# Hypocrisy vibe



## Calipso (May 10, 2020)

Thread about pop vs classical music and comments remind me one thing. I often notice some kind of hypocrisy vibe, especially here on forum. Opinions, tastes, things are different but equal, no one is better. Music is subjective, pop is equal with classical, everything is art , no objective criteria of great music, etc.

But, somehow always, Bach, Mozart and Beethoven are best composers ever. It is more interesting how you can measure three best composers, or best works, but then equalizing clasical with pop where is gap so obvious. No problem to say that somebody is better than Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Bartok, Stravinsky, Wagner , Ravel, but somehow Madona, Michael Jackson, Drake, Rihanna are on same level with CM composers. "You know, its all different, but no one is better, but hey, Mozart is the greatest. God give him notes".


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

Oh no, here it comes again.

It's subjective, but I don't see how it follows that I'm required to think in my subjective judgement that everything is equal.



> But, somehow always, Bach, Mozart and Beethoven are best composers ever.


By the way, no, I think that Bach, Beethoven and Wagner are the greatest ever. But if someone wants to say Prokofiev, Satie and Antheil, to each his/her own.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Calipso said:


> Thread about pop vs classical music and comments remind me one thing. I often notice some kind of hypocrisy vibe, especially here on forum. Opinions, tastes, things are different but equal, no one is better. Music is subjective, pop is equal with classical, everything is art , no objective criteria of great music, etc.
> 
> But, somehow always, Bach, Mozart and Beethoven are best composers ever. It is more interesting how you can measure three best composers, or best works, but then equalizing clasical with pop where is gap so obvious. No problem to say that somebody is better than Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Bartok, Stravinsky, Wagner , Ravel, but somehow Madona, Michael Jackson, Drake, Rihanna are on same level with CM composers. "You know, its all different, but no one is better, but hey, Mozart is the greatest. God give him notes".
> 
> Also, another case is famous " best 20th century composer". What means this phrase? "Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Shostakovich or Bartok are among 20th century greats". Why limit these artists on one century? Is Mozart 18th century great? Oh no, he is "greatest gift to humanity and "Beethoven struggle is inspiration for ages". They are "all time greats". First among equals.


Could you point, precisely, to where someone has said any of this? It makes discussion so much more profitable if we can deal with what people actually said, rather than vapid generalisations.

I can certainly recall at least one specific individual who has said on TC that there are no objective criteria by which it can be definitively shown that Beethoven is better than Ravel and both are better than Taylor Swift. He nevertheless reported that by his own criteria, he, like the rest of us, ranked music according to what he liked most. (It was't me that I had in mind, but I agreed with him.)

Others have counter-argued.

I see no hypocrisy.


----------



## advokat (Aug 16, 2020)

In the end, the dispute over subjective v. objective criteria for assessing the worth of any composer or music is simple. If the music is a side effect of evolution, everything is subjective, and rap is neither worse nor better than Bach. If you think that music and beauty in general are but a reflection of the divine then it is another matter. What is hypocritic is trying to find an objective footing for assessing the intrinsic worth of music in today's secular liberal pieties.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

advokat said:


> secular liberal pieties.


What on earth are these? No, really - I haven't any idea what this means.


----------



## advokat (Aug 16, 2020)

Forster said:


> What on earth are these? No, really - I haven't any idea what this means.


Good.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Calipso said:


> No problem to say that somebody is better than Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Bartok, Stravinsky, Wagner , Ravel, but somehow Madona, Michael Jackson, Drake, Rihanna are on same level with CM composers.


I think you're confusing performers with composers. 

This discussion has no solution; there will always be people who think Jackson is a composer on the level of Beethoven and that Madonna is as important as Wagner. But people have short memories and short lives. All of those name compos.,ers above died famous and their music has lived on and will continue to be played, listened to, recorded and loved for many more years. Time is the ultimate critic and those guys have passed the test. Will Madonna? Jackson? Who knows. Just as there are many classical composers whose music is largely ignored and forgotten, the same thing happens to pop performers and especially pop composers. (It's Frank Sinatra's "My Way", but not really. Paul Anka wrote it.) I'm old and I can tell you that there have been countless pop composers/performers from the '50s and '60s who are totally forgotten. There are some, like James Darren, who occasionally shows up at retirement communities to make a few bucks. But when that generation who grew up with him is gone, and that won't be long, his musical career will be dust. Time will tell whether Madonna, Jackson, Drake (who?), or Rhianna (who?) will last. I find it interesting that one group, the Beatles, is still popular and selling some 60 years after they arrived. And I can't help but think that one reason for their fame and staying power was the huge influence of their classically trained producer George Martin.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

advokat said:


> Good.


Helpful. So you just want to stand on a soapbox and preach, not actually engage and discuss?

FWIW, I think that "secular liberal pieties" is meaningless twaddle, but I did give you a chance to say otherwise.


----------



## Calipso (May 10, 2020)

advokat said:


> In the end, the dispute over subjective v. objective criteria for assessing the worth of any composer or music is simple. If the music is a side effect of evolution, everything is subjective, and rap is neither worse nor better than Bach. If you think that music and beauty in general are but a reflection of the divine then it is another matter. What is hypocritic is trying to find an objective footing for assessing the intrinsic worth of music in today's secular liberal pieties.


I think music is reflection of the gift, talent and human spirit. It is crazy to search for best composer among so many gifted composers with similar properties, but then talks about equality with pop music.


----------



## Chilham (Jun 18, 2020)

................


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

*Hypocrisy vibe*

I don't want to provoke an argument, but ... nobody wrote Bach's music better than did Bach; nobody wrote Mozart's music better than did Mozart; nobody wrote Beethoven's music better than did Beethoven; but almost _anybody_, I suspect, can sing Miley Cyrus songs better than does Miley Cyrus.

Please, no comments, please. I've said all I have to say on the subject of this thread. I hope no hypocrisy is showing.

By the way: I remain a big fan of Milt Jackson, so don't hold "vibes" against me either.


----------



## EvaBaron (Jan 3, 2022)

SONNET CLV said:


> *Hypocrisy vibe*
> 
> I don't want to provoke an argument, but ... nobody wrote Bach's music better than did Bach; nobody wrote Mozart's music better than did Mozart; nobody wrote Beethoven's music better than did Beethoven; but almost _anybody_, I suspect, can sing Miley Cyrus songs better than does Miley Cyrus.
> 
> ...


