# Why do we appreciate old composers more than new ones



## Souhayl (Jan 17, 2012)

Hello everybody, 

I tried to analyse the situation rationally, I think that we keep always appreciating old composers (Mozart, Bach, Liszt) more than modern ones (Berg, Ligeti, Cage and other music genres like Rock, House, Experimental) not just because of their "weird" music but also : let's imagine our selves during romanticism for example, there were not as many music genres as nowadays, the classical genre dominated, so everytime that a new piece comes out, everybody was so excited to hear it, to play it, that's wht the genre was well appreciated, plus classical presented the elite and the bourgoies (it's played for kings, nobles and rich people) so the society looked at it always as something sacred and superior, during time, the musical aspect of music has changed, also its objectives, plus it has been expanded into hundreds of genres. Before, music was just played and composed for kings or for the church, now music is composed even for pornography, for nightclubs etc .. That view of something noble has sticked to classical music till now and even the media played a big role in that, we see that in TV and everywhere, I'll give a situation : someone is trying to compose something, his friend tells him : "Are you trying to be Beethoven ?" even in our daily life, we unconsciously kinda worship those composers.

*Now why classical music is appreciated but new classical composers are not ?

I think that people see that classical music is something classic and we mean by classic something that has ended, I personally during my childhool thought that classical music is sooo old and doesn't exist now. And that just because when they talk or teach us about classical music, they always mention those ones and barely new composers. People nowadays within this music genre hurricane are less interested in classical music, and it's not as demanded or wanted as Rock or House, that's why when a composer tries to make something classic, it's most of the time under-appreciated and they just say " yeah, interesting" they don't feel the value of a classical composer like they did in the past because simply they really don't need more of it, they think that that's it, Beethoven or Chopin is enough to listen to as classical and they don't need me or you to come up with something new.


*Why modernism in general (Cage, Legit, Scheonberg) is less appreciated than classicism or romanticism ?

Music went through the process of getting based on sounds more than musical instruments and harmonic phrases (like when Cage is playing materials), it's not a matter of understanding it or not, cuz some people find that pleasing, some may just mock it but it's just cuz people always wanted to hear melodies and beautiful tunes like classical composers had given them, and when something new happened, they refused it, like what happened when Stravinsky exposed the rite of spring at the first time, then people got used to it, it's the same case when something new comes out. Let's imagine if music started with atonal then came atonal, let's imagine the timeline reversed, like instead of Bach, we find Berg, then instead of Berg, we find Bach, certainly people must had heard enough atonal and did not have anything else on the other hand so it's stuck in their minds, it's always atonal, they love it and they appreciate it and worship it, then comes Liszt and makes something using tones, it would sound different and would be considered contrevertial to a point that people would refuse it, ignore it and despise it, but during time, they will get used to it because it's representing an alternative and it's changing to that process. 
So I think that it's not about understanding it or not, I can keep kicking a metal basket on the wall for 20 minutes and call that a wall concerto for basket, there would be certainly people appreciating it and feeling amazed with that idea, somes would just despise it while I was just playing around to make some noise, it's the same as when a writer writes something unconsciously, and then analyzers come and start making hundreds of articles and a buzz telling that he was trying to show this and this .. while the writer himself ddidn't really think of any of that .. So people that can feel modern music don't have to say that it's just them who understand it, and other don't because they simply didn't like it ! modern art in general even in plastic art (with abstract), painters can throw some colors here and there and say that it's an artistic piece, and people would buy it for millions of dollars while a child can make one like that while playing with his colors at home ! That's modern art, anything can be appreciated and anything is considered as art, art is not just for a specific category of people but for anyone, anyone can be an artist from nothing. It has maybe good points and it has negative points also as it's not giving a chance anymore for the real ones but that's how it's going today, either we keep crying about the past and think that "real" music has stopped years ago or we just accept what we have and create within this music war.

Well I think I really got out of the subject !


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Simple explanation. The new music just isn't as good as the old one.

When Wagner wrote his operas, there were many who were hostile to his music.

From Ross's "Unforgiven" from the New Yorker.

