this thread, including the threader starter, whose first post was an ad hominem at best.
> ...


1. Whether or not everybody takes a position hasn't an explicit relationship with the veracity of a position. Authority is plenty meaningful, actually. You have mistaken the nature of the appeal to authority fallacy. The problem with an appeal to authority is that it makes an equivocation, between fact and opinion. People who are the authority on an issue have opinions that are indicative of the facts because they have been taught rigorous methodology, an attention to detail when it comes to important pursuits like citation, and they have access to materials that aren't available to the public. However, if the opinion of an authority figure were grounds for stating a fact, by itself, then a serious error of equivocation has been made. If it were the case that authority=fact, then we would live in a universe with circular squares, cylindrical triangles, and square pegs fitting into round holes. Seeing as one authority may very well say something even diametrically opposed to another authority, we cannot use authority in and of itself as a yardstick for truth, unless we are okay with square pegs fitting into round holes.
2. Russell, for one, was not given any substantial critique.
3. Your point has yet to be made, seeing as you've just made some more unsupported claims there. Have you or have you not been using fallacious reasoning? Do you recognize the inanity of the fact that you've just misinterpreted me as citing Russell as an authority, whilst I was pointing out what a fallacious appeal to authority is? I don't take this on Russell's authority. I take it to be true, that equivocating appeals to authority are fallacious, because they invite wild paradoxes and are misleading.
4. Hmmmm.... Actually, it's not sophomoric by any means. People have been cataloging issues in logic since, for example, Plato noted a variety of fallacies while critiquing the sophists in his _Theaetetus_, while discussing three inquiries into the nature of knowledge. Your notion that a systematic collection of common fallacies, is not present and usable, is a notion adverse to that of every professional philosopher I know, who has generally started by cutting his/her teeth on Aristotle's _Posterior Analytics_, while studying classical philosophy.

It is my burden to discuss the merits of an issue, unless I happen to make the assertion that a specific authority is wrong. If and when I have disagreed with an authority figure that I have specified, I certainly will cite his/her work and critique him/her.

For clarity: Your appeal to authority is fallacious, in part, because you refer to the critical consensus, while citing dissenting voices. Aside from the people whose political views were adverse to Shostakovich's pursuits, other educated critics have given him praise for his work.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Lukecash12 said:


> For clarity: Your appeal to authority is fallacious, in part, because you refer to the critical consensus, while citing dissenting voices. Aside from the people whose political views were adverse to Shostakovich's pursuits, other educated critics have given him praise for his work.


The voices I cite are dissenters with regards to the merits of his *symphonies? *Where are the positive appraisal of his symphonies? I have heard only negatives, very harsh appraisals from Barenboim, Boulez, Salonen, etc, and many conductors don't touch his music at all.

Shostakovich's symphonies sells tickets in the concert halls, but where is the "critical consensus" that favors those works?


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

It is of interest to note that the government he lived under did force him to change his compositional style in order to appeal to the masses. I'm curious to what Shostakovich thought of the works himself.


----------