I’m really sorry but I have to say it’s a bad analogy. You’re comparing composing with singing. Probably a lot of people can play Beethoven’s piano pieces better than he could. And no one can write Beatle songs better than the Beatles


----------



## bagpipers (Jun 29, 2013)

It's a lose lose really; Classical has held firm for centuries but Folk/Pop have always been the most popular in there own era and classical has always barrowed from folk/pop over the centuries.

And folk/pop barrows from folk/pop as well,for instance look at how the English blues rock bands of the 60's and 70's ripped off the American black bluesmen.Then look at how the Rap artists of the 1908's and later sampled the daylights out of those same white rock bands(almost ironic)

Plagiarism was the likely true motive of the Manson murders (The helter skelter theory was nonsense) Manson wrote a pretty good folk song robbed by the beach boys with some lyrical changes but otherwise same tune.That is what pushed Manson over the edge(and 3000 hits of acid didn't help either) Not that that's any excuse for what they did,no need to kill anyone when they had a good lawsuit against the Beach Boys.

Even "Where have all the flowers gone" was taken from an old Cosack folk song called Tov Chu Mak.

It's all a hypocritical mess really,no disagreement here LOL


----------



## Nate Miller (Oct 24, 2016)

bagpipers said:


> Classical has held firm for centuries but Folk/Pop have always been the most popular in there own era and classical has always barrowed from folk/pop over the centuries.


very good point


----------



## advokat (Aug 16, 2020)

Forster said:


> FWIW, I think that "secular liberal pieties" is meaningless twaddle.


It is not. The topic does not belong here, and I can point you to quite a bit of (mostly) accessible literature, but given your somewhat jaundiced reaction, I suspect that you are perfectly well aware of what I am talking about, and that you subscribe to a good deal of these pieties yourself. After all, you hail from GB, and I know my British compatriots all too well. The one thing I am trying to avoid is getting into heated internet discussions with people I have never met. And you seem to be spoiling for a fight. "I did give you a chance..." Seriously?


----------



## Selby (Nov 17, 2012)

advokat said:


> It is not. The topic does not belong here, and I can point you to quite a bit of (mostly) accessible literature, but given your somewhat jaundiced reaction, I suspect that you are perfectly well aware of what I am talking about, and that you subscribe to a good deal of these pieties yourself. After all, you hail from GB, and I know my British compatriots all too well. The one thing I am trying to avoid is getting into heated internet discussions with people I have never met. And you seem to be spoiling for a fight. "I did give you a chance..." Seriously?


With due respect, using incendiary language and then stating that you are avoiding conflict when someone takes the bait is disingenuous. Also, making personal generalizations based on nationality is problematic.

In regards to the OP - I haven't witnessed the type of hypocrisy you refer to. May I offer a suggestion that if you wish to discuss great pop music that you go to the sub-forum and discuss great pop music? Finding like-minded individuals may be the more successful approach.


----------



## advokat (Aug 16, 2020)

Selby said:


> With due respect, using incendiary language and then stating that you are avoiding conflict when someone takes the bait is disingenuous. Also, making personal generalizations based on nationality is problematic.
> 
> In regards to the OP - I haven't witnessed the type of hypocrisy you refer to. May I offer a suggestion that if you wish to discuss great pop music that you go to the sub-forum and discuss great pop music? Finding like-minded individuals may be the more successful approach.


I do not want to discuss pop music or any other kind of inferior art at all. As for the nationality issues, this is between me and my British compatriots. Cheers. Sorry, no cheers yet.I am rather curious, what part of my innocuous post you regard incendiary? Or is it just a clever way of getting the moderators' attention?


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

As they used to say in ancient Rome "De gustibus non est disputandum ".


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

I've heard of Musser, Yamaha, Premier, Majestic and Adams. Who makes the Hypocrisy?


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

mbhaub said:


> I think you're confusing performers with composers.
> I find it interesting that one group, the Beatles, is still popular and selling some 60 years after they arrived. And I can't help but think that one reason for their fame and staying power was the huge influence of their classically trained producer George Martin.


You could conceivably call *THE BEATLES* a *team effort*, and that they also encompassed both composing AND performing. Well, so did *Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin*, and *Liszt*.

That team of *Martin, McCartney, Lennon*, and *Harrison* (and to a lesser extent, *Starr*, and probably everyone else that has ever been named "the fifth Beatle") somehow created music over the course of just over seven years that has lasted sixty years so far. 

I'm of the opinion that the whole was greater than their parts, and all of those "parts" evolved quickly over those seven years. 
So, yes, *Martin* was very influential on their sound, and how their songs were recorded, even altered, especially in the first five years. As a songwriting TEAM, *Lennon/McCartney* were astonishing in their instincts most of the time, and the team of four musicians played with an innate musicality that was miraculous. Were there better musicians than them? Of course there were. So why are their recorded performances remembered while better musicians are not? 

Well, the musicality. They were able to _connect_ with their audience, through their words, tunes, delivery, etc. It was something that is difficult to pin down and define.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Please refrain from commenting on other members and keep posts focused on the thread topic.


----------



## Music_Enthusiast1993 (6 mo ago)

Calipso said:


> Thread about pop vs classical music and comments remind me one thing. I often notice some kind of hypocrisy vibe, especially here on forum. Opinions, tastes, things are different but equal, no one is better. Music is subjective, pop is equal with classical, everything is art , no objective criteria of great music, etc.
> 
> But, somehow always, Bach, Mozart and Beethoven are best composers ever. It is more interesting how you can measure three best composers, or best works, but then equalizing clasical with pop where is gap so obvious. No problem to say that somebody is better than Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Bartok, Stravinsky, Wagner , Ravel, but somehow Madona, Michael Jackson, Drake, Rihanna are on same level with CM composers. "You know, its all different, but no one is better, but hey, Mozart is the greatest. God give him notes".
> 
> Also, another case is famous " best 20th century composer". What means this phrase? "Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Shostakovich or Bartok are among 20th century greats". Why limit these artists on one century? Is Mozart 18th century great? Oh no, he is "greatest gift to humanity and "Beethoven struggle is inspiration for ages". They are "all time greats". First among equals.