""Wagner's infinite ambitions have had a dubious, even destructive, influence on music itself. He was a monumentalist: he could build only giant structures, not habitable homes. Unlike all great composers before him, he wrote no chamber music, no entertainment, no throwaways from amateur violists and weekend flutists. In his urge to explain, connect, and unify the musical universe, he set a bad precedent for what Ned Rorem has termed "the masterpiece syndrome": dozens of imitators sought, consciously or unconsciously, to make Ultimate Statements, and in the process the intimate, conversational quality of the ninteenth-century music-making broke down. The "Ring" was like a glorious modern cathedral built on the rubble of a village. Where would the congregation come from now? Not necessarily from humble German villages, it turned out. The Bayreuth Festival's mysteirous ticketing system seems to favor CEOs, influential foreigners, and unstoppable fanatics.

Monumentalism was what Eduard Hanslick denounced in Wagner. The powerful Viennese critic had his persnickety, Beckmmesserish qualities, but he could be strikingly wise. "Wagner's star will continue to shine in the German operatic firmaments, as long as all around is darkness," Hanslick wrote. Hanslick foresaw the travails of classical music in the twentieth century, the futile chase after progressively more arcane and irrelevant musics of "the future". At the same time he perceived Wagner's death wish for music: the attidue of "After me- or with me-the deluge." Wagner exhibited a purely aesthetic kind of intolerance, an inability to coexist with musical equals. What is Bayreuth but Wagner and darkness all around?"

On the other hand Wagner also had devotees.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsifal#Reactions_to_Parsifal

---------------------

In contemporary times the dearth of good composers is evident in that there is ZERO CONTROVERSY in the music community. Every critic applauds any new composition that is half-way decent, and as Boulez said in an interview, financially it's much easier to get commissions now than even 60s years ago. New works are being performed without the least ounce of effort form the composer himself.

If you read any Wagner biography you'll find out how hard he fought to have his operas even STAGED. Those obstacles don't really exist nowadays. The operas houses are hungry for new operas. The demand simply isn't there.

So no, there isn't a massive conspiracy to suppress modern music.

*Is there ANY critic as harsh on John Adams as Hanslick is on Wagner?*

Read these reviews. Read them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/19/arts/music/19nicole.html?pagewanted=all

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/18/a...at-anna-nicole-griselda-and-don-giovanni.html

"An opera about Anna Nicole Smith: the American sex symbol, Playboy Playmate, hapless model, laughable actress and fortune-hunting wife of a billionaire nearly 63 years her senior? *Commissioned by, no less, the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden?**"

*Wagner had to flee from his creditors. Mahler had to work as a conductor and composed on his holidays. *

"The biggest surprise was "Anna Nicole," the opera by the British composer Mark-Anthony Turnage that had its premiere in February at the Royal Opera in London. When I heard that Mr. Turnage was writing a work about the tawdry life and death of the Playboy Playmate and laughable actress Anna Nicole Smith, I feared the worst: something vulgar, sensational and full of cheap laughs. But "Anna Nicole," with a witty libretto by Richard Thomas and an eclectic score, is a *brilliant, outrageous and, finally, quite moving work *that treats Smith as an unlikely tragic heroine."

Where are all these invisible people denouncing "modern" music?

Boulez wrote his Second Piano Sonata around the time that Shostakovich wrote his 10th symphony. The 10th is firmly established in the repertoire. Karajan, Solti, and Bernstein has recorded it.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

(Mozart, Bach, Liszt) more than modern ones (Berg, Ligeti, Cage
I appreciate Berg more than Liszt.

*Now why classical music is appreciated but new classical composers are not ?

I would say that this worship of the classics is even more prevalent in the rock community. Somehow the Beatles and the Rolling Stones and Bob Dylan and whatever are the greatest musicians of all time. Since their list includes artists are recent as Eminem, their list is suppose to be comprehensive.

As a chillwave and Indie rock fan I shake my fist angrily in the air! Down with Dylan! Down with Lennon!