I would say Beethoven is great not because everyone is taught to say that he is great (our standard music education curriculum) but rather because his music is just so enjoyable to me. I can relate to Beethoven more than most artists. I understand the emotions in his music. I get where he is coming from with his piano sonatas and symphonies. I have also studied his sheet music, attended live performances, and listened to timeless recordings from YouTube. I wasn’t dragged into classical music by my parents with the intention of making me appear enlightened and more intelligent than other people (“my son likes classical, he is so smart!”),I sought it out at some point while I was in high school because I needed a reason to find joy in this world and classical music provided me with that joy.

Pop music is also something that has had a positive impact on me. At the end of the day, music is music regardless of the labels and genres. And the best part? Music can appeal to almost everyone because of the many different kinds of music out there.


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

Music_Enthusiast1993 said:


> I would say Beethoven is great not because everyone is taught to say that he is great (our standard music education curriculum) but rather because his music is just so enjoyable to me. I can relate to Beethoven more than most artists. I understand the emotions in his music. I get where he is coming from with his piano sonatas and symphonies. I have also studied his sheet music, attended live performances, and listened to timeless recordings from YouTube. I wasn’t dragged into classical music by my parents with the intention of making me appear enlightened and more intelligent than other people (“my son likes classical, he is so smart!”),I sought it out at some point while I was in high school because I needed a reason to find joy in this world and classical music provided me with that joy.
> 
> Pop music is also something that has had a positive impact on me. At the end of the day, music is music regardless of the labels and genres. And the best part? Music can appeal to almost everyone because of the many different kinds of music out there.


Nice reading welcome to Talk Classical


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

advokat said:


> It is not. The topic does not belong here, and I can point you to quite a bit of (mostly) accessible literature, but given your somewhat jaundiced reaction, I suspect that you are perfectly well aware of what I am talking about, and that you subscribe to a good deal of these pieties yourself. After all, you hail from GB, and I know my British compatriots all too well. The one thing I am trying to avoid is getting into heated internet discussions with people I have never met. And you seem to be spoiling for a fight. "I did give you a chance..." Seriously?


If the topic does not belong here, why did you introduce it? If you're trying to avoid getting into a heated discussion on the internet with a stranger, why ask if I'm "spoiling for a fight"? You could take at face value what this "stranger on the internet said" - I don't know what you mean by "secular liberal pieties". Of course, I can use the internet to find a dictionary definition of these words, but it's how _you're_ using them in the context of the thread subject that I can't look up.

So, how about explaining to the Forum (it's not just me you're talking to here) what you meant by your post #4? It was worth posting in the first place, so it must surely be worth making sure that your readers understand it.


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

Do people eating at Michelin-starred restaurants get butthurt over the fact that other people prefer burgers or pizza?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Bwv 1080 said:


> Do people eating at Michelin-starred restaurants get butthurt over the fact that other people prefer burgers or pizza?


And music isn't even vital to human life the way food is. Listening to "bad music" won't damage your health in any way. There are people around me who don't really care much for any kind of music in their lives and still live their lives just fine. It's really just an optional/secondary thing in life; accusing them as lazy for not being into nerdy hobbies such as ours (which is essentially "appreciation/idolization of ancient relics") strikes me as absurd.


----------



## Calipso (May 10, 2020)

Music is almost perfect indicator of one society, culture or epoch. Apparently, music is unnecessary, but much tells about individual or collective state. Bad music is consequence not cause. Good music ,and art generally, is food for human spirit, soul and brain. Music is reflection our internal state. Only decadents can't see catastrophic music today or worse, they see but they are ambivalent. Pop music is even worse than before.


----------



## Calipso (May 10, 2020)

We live in times where people for ten years wouldn't know what is their gender, and I talk about music, lol. Everything is relatively, so, rock on.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Comparing Beethoven to Michael Jackson is somewhat akin to comparing a saw to a hammer. One may be the best of its kind, and a great tool for a specific job, but it's rather meaningless to assert that one is greater than the other.

I like both. I listen to them when I am in a certain mood. There are times when classical music won't do. There are times when pop music won't do.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Don't be afraid of what hurts the body but of what hurts the soul!

Bad art is among the things that can hurt one's soul and one does not need a religious world view to accept this a psychological possibility. 
To take an extreme case, it seems pretty established by now that p0rn0graphy can seriously mess people up and while there might be no other such clear case, it is quite plausible that some things will weaken certain faculties or impede them reaching full (or normal/average) potential. As it is obviously the case with training one's body or cultivating a taste for food/wine, the same applies to cultivating (or dull or destroy) one's sense for beauty.
(It's obvious in extreme cases like someone getting their hearing damaged because of absurdly loud amplified music.)


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> And music isn't even vital to human life the way food is. Listening to "bad music" won't damage your health in any way. There are people around me who don't really care much for any kind of music in their lives and still live their lives just fine. It's really just an optional/secondary thing in life; accusing them as lazy for not being into nerdy hobbies such as ours (which is essentially "appreciation/idolization of ancient relics") strikes me as absurd.


Well there's life at a bare subsistence level and there's something a little richer. Dismissing everything as unnecessary unless it aids physiologically to survival is also absurd. Life without any kind of artistic expression is absolutely possible, but it's impoverishment. I mean sure, we can all be hunter-gatherers again and live from deer-kill to deer-kill, but I don't think many really want that. And even then art would probably be produced. Look at the cave paintings.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Yabetz said:


> Well there's life at a bare subsistence level and there's something a little richer. Dismissing everything as unnecessary unless it aids physiologically to survival is also absurd. Life without any kind of artistic expression is absolutely possible, but it's impoverishment.


John Stuart Mill has entered the chat ;-)


_



It is indisputable that the being whose capacities of enjoyment are low, has the greatest chance of having them fully satisfied; and a highly-endowed being will always feel that any happiness which he can look for, as the world is constituted, is imperfect. But he can learn to bear its imperfections, if they are at all bearable; and they will not make him envy the being who is indeed unconscious of the imperfections, but only because he feels not at all the good which those imperfections qualify. It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, is of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question.

Click to expand...

_


----------



## EvaBaron (Jan 3, 2022)

MatthewWeflen said:


> Comparing Beethoven to Michael Jackson is somewhat akin to comparing a saw to a hammer. One may be the best of its kind, and a great tool for a specific job, but it's rather meaningless to assert that one is greater than the other.
> 
> I like both. I listen to them when I am in a certain mood. There are times when classical music won't do. There are times when pop music won't do.


I chuckled when reading the first sentence because me and a friend of mine whose favourite artist is Michael Jackson often argue who is better. Of course in an ironic way instead of serious, just making up the dumbest arguments to prove your point. It’s really fun but I just sent him this so that he knows how I really think about it


----------



## Music_Enthusiast1993 (6 mo ago)

Rogerx said:


> Nice reading welcome to Talk Classical


Thank you! Yes it’s a nice forum you guys have going here.


----------



## Steatopygous (Jul 5, 2015)

Of course how people enjoy music, and what they enjoy, is subjective. But there are objective canons that have developed over centuries by which we can gain a measure of agreement. I have no doubt that more people know "Mary had a little lamb, its fleece was white as snow" than know Milton's Paradise Lost. But only the ignorant would argue they are equal. I'm fine with people loving pop music, and some of it is creative and original and clever. They can stick with what they love, and I'll stick with what I love. But the only argument that lets people equate Madonna with Beethoven is that of subjective taste, a superficial argument at best. Beauty, complexity, originality, development, historical importance, the perspective granted by centuries of admiration and all the other factors that amount to the canon come down clearly on Beethoven's side.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Steatopygous said:


> But there are objective canons that have developed over centuries by which we can gain a measure of agreement.


What do you think about this:


hammeredklavier said:


> Things can be and have qualities to be popular, but whether or not they're popular because they're superficially appealing, sentimental, or over the top, or have attractive concepts (eg. "avantgardists of their time", "tortured artists", "musical philosophers", "masters of universal laws of complexity/simplicity") etc, still depends on how each one of us perceives them.


or








What is "Profundity"?--Revisited!


An assertation that - oh, I dunno - Michael Haydn has had as much impact on the development of Western music, or as much repute as Beethoven is just factually wrong. different composers were "innovative", "influential", "inventive" with different things, under different circumstances. It's...




www.talkclassical.com


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Steatopygous said:


> I have no doubt that more people know "Mary had a little lamb, its fleece was white as snow" than know Milton's Paradise Lost. But only the ignorant would argue they are equal.


Only the crazy would compare them as if they're comparable (eg. a car and a carrot).



Steatopygous said:


> Beauty, complexity, originality, development, historical importance, the perspective granted by centuries of admiration and all the other factors that amount to the canon come down clearly on Beethoven's side.


Howabout Schoenberg, for example, who can be seen as far less a "crowd-pleaser" than many of the so-called "greats of the canon."


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> For instance, have a look at the article <I Believe in Mozart: Symphony No. 41 in C Major> 2013/03/18/i-believe-in-mozart-symphony-41-in-c-major/
> 
> 
> 
> ...






It says "In the 1700s, Johann Sebastian Bach, had defined the system of Western classical tonality", (I mean of course guys like www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFV8avEufEw (Missa Omnium Sanctorum, ZWV 21) all learned everything from Bach) and then goes onto discuss Beethoven, and then jumps to Wagner - as if Weber and Spohr never existed in the history of Romantic harmonic practice.

They all talk this way, unfortunately; it's always about what Bach or Mozart did. This is how we've all been educated. How can we say it was a "fair game" for all the composers from the start?


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> It says "In the 1700s, Johann Sebastian Bach, had defined the system of Western classical tonality", (I mean of course guys like www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZNYtML_Zrg (Missa Omnium Sanctorum, ZWV 21) all learned everything from Bach) and then goes onto discuss Beethoven, and then jumps to Wagner - as if Weber and Spohr never existed in the history of Romantic harmonic practice.
> ...


If it's all just a nerdy hobby, what does it matter? Zelenka, von Weber and Spohr are tiny sub-niches. Subjectively one could say that Bach, Beethoven and Wagner are the ones that _really matter. _That opinion would be no more "incorrect" than any other hobbyist's. Show me how Zelenka matters more or provides more of a "definition" reference point than Bach or Mozart when Zelenka's music didn't even resurface until fairly recently. A "fair game" implies some kind of objective rulebook which doesn't apply in judging music. There's nothing unfair in favoring Bach over Zelenka or Wagner over Spohr. That's just how the cookie crumbled.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Calipso said:


> Good music ,and art generally, is food for human spirit, soul and brain.


Quite right. And there's so much of it that everyone can find some food to satisfy their tastes.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

advokat said:


> I am trying to avoid [...] getting into heated internet discussions with people I have never met.


An entirely laudable aim. Thank you.


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

Steatopygous said:


> But there are objective canons that have developed over centuries by which we can gain a measure of agreement.


Are you sure that such canons exist or ever existed?

If such canons existed, why was Meyerbeer estimated very high in some time and has almost no importance today? Why were Mahler's symphonies regarded as "Kapellmeistermusik" for decades and it took until the 1960s to become standard repertoire? Which canons regulated this?


Steatopygous said:


> But the only argument that lets people equate Madonna with Beethoven is that of subjective taste, a superficial argument at best. Beauty, complexity, originality, development, historical importance, the perspective granted by centuries of admiration and all the other factors that amount to the canon come down clearly on Beethoven's side.


Let me compare it to wine.

For wine, I see two dimensions - objective quality and individual taste and preferences.

As objective qualities I consider things like whether the wine is free from obvious errors during vinification, whether it clearly shows the properties of the variety and the region, whether smell and taste are congruent, whether texture and structure are within the expected range for the wine etc.

As subjective quality I consider my individual preferences. It is possible to get into position to evaluate a wine of some variety and origin that you don't like at all (e. g. Barolo), however, your evaluation will be similar to evaluations by other experienced wine lovers that like the wine in question. But you wouldn't serve this wine to your friends, no matter how good it is in objective terms.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Philidor said:


> Are you sure that such canons exist or ever existed?