Let's imagine if music started with atonal then came atonal, let's imagine the timeline reversed, like instead of Bach, we find Berg, then instead of Berg, we find Bach, certainly people must had heard enough atonal and did not have anything else on the other hand so it's stuck in their minds, it's always atonal, they love it and they appreciate it and worship it, then comes Liszt and makes something using tones, it would sound different and would be considered contrevertial to a point that people would refuse it, ignore it and despise it, but during time, they will get used to it because it's representing an alternative and it's changing to that process. 

Music wasn't always tonal. It wasn't "atonal" either.

modern art in general even in plastic art (with abstract), painters can throw some colors here and there and say that it's an artistic piece, and people would buy it for millions of dollars while a child can make one like that while playing with his colors at home ! 
It's called status showboating.

either we keep crying about the past and think that "real" music has stopped years ago or we just accept what we have and create within this music war.

Who's crying?


----------



## Souhayl (Jan 17, 2012)

Nice nice, interesting reactions


----------



## Souhayl (Jan 17, 2012)

When I say people, I mean majority ! Nobody is crying but if we can call it fetishising the past


----------



## Souhayl (Jan 17, 2012)

brianwalker said:


> (Mozart, Bach, Liszt) more than modern ones (Berg, Ligeti, Cage
> I appreciate Berg more than Liszt.
> 
> *Now why classical music is appreciated but new classical composers are not ?
> ...


When I say people, I mean majority ! Nobody is crying but if we can call it fetishising the past


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

People grow accustomed to the old stuff. They're never sure on what new stuff is going to be like. Since people listen to _mainly_ the old stuff now, they appreciate it more than the new stuff. They seem to prefer listening to stuff they are familiar with than trying something new, which they aren't familiar with.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Also, and I need to bring this up. There's a lot of new music.

It's called rock n roll.

Most people prefer the Beatles over Beethoven. Or BDylan [insert rock god here].

So why aren't you asking why most people privilege the 60s over any other period in the history of music?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

brianwalker said:


> So why aren't you asking why most people privilege the 60s over any other period in the history of music?


Because the answer is so blatantly obvious. The 60s was when this piece was written:


----------



## Souhayl (Jan 17, 2012)

brianwalker said:


> Also, and I need to bring this up. There's a lot of new music.
> 
> It's called rock n roll.
> 
> ...


Let's bring that question up here also


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Wasn't there JUST a thread about this??


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

violadude said:


> Wasn't there JUST a thread about this??


I really don't remember. My memory doesn't go back that far. Let's just stick to this one now.


----------



## Souhayl (Jan 17, 2012)

violadude said:


> Wasn't there JUST a thread about this??


I am new to the site, and I don't really know if this topic was discussed before so sorry if I'm repeating stuff over and over


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

http://www.talkclassical.com/17538-fetishising-past.html


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

violadude said:


> http://www.talkclassical.com/17538-fetishising-past.html


People like to repeat themselves.

It's the Eternal Return.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Why do people spawn multiple threads on the same subject instead of participating in the existing ones? Do they think that the top post position makes their comments more important or something?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Things started going downhill with Gregorian chant. From there, it's a simple story of constant decline.


----------



## jalex (Aug 21, 2011)

science said:


> Things started going downhill with Gregorian chant. From there, it's a simple story of constant decline.


Oh, very good.

You've taken a position which has at its foundations the idea that music _cannot_ decline. Seems a bit reckless.


----------



## Souhayl (Jan 17, 2012)

bigshot said:


> Why do people spawn multiple threads on the same subject instead of participating in the existing ones? Do they think that the top post position makes their comments more important or something?


It's not for sure that, I am new to the site and I didn't know if this topic was discussed before simply.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

The topic was just a thread or two down. If you had read anything at all before you posted, you would have seen it. Feel free to check it out and join the conversation there.


----------



## itywltmt (May 29, 2011)

Here's my take - and I don't think it's far from everybody else's really.

There's "appreciate" and "like". "Like" implies that the composer's works fit within the framework of the music we normally gravitate to, IMO.

Then ther's "appreciate", which involves two things: an investment in understanding the composer's frame of mind (through biographies, or an understanding of the historical context of the time) and "making a connection" to the composer and/or the work being considered based on that knowledge.