How we interpret its "history" is also subjective. For example, the facts discussed in










hammeredklavier said:


> What is it exactly though? Let's face the _inconvenient truth_; in the end, it's _all about popularity_. Again, a certain member in the past made a good point by posting the following in another thread (something for us to think about):
> "All of the factors contributing to greatness are interrelated and dependent on each other. For example, one factor mentioned above is the tradition of received wisdom: belief in A's greatness has been passed down from generation to generation, reinforced by music textbooks and concert performances and internet forums, while belief in B's greatness has not. Another factor mentioned above is the test of time: A seems greater than B because the former's music has survived till today while the latter's has not. But these two factors are mutually reinforcing: if music textbooks have chapters on A but not B, then of course the former is going to have a leg up on the latter when it comes to the test of time. Conversely, if A's music is still performed today while B's is not, then of course music textbooks are going to have chapters on the former but not the latter. Likewise, another factor that has been mentioned is influence: A has demonstrably had a lasting influence on later composers, even today, while B has not. This is also inherently connected to the above factors: since A appears in textbooks and is more widely performed than B, then of course he is going to have a greater influence on later composers than B will.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

It's difficult to argue that such canons exist. Few would deny that there is a corps of works by such as Beethoven, Bach and Mozart that have become staples of the concert repertoire and have gained a worldwide reputation as of the highest quality. What is more difficult to argue is a) their complete membership and b) the objective basis on which their belonging in the canon rests.


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

Forster said:


> Few would deny that there is a corps of works by such as Beethoven, Bach and Mozart that have become staples of the concert repertoire and have gained a worldwide reputation as of the highest quality.


" ...become staples of the concert repertoire" - yes.
Whether each of the about 200 Bach church cantatas is of "the highest quality", may be so or not. (Of course the passions, the Mass B minor, the Christmas Oratorio have shown their - popularity. But Coca Cola has shown its popularity, too.)


----------



## advokat (Aug 16, 2020)

.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Philidor said:


> " ...become staples of the concert repertoire" - yes.
> Whether each of the about 200 Bach church cantatas is of "the highest quality", may be so or not. (Of course the passions, the Mass B minor, the Christmas Oratorio have shown their - popularity. But Coca Cola has shown its popularity, too.)


Hmm, I can see my post leaves room for ambiguity, so I need to clarify. That a "canon" of CM works exists is, in my opinion, an unarguable fact.

It's what belongs in the canon that is more difficult to establish.

Coca Cola, to my knowledge, has nothing to do with CM, and would only belong in the canon of advertising jingles!


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Yabetz said:


> There's nothing unfair in favoring Bach over Zelenka or Wagner over Spohr. That's just how the cookie crumbled.


With all due respect, there's nothing wrong with that of course, but how can we simply assume, for instance, 'Mozart has greater objective worth than Haydn (M)' without giving both equal amounts of chance? (See "I didn't see the merits of X's music...) What if Haydn's music isn't widely known today because he didn't have his music printed? How well do we know his music to pass judgement objectively?-








(Can anyone demonstrate their knowledge by identifying these?)
Schubert, one of few figures in history who knew both intimately (while Weber and Bruckner didn't comment) said that he wanted to be like Haydn, not Mozart. Haydn's instrumental music is stylistically different from Mozart's, with greater emphasis on melodies in the bassoon in symphonies, harmonies imo having a nostalgic effect as if to say "once upon a time..", writings for the contrabass giving a "weighty feel" in chamber music, etc. His singspiels portray the rural side of Germany in a way Mozart's does not. (I'm still waiting for the release of his later works, such as Die Ährenleserin, in recording.) How does Mozart compare to him in oratorios, German songs, etc? His work can be subjectively viewed as simply "different" from (and not "inferior" to) Mozart's.


hammeredklavier said:


> _unfairly_ _ignored_? I didn't say that. I just said he's _ignored_, and I used the phenomenon as an example to explain my views of people's conception of greatness or profundity. It makes us question what is inherent in Mozart's music that objectively sets him apart from Haydn.
> Of course I myself will always root for Mozart, but I'm not the kind to indulge in "blind idolatry" so I can't help but thinking - what if people were taught from youth to think subjectively that—
> -In terms of dissonance, chromaticism, and vocal-writing, Mozart isn't really that special.
> -Haydn's requiem of 1771 isn't sketchy like Mozart's (which gets disappointing with its jubilant Sanctus and all the parts "not sounding like Mozart"), the structure of Haydn's Dies irae, which incorporates the Confutatis and Lacrimosa, is dramatic in a way Mozart's is not.
> ...


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

> With all due respect, there's nothing wrong with that of course, but how can we simply assume, for instance, 'Mozart has greater objective worth than Haydn (M)' without giving both equal amount of chance?


Because it doesn't have anything to do with objective worth. Is it unfair to Meyerbeer if I find more than enough in Wagner's work to attract my interest?


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

The unqualified question of what style is "better" is stupid. Questions about what style is better for those seeking specific aesthetic qualities or content make perfect sense. If one values subtle processes of thematic transformation over long time spans, classical music is obviously a better choice than pop. If one enjoys complex imitative polyphony, likewise. The same reasoning, mutatis mutandis, applies to comparisons of classical composers. The moral: Ask stupid questions, get stupid answers; ask reasonable questions, get reasonable answers.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

advokat said:


> In the end, the dispute over subjective v. objective criteria for assessing the worth of any composer or music is simple. If the music is a side effect of evolution, everything is subjective, and rap is neither worse nor better than Bach. If you think that music and beauty in general are but a reflection of the divine then it is another matter. What is hypocritic is trying to find an objective footing for assessing the intrinsic worth of music in today's secular liberal pieties.


There will never be a solution of this question of greatness based on objective or historical criteria. But it doesn't need a solution. 

There is absolutely no reason why those people are 100% convinced that CM is the greatest music based on objective facts and that anyone who thinks otherwise, especially vis a vis Pop or Rap or any other genre, is either ignorant, intellectually lazy, or dishonest cannot believe that. It changes nothing nor does it have any effect on those who think otherwise. We all listen to the music we think is great, and enjoy it for our own reasons. We need not explain our preferences to anyone, nor defend them against attacks by ideologues on either side.

The only downside is the amount of space this question occupies on TC. This forum often has very good discussions about music, performers, and recordings. However TC is often derailed by these ridiculous discussions about objective vs subjective ideas about greatness, and CM vs other genres.


----------



## advokat (Aug 16, 2020)

SanAntone said:


> There will never be a solution of this question of greatness based on objective or historical criteria. But it doesn't need a solution.
> 
> There is absolutely no reason why those people are 100% convinced that CM is the greatest music based on objective facts and that anyone who thinks otherwise, especially vis a vis Pop or Rap or any other genre, is either ignorant, intellectually lazy, or dishonest cannot believe that. It changes nothing nor does it have any effect on those who think otherwise. We all listen to the music we think is great, and enjoy it for our own reasons. We need not explain our preferences to anyone, nor defend them against attacks by ideologues on either side.
> 
> The only downside is the amount of space this question occupies on TC. This forum often has very good discussions about music, performers, and recordings. However TC is often derailed by these ridiculous discussions about objective vs subjective ideas about greatness, and CM vs other genres.


Exactly. One of those non-negotiable questions. You just take a leap of faith in either direction and enjoy. And then maybe leap the other way. Does not mean, though, that these questions are ridiculous. On the contrary, they are fundamental. Why certain modern cultures find fundamental questions ridiculous, and others do not is another matter.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Philidor said:


> Are you sure that such canons exist or ever existed?
> 
> If such canons existed, why was Meyerbeer estimated very high in some time and has almost no importance today? Why were Mahler's symphonies regarded as "Kapellmeistermusik" for decades and it took until the 1960s to become standard repertoire? Which canons regulated this?
> 
> ...


The canon (which is not objective) develops over time and applies to the "great" classical music of the past, not the present. It sometimes takes time for genius to be fully acknowledged.


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

ORigel said:


> The canon (which is not objective) develops over time and applies to the "great" classical music of the past, not the present.


I see. Can you please show me the canon for those sections of the past for which it already applies? Thanks.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> With all due respect, there's nothing wrong with that of course, but how can we simply assume, for instance, 'Mozart has greater objective worth than Haydn (M)' without giving both equal amount of chance? (See "I didn't see the merits of X's music...) What if Haydn's music isn't widely known today because he didn't have his music printed? How well do we know his music to pass judgement objectively?-
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I, as a listener, would rather put more effort trying to appreciate highly-rated music than obscure music, because I can know that there's substance to the well-known music but I don't know that for the obscure pieces. 

And I spend most of my time listening to works I already know well. I also like to listen to Classical Period music in moderation. So those factors are hindering my exploration of even the music of M Haydn and Boccherini (whom I know have musical substance). The fact that Joseph Haydn is significantly less popular than Mozart should signal to you that most listeners are content to listen to the more popular works of Beethoven, Mozart, and Haydn, and not delving in deeper.


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

ORigel said:


> The fact that Joseph Haydn is significantly less popular than Mozart should signal to you that most listeners are content to listen to the more popular works


You are choosing popularity as a means to make a decision on your listening?

Would you choose popularity when you are to decide in which restaurant you will go for dinner?

Would you choose popularity when you are to decide which newspaper to read?

So why should I choose my music for today by popularity?


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Philidor said:


> You are choosing popularity as a means to make a decision on your listening?
> 
> Would you choose popularity when you are to decide in which restaurant you will go for dinner?
> 
> ...


I can't speak for ORigel, but the answers to your four questions are
Yes, but not exclusively
Yes, but not exclusively
No
Because popularity can indicate value.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Philidor said:


> I see. Can you please show me the canon for those sections of the past for which it already applies? Thanks.


You already know the answer-- the Canon which was assembled in the 19th and 20th centuries now covers a roughly 250 year period, from 1700ish to 1950ish. From Bach/Handel to Shostakovich. Maybe some late 20th century and early 21st century composers will get into the canon over the next half century or so. It's too early to say whether Arvo Part will be popular in 2072.

The canon is relatively stable-- some composers like Franck are ejected from the canon and some composers like Mahler enter it. But for the most part the respected composers in 1960 are the respected composers today (The Three B's, Verdi, Wagner, Schubert, Mozart, Handel, etc.) Imagine if Danzi, Cherubini, and WF Bach were the giants of the Classical Period back then but ignored now. Then there wouldn't be a stable canon.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Philidor said:


> You are choosing popularity as a means to make a decision on your listening?
> 
> Would you choose popularity when you are to decide in which restaurant you will go for dinner?
> 
> ...


Because the serious CM fans, orchestras, conductors, musicologists, and record companies see value in the music of the general reportoire, so I know there is value in the music, because the music in the canon are among the exceptions to Sturgeon's Law (90% of everything is crap), and because the obscure stuff is rarely or never recorded so I won't encounter it without looking for it.

And while my music listening is not rigidly locked in, I like re-listening to old favorites (which tend to be either popular (warhorse) pieces [Beethoven 7, for example] or somewhat less popular pieces by canonical composers [like Dvorak's The Water Goblin]. Some veteren listeners develop a bias for relatively obscure music, probably because they get tired of the classics they used to be obsessed with)


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

ORigel said:


> The canon is relatively stable-- some composers like Franck are ejected from the canon


Franck is ejected? Ask organists ... many of them will say that Franck is on rank #2, directly after J. S. Bach. Violin players will count Franck's violin sonata to their core repertoire.


ORigel said:


> Because the serious CM fans, orchestras, conductors, musicologists, and record companies see value in the music of the general reportoire, so I know there is value in the music, because the music in the canon are among the exceptions to Sturgeon's Law (90% of everything is crap), and because the obscure stuff is rarely or never recorded so I won't encounter it without looking for it.


What is a serious CM fan? Someone who is downloading the monthly playlist published by Gramophone?
Record companies are (today) interested in earning money. So we get the 300th complete recording of Beethovens symphonies, but only have two from Norgard and many, many others. I wouldn't say that Beethoven is 150 times better than Norgard ...
90 % is crap? Well, I rather think, most of the crap is never recorded. If some artists chooses some work to record it, I am (mostly) convinced that this artist recognized some value with that work.
Somewhere I have read that in Italy have been about 20.000 operas written in the 19th century (makes 200 a year). Thus there are 2.000 operas that are non-crap. Where are these good operas?


ORigel said:


> And while my music listening is not rigidly locked in, I like re-listening to old favorites (which tend to be either popular (warhorse) pieces [Beethoven 7, for example] or somewhat less popular pieces by canonical composers [like Dvorak's The Water Goblin]. Some veteren listeners develop a bias for relatively obscure music, probably because they get tired of the classics they used to be obsessed with)


What about Schönberg's String trio op. 45? Or Webern's Bagatelles? Or Stockhausen's Gruppen? These are works that have proven their value. How about their number of recordings and appearings in popular playlists? How often do you listen to them?

Do you count them to your imagínary canon?


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Philidor said:


> Franck is ejected? Ask organists ... many of them will say that Franck is on rank #2, directly after J. S. Bach. Violin players will count Franck's violin sonata to their core repertoire.
> 
> What is a serious CM fan? Someone who is downloading the monthly playlist published by Gramophone?
> Record companies are (today) interested in earning money. So we get the 300th complete recording of Beethovens symphonies, but only have two from Norgard and many, many others. I wouldn't say that Beethoven is 150 times better than Norgard ...
> ...