As music lovers, in the spectrum of "casual listener" to "raving enthusiasts", you will find that people generally find themselves somewhere in the middle of that spectrum, only choosing to "do the homework" when he/she encounters a piece that makes more than a fleeting connection.

I, myself, find myself more to the right of that spectrum, which has alloewed me to not only make an effort to "taste" other musical genres and composers, but to come to "appreciate" the works through the homework.

Hope that rant makes sense...


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

The "we" you are referring to can go on enjoying their Mozart, Hadyn, etc... I'll enjoy my Ligeti, Berg, Lutoslawski, etc. Thank You!


----------



## TrazomGangflow (Sep 9, 2011)

Personally feel that before I move on to modern composers I need to appreciate the fathers of classical music first. And they wrote so much music! I may never really appreciate the modernist composers. Also from what I have heard I simply enjoy Classical, Baroque, and Romantic music more than Modern Era classical music but I haven't heard enough modern classical music to confirm that statement.


----------



## DavidMahler (Dec 28, 2009)

The answer to the OP is actually more simple than I realized. I spent a while thinking about it. 

I think its as simple as people's connection with tonality and melody.

If you look at music movements and not individual composers, it becomes very obvious why classical music being written today is not as beloved as older ones.

From the time that music notation had been invented and modified, each movement was in some way an expansion of tonality and melody. Each movement had its templates and within these templates were composers of enormous gifts and composers who challenged the templates (the innovators). But within this, tonality and melody were always considered. 

At the time of Wagner, and Wagner's predecessors, tonality begins to unravel. By the mid-20th Century, melody is also abandoned for a time. With regard to art and music, the 20th Century spent so much time question "what is art?" Is silence music, is pure randomness a painting worthy of praise?" Art became a question, rather than an expression. When tonality returned in the form of minimalism, melody was gone. People may be enthralled by modern music, but without the form and melody being at the forefront of a movement, composer's individual achievements will not be as valued by the masses.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

WE need some historical perspective here. The composers of our time have simply not been around long enough to become as familiar to audiences as the music of the past. Only time will tell which of them achieves a permanent place in the repertoire, assuming that the world is still around in future centuries and civilization has not been destroyed. 
There are many once prominent composers who are now pretty much forgotten, except to musicologists and die-hard classical music fans who buy CDs of obscure music out of curiosity. Conversely, there are some composers who were not all that famous and highly regarded in their day but are now universally recognized for their greatness. 
Telemann was a far more famous composer in his day than his close contemporary Bach. 
Louis Spohr, Tommaso Traetta, Baldassare Galuppi, Lully, Felix Draeseke, Leonardo Leo,
and many other composers were widely performed in their lifetimes but have not become a part of the standard repertoire . 
Will the music of Philip Glass be popular a century from now and later ? Who knows ?


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

I think I see the issue now.

The issue is that it's being subtly implied that the idea of old composers being more appreciated than new ones is being viewed as somehow as _bad_.

Now who told you it was _bad _to like things you're more familiar with? Does it even sound _evolutionary _sound to be attracted to foreign things when there is a risk of it hurting you? Even for those who are great fans of contemporary music, they have their ways of critical thinking so as to understand that which is foreign so that it's _no longer a foreign substance to them after all._

We are living in a Relativistic society where people say anything goes, particularly with art and music, and that _everything _is good to somebody. And thus, our society says something is wrong when we personally declare a work bad.

The issue is that many people are now looking at their own behavior and saying to themselves, "Why is this not working out, that I'm being so _un_-relativistic? Why do I have my own standards and can't get rid of them? Why can't I love everything?"

The truth is, the theory of Relativity is putting people on false guilt trips saying that everything is legitimate and should be equally accepted. But that's not the solution to today's issue.