In the 19th century and earlier, performers played mostly recently-composed music that would soon fall out of popularity. But in the 19th century, some of the best music of the past started to be assembled into a canon. For a long time now, most of the CM that is performed was written by people who are no longer living.

That's the canon. You can't deny that it exists, and that it has been remarkably stable for decades (otherwise, almost no one would care about recordings by Furtwangler, Toscanini, Klemperer, Bernstein, Karajan, Walter, etc. because they would have been performing music few care about today, rather than the same stuff that is regularly recorded today. And there are more examples of additions to the canon than of composers falling out of the canon. (That's why I had to pick Franck).

Sturgeon's Law isn't meant to be taken literally, but as an adage. In the "law," 90% can be replaced by "most", "95%" "80%", or "the vast majority" without changing the meaning of the statement. 

I distinguish serious classical music listeners from casual classical music listeners because the latter are biased towards the warhorses in the canon. Think "The Blue Danube," "The Four Seasons," Mozart's Fortieth, Beethoven's Fifth, and the 1812 Overture

Now about my attitude towards the canon: 

Appreciating CM is a significant investment in my time, given that the music is generally longer than a ~4 minute song and takes several listens to digest.

My time is further limited by the fact that I listen to CM I'm ready familiar with most of the time. So if a work doesn't captivate me from the first bar, should I put effort into appreciating it? If it's part of the canon, or even the broader reportoire, I am more likely to return to a work that initially doesn't make an impression on me because 1) I know people find value in the work so the problem might be on my end, and 2) I am reminded that the work/composer exists because people are discussing it.

I am not at the phase where I'm bored of the canonical works and have a need to sift through less popular and obscure works to find The Unacclaimed Masterpiece (tm) that would create an experience equal to being new to Beethoven's Seventh Symphony.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

_"The Queen of the Night Aria and the slow movement of Beethoven's 7th are popular because they are objectively GREAT".
"Pachelbel's canon and The Four Seasons are popular because they are objectively POP ."_


hammeredklavier said:


> As described by Forster earlier ("it's a curious paradox that we (sorry, "some of us") like to feel that we're in the avant-garde, smarter than the average bear, but, simultaneously, want to be in the big gang that recognises the same tastes, thereby validating our own."), the tendency of "some of us" to indulge in "double standards" on these matters is often amusing.
> www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCHREyE5GzQ&t=6m30s
> (number of views: 12,982,133 / date of upload: Jun 23, 2010)
> www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlprozGcs80&t=5m
> ...


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

ORigel said:


> Because the serious CM fans,


Who are these "serious CM fans"? How are they distinguished from the "masses"? People like Simon Moon, who find the tonal tunefulness of Bach's B minor mass "trite", and rates anything by Ligeti, Schoenberg higher?


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

What's the difference between a "warhorse" that "casual listeners" enjoy, and a "canonical work" that "serious listeners" enjoy?


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

I agree that there is a CM canon, but I think it is more inclusive than ORigel describes ( I also don't feel dividing the CM audience up into casual and serious listeners is helpful). 

I believe some 20th century works have entered the standard repertory and are recorded and programmed often enough to be included in the idea of the CM canon. Stravinsky's _Le Sacre du Printemps _is a work I would include, among others of his. As well as several works by Bartók, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Schoenberg, Berg, and even some works by Pierre Boulez and Elliott Carter are performed and recorded regularly to have entered the canon.

As time passes some works that were initially seen as revolutionary gradually become more acceptable. At the same time some "warhorses" might lose popularity due to over exposure.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> ...
> As time passes some works that were initially seen as revolutionary gradually become more acceptable. At the same time some "warhorses" might lose popularity due to over exposure.


I don't know, I think there'll always be umpteen million new releases of Bach's Goldbergs and cello suites and Beethoven symphonies.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> Who are these "serious CM fans"? How are they distinguished from the "masses"? People like Simon Moon, who find the tonal tunefulness of Bach's B minor mass "trite", and rates anything by Ligeti, Schoenberg higher?


I'd say, offhand, that most of the TC members are "serious CM fans", even the ones that purport to be merely "Classical curious".

I think *ORigel*, in post 61 nailed it.

There are different types of fans of Classical Music; some just enjoy the music, and that music they enjoy tend to be the "Warhorses". The Warhorses tend to be works that most people enjoy, for whatever reasons they have, and for the whatever traits those works posess.

There are other types of fans that love the works and composers that are more obscure. Perhaps they've tired of the Warhorses, or maybe they just love the excitement of finding and enjoying works that others have missed.

As to the whole concept of POPULARITY, there's ALWAYS one reason or another a piece of music is popular. Sometimes it's because it is constructed beautifully, or maybe it's just the composer/work du jour.

*Salieri* was far more popular in his day than *Mozart*, but these days *Mozart's* music is celebrated, while *Salieri's* is neglected. But go ahead and listen to the music, and you'll see why. No one here is championing *Salieri*.

Music fads come and go. In Popular music *The Dave Clark 5 *was a hit, sometimes knocking *Beatles* songs off the charts. Today you could name 30 songs by the *Beatles* off the top of your head, but you'd be hard pressed to name three from the *DC5*.

*Bohemian Rhapsody* was released about 50 years ago, and we all remember it. In 1962 there so many songs about the dance *"The Twist"*, but they're all but forgotten now. Remember *"The Hustle"* from 1975? Same with *Gangnam Style* and *The Macarena*.

Here's another: I used to enjoy the TV show Seinfeld, but once its run ended, I never cared to watch another episode. Same with monster hit shows from the 1960s and 1970s: Several can still be seen in syndication, but there are far more you'd never watch nowadays: *Gomer Pyle: USMC, Bonanza, Gunsmoke, Wagon Train*. Hell, *Gunsmoke* ran for 20 years.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

If Ravel's "Bolero" and Mahler's "Resurrection" Symphony are both part of the canon, but one is the mark of a "casual" listener and one is the mark of a "serious" one, then something else is going on to distinguish these things beyond historical acclaim. 