A couple things have thus happened in recent decades: 
1) an _unreasonably _powerful critical society bolstering up Modern Music in a way that keeps it from actually competing properly with other music. Or course, some help is necessary for music to become more widely known, but it can only go so far as its true success (somehow success with public isn't viewed as legitimate success anymore) 
2) The isolation between the artist(composer) and the audience, where the artist is hostile and wants to purposefully emotionally hurt or aggravate their audience in some way. Happily I've discovered that artists are realizing this themselves and are repenting and starting to _serve _the public more and more. An Artist is a servant first and foremost. But that is only in my opinion.
3) Relativity has been a dysfunctional argument for goodness in new music that has been taken too far. Rather than tell an audience that a particular music is good because it just is (that is literally not letting the audience think), the audience should be taught how to be critical analyzers to figure out what's good to them _personally_ besides what's _universally _good signs of art/music. _Then _they can have honest reasons for why they do or do not like new music.

So going back to original discussion, I believe it's only wrong to have personal standards when you don't end up _applying _them properly or with _empathy _to the artist/composer. I don't (or future tense _won't_) like it when people arbitrarily say they hate a piece of music without giving a the work a listen, or giving a good argument. If someone can give me a good argument why they like some Serialist work, or _don't_, I find it acceptable. In this Contemporary music era, the audience must learn to be _critical _as opposed to _judgmental_, that is, looking for the _positives _in works if you can besides faults.

_The skill of critical thinking is a music listener's greatest asset today._

Take it or leave what I have to say, I'm not going to be dogmatic. Just to add on the side, I did take a Contemporary Arts and Ideas Seminar last semester where these issues were discussed and I was subjected to observe art I wouldn't normally see or accept but had to critically analyze it. I've also recently read several Art Theory books as well. This is where I've gotten these concepts from.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Let me take a stab at a name that'll be more appreciated in a century than it is now: Andrew Lloyd Webber. About 40 years from now there'll be a revival, and he'll be considered "classic" from that point on. 

Get ready for it, you could be at the cutting edge of social change.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

science said:


> Things started going downhill with Gregorian chant. From there, it's a simple story of constant decline.


I'll bite.

*No one believes that save a few nut cases.* No one on this forum certainly. There has never been in instance of anyone arguing/publishing something in favor if the superiority of Gregorian chants over Bach and Beethoven.

You will be hard pressed to find anyone on earth who prefers the Gregorian chants to the music composed through the Bach-Berg era.

Your analogy is invalid.

There are many, many folks, folks, from across class, generation, and culture, and believe that Bach is the greatest composer/musician/whatever of all time. Steve Jobs, Einstein, William Buckley, various composers and conductors, the list goes on and on, not to mention half this forum.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

brianwalker said:


> I'll bite.
> 
> *No one believes that save a few nut cases.* No one on this forum certainly. There has never been in instance of anyone arguing/publishing something in favor if the superiority of Gregorian chants over Bach and Beethoven.
> 
> ...


Actually, there was someone who believed that on this forum. I'm not sure if he is still around though.


----------



## DavidMahler (Dec 28, 2009)

brianwalker said:


> I'll bite.
> 
> *No one believes that save a few nut cases.*


Are you kidding? Music's been in decline since the very first pitch was uttered consciously by a caveman.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

The quality of music goes up and down depending on the value that society places on it and music's ability to connect with its audience. Right now, we're in a musical depression because the media industry has constricted the pipeline that connects the artist with his audience, and the public won't support the artform because what they're getting from the media is so crappy. It's a vicious circle and our hope for pulling out of it lies in the internet.


----------



## LordBlackudder (Nov 13, 2010)

well i've been told by many that the new stuff is not classical and the classical music era has ended. so i don't really know what you mean by new composers. they don't exist.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I think it was obvious that my comment on Gregorian Chant was facetious. As I've said lots of times, my actual opinion is that music cannot progress or regress, only change. Someone who tells us that Bach is the greatest composer of all time tells us something about themselves, not about the objectively relative greatness of composers.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

science said:


> I think it was obvious that my comment on Gregorian Chant was facetious. .


You had a rhetorical goal. I was blocking your goal.



> As I've said lots of times, my actual opinion is that music cannot progress or regress, only change. Someone who tells us that Bach is the greatest composer of all time tells us something about themselves, not about the objectively relative greatness of composers


OK, what do you by objective relative greatness? What does "objective relative greatness" mean? Does it mean anything at all? Should we banish "objective relative greatness" from the English language?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

brianwalker said:


> You had a rhetorical goal. I was blocking your goal.
> 
> OK, what do you by objective relative greatness? What does "objective relative greatness" mean? Does it mean anything at all? Should we banish "objective relative greatness" from the English language?


Hostile, eh?

"Objective" means factual, a thing that is not just your opinion or mine: one of us would be right and one wrong if we were to say that Bach's Mass is better/worse than the Tournai Mass or than Martin's Mass for Double Choir. "Relative" means comparing works to each other like that. And I'm not the one arguing that music has declined or progressed, so I don't have the burden of explaining what "greatness" could mean.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Nothing ever declines or progresses. The Dark Ages and the Age of Reason were both equally swell!


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

bigshot said:


> Nothing ever declines or progresses. The Dark Ages and the Age of Reason were both equally swell!


That's ridiculous of course.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

We should probably just set up a poll, in which we can vote about whether people who like modern music or baroque music or classical music or romantic music are as smart or sensitive or whatever as other groups, and let you guys come and vote on it every day, maybe even every hour: that way you can just condescend to whomever you choose unhindered by all these useless words. Plus, rather than waste my time reading them, I could just look in there and see who is looking down on me this time, thus more efficiently spending my defensive hate time.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Or a form: 

Today I'm scorning people who like (check all that apply): 

__ Medieval and Renaissance music
__ Baroque music
__ Vivaldi
__ Classical music
__ Romantic music
__ Wagner
__ Brahms
__ Tchaikovsky
__ the Strauss family 
__ opera 
__ jazz
__ swing jazz
__ fusion jazz
__ smooth jazz
__ blues
__ rock 
__ hip-hop
__ techno 
__ the New Vienna School
__ pops 
__ post-WWII music without very much dissonance
__ post-WWII music with very much dissonance 

Over time we could add more, so that you can scorn with greater precision and efficiency.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Of course I'm making fun of y'all. You enjoy your words too much to do it that way.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

science said:


> Hostile, eh?
> 
> "Objective" means factual, a thing that is not just your opinion or mine: one of us would be right and one wrong if we were to say that Bach's Mass is better/worse than the Tournai Mass or than Martin's Mass for Double Choir. "Relative" means comparing works to each other like that. And I'm not the one arguing that music has declined or progressed, so I don't have the burden of explaining what "greatness" could mean.


Of course Bach's Mass is better because almost everyone would agree that it's better, and we would all say that the person who said anything to the contrary was an idiot.

Relative. How do we compare? Has there ever been a successful comparison that has, through reason, settled an aesthetic dispute that was once controversial? We still get "Brahms vs. Wagner".

Bach's Mass was obscure and unperformed for years, but once it was revived I doubt the "Bach vs. Martin" was ever a real question.

Sure you didn't assert decline or progress over time, but you did assert the greatness of Bach's mass over's Martin's mass. Surely you would say that "better" is synonymous with "greater"?


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

science said:


> We should probably just set up a poll, in which we can vote about whether people who like modern music or baroque music or classical music or romantic music are as smart or sensitive or whatever as other groups, and let you guys come and vote on it every day, maybe even every hour: that way you can just condescend to whomever you choose unhindered by all these useless words. Plus, rather than waste my time reading them, I could just look in there and see who is looking down on me this time, thus more efficiently spending my defensive hate time.


I'm afraid there just aren't that many people here to even make this "experiment" valid, we don't know each other well enough, and there's no incentive for strangers on a forum to get to know each other on such a level to settle this kind of dispute.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

science said:


> Or a form:
> Over time we could add more, so that you can scorn with greater precision and efficiency.


no need to add more, just pare it back to the last couple. That's all we really need.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

science said:


> Or a form:
> 
> Today I'm scorning people who like (check all that apply):
> 
> ...


I'll bite.

This list is too general. I would need to know their relative appreciation of Bach, Wagner, Mahler, etc, in fact, individual pieces are necessary, from 1-100.

1. Why does Wagner get his own category but Bach, Mozart, Haydn, etc, don't? I think that the top 30 (yeah of course this is controversial in itself) deserves their own category.

Then'll I rate my scorn from 1-1000, 1000 being the highest.

I'll give you an example. St Luke. Ohio's preferences and my own aren't perfectly matched. I hold Stravinsky and Mahler (to a less degree) in higher regard than he does. He gets a 4, maybe 7 on rainy days.

People who would give hip-hop 100/100 after exploring various genres of music. Scorn score: 986.

People would would give Bob Dylan 60/100, Wagner (excluding Parsifal) 90/100, and Bach 45/100, and heavy metal 100/100 would get a scorn score of 450.

Of course I haven't figured out what he normal distribution of the scorn score would look like, so even these hypercriticals aren't really accurate.

So will you answer my previous objections to "objective relative greatness"?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

brianwalker said:


> Of course Bach's Mass is better because almost everyone would agree that it's better, and we would all say that the person who said anything to the contrary was an idiot.
> 
> Relative. How do we compare? Has there ever been a successful comparison that has, through reason, settled an aesthetic dispute that was once controversial? We still get "Brahms vs. Wagner".
> 
> ...


No, I absolutely did not.

I do not use the term or the concept "greatness" because such snobbery disgusts me.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

bigshot said:


> no need to add more, just pare it back to the last couple. That's all we really need.


Oh, no no no no. People look down on each other for all of those things, and probably many more.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

science said:


> No, I absolutely did not.
> 
> I do not use the term or the concept "greatness" because such snobbery disgusts me.


Isn't your labeling of your previous comment "facetious" implicitly judging that anyone who disagrees as an outsider?

What if he really did prefer Gregorian chants? What makes your example facetious? Your expectation that I would find it facetious?

This has gotten too far. I'm calling it quits.

It was fun while it lasted. I'm framing "scorn with ever greater efficiency and precision" on my wall.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

brianwalker said:


> Isn't your labeling of your previous comment "facetious" implicitly judging that anyone who disagrees as an outsider?
> 
> What if he really did prefer Gregorian chants? What makes your example facetious? Your expectation that I would find it facetious?


I made it simple for you.

Pretending that I was talking about "preferences" or - where in the world did this come from? - "outsiders" is simply dishonest at this point.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

brianwalker said:


> Simple explanation. The new music just isn't as good as the old one.
> 
> When Wagner wrote his operas, there were many who were hostile to his music.
> 
> ...


Why do we love new composers so much? Why do we give them such an easy time?

Critics in the past were very harsh on new composers.

*Why do we fetishize the present and the future? *


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

brianwalker said:


> I'll bite.
> 
> This list is too general. I would need to know their relative appreciation of Bach, Wagner, Mahler, etc, in fact, individual pieces are necessary, from 1-100.
> 
> ...


What? You can't just generalize genres like that, brian. When you say you'd give less scorn to someone who rates heavy metal 100/100 less than someone who rates hip-hop high, what are your qualifications for saying that? You do realise if someone says they like heavy metal it might be something completely different than what you imagine it to be. It is quite the diverse genre. By the same token, someone who says they like hip-hop could be referring to something you hadn't ever imagined. Something tells me you have a superficial understanding of these genres as a whole.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Cnote11 said:


> What? You can't just generalize genres like that, brian. When you say you'd give less scorn to someone who rates heavy metal 100/100 less than someone who rates hip-hop high, what are your qualifications for saying that? You do realise if someone says they like heavy metal it might be something completely different than what you imagine it to be. It is quite the diverse genre. By the same token, someone who says they like hip-hop could be referring to something you hadn't ever imagined. Something tells me you have a superficial understanding of these genres as a whole.


This is a reckoning, not a precise calculation. Scorn is always context dependent, but there is a vague "general context", the presumptive context before the actual context is given, and this post expresses the scorn in the "general context", the context before the context.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

I just find it bizarre that you started off that post about the list being too general but then proceed to be just as general. If you're going to be scornful I hope you would be more precising in your scorn! You're in the major leagues now, Brian.


----------