The strange thing is that in most other fields of music, including venues for classical music discussion, the mark of a "serious" listener has generally been implied to include someone who regularly looks beyond established canonical works. There are very few venues of musical discussion I've found where it was taken as truth that the greatest works are the ones acclaimed by authority figures. Like I've said elsewhere, maybe it's an age thing.


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

ORigel said:


> But in the 19th century, some of the best music of the past started to be assembled into a canon.


That's a 19th century attitude that comes along with such behaviour as hero worship and similar things.


ORigel said:


> For a long time now, most of the CM that is performed was written by people who are no longer living.


What a pity! So we are listening (mostly) to music that was alive and fresh decades ago ... our dead spirits are enjoying dead music.


ORigel said:


> That's the canon. You can't deny that it exists,


You cannot write it down. So does it really exist? Is Schubert's 3rd symphony in the canon? His 5th string quartet? Boulez' "Marteau"? Can you answer this?

Besides, I did not understand yet how you are defining the hypothetic canon.

Is the canon the set of CM that people in 2022 like to listen to?

Or is the canon the set of CM that had some historic importance (e. g. Meyerbeer)?


----------



## Shaughnessy (Dec 31, 2020)

pianozach said:


> Music fads come and go. In Popular music *The Dave Clark 5 *was a hit, sometimes knocking *Beatles* songs off the charts. Today you could name 30 songs by the *Beatles* off the top of your head,* but unless you're Shaughnessy and you're probably not, you'd be hard pressed to name three from the DC5.*


Just needed a slight re-write, Zach -


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

I think, whoever needs a canon for whichever reasons will claim that a canon exists and he will believe in its existence.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

ORigel said:


> In the 19th century and earlier, performers played mostly recently-composed music that would soon fall out of popularity.


Have you read books like this? It shattered my fantasies of "the general consensus formed through hundreds of years".


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Experts are fans of music themselves and are biased based on their listening experience and preferences, and they tend to be focused on things that have been originally popular. What they say isn't like gospel truth or anything of the sort.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

I don't understand Philidor's objections to the idea of "canon". Asking those who agree such a thing exists to list all those works which belong is as daft as asking us to list all those works which belong to the set of "classical music"; we know there is such a thing, and we can point to examples of it, but not name all the members of the set.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

I would also say that if one looks outside the standard rep with the idea of finding something great in the same way as Beethoven 7 is great, they're not going to have a good time. A lot of the enjoyment comes from the act of seeking out and listening to lesser-known music for its own sake, as well as finding masterpieces that touch one on a more personal level rather than the universal acclaim accorded to the "Big" works.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Yabetz said:


> I don't know, I think there'll always be umpteen million new releases of Bach's Goldbergs and cello suites and Beethoven symphonies.


I wasn't think of any work by Bach. But more like Rimsky-Korsakov Scherazade, or Ravel's Bolero, Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture, Pachebel Canon, Vivaldi Four Seasons Things like that.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> Who are these "serious CM fans"? How are they distinguished from the "masses"? People like Simon Moon, who find the tonal tunefulness of Bach's B minor mass "trite", and rates anything by Ligeti, Schoenberg higher?


People who delve into CM.

The canon is by consensus not unanimity. Really, ensembles focus on playing the popular works so that's what everyone listens to. Thus reinforcing the primacy of the canon. 

Some really serious listeners get tired of the canon like the serious listeners get sick of many of the warhorses. Fortunately for them (and the rest of us), we have recordings of works that are almost never performed.

Schoenberg is one of the canonically great composers, BTW, at the insistence of experts over the objections of most of the public.

The casual listeners are the ones who say they like the Moonlight Sonata "song" and the ones who listen to pretty much all warhorses when they listen to CM.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Philidor said:


> I think, whoever needs a canon for whichever reasons will claim that a canon exists and he will believe in its existence.


I don't "need" a canon, and in fact am not even interested in most of the works that have a place in it. But someone's hypothetical need for a canon has nothing to do with the reality of the existence of a collection of composers and works which make up what is called the CM canon. 

Your opinion flies in the face of historical facts.

If you happen to be more interested in lesser known works, or 21st century music - that is fine. But to extend your personal preference or what you think ought to be everyone's priority is irrelevant regarding the existence of a CM canon.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

SanAntone said:


> I wasn't think of any work by Bach. But more like Rimsky-Korsakov Scherazade, or Ravel's Bolero, Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture, Pachebel Canon, Vivaldi Four Seasons Things like that.


Bach has some extremely popular works. Example: Brandeburg Concerto no. 3, Orchestral Suite No. 3, the Double Violin Concerto, Tocata and Fugue in D Minor-- stuff like that.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

SanAntone said:


> I don't "need" a canon, and in fact am not even interested in most of the works that have a place in it. But someone's hypothetical need for a canon has nothing to do with the reality of the existence of a collection of composers and works which make up what is called the CM canon.
> 
> Your opinion flies in the face of historical facts.
> 
> If you happen to be more interested in lesser known works, or 21st century music - that is fine. But to extend your personal preference or what you think ought to be everyone's priority is irrelevant regarding the existence of a CM canon.


Exactly. My point is that works in the canon are vetted so there is a much higher signal to noise ratio. I also care mostly about the Classical and Romantic periods so the canon serves me well.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> Experts are fans of music themselves and are biased based on their listening experience and preferences, and they tend to be focused on things that have been originally popular. What they say isn't like gospel truth or anything of the sort.


Experts, listeners, what's actually performed...this is what decides the canon.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> Have you read books like this? It shattered my fantasies of "the general consensus formed through hundreds of years".


The canon formed over the 19th and 20th cemturies, and has been stable for decades. It was not formed over hundreds of years.


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

SanAntone said:


> the reality of the existence of a collection of composers and works which make up what is called the CM canon.


So please show this canon.

Or at least answer the simple questions whether Schubert's 3rd symphony and 5th string quartet are in the canon or not.

Can you?


SanAntone said:


> Your opinion flies in the face of historical facts.


I don't see this.


SanAntone said:


> But to extend your personal preference or what you think ought to be everyone's priority is irrelevant regarding the existence of a CM canon.


My personal preferences have nothing to do with the hypothesis that there might be something that one could call a canon.


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

ORigel said:


> That's the canon. You can't deny that it exists, and that it has been remarkably stable for decades (otherwise, almost no one would care about recordings by Furtwangler, Toscanini, Klemperer, Bernstein, Karajan, Walter, etc.


It is interesting that you are focussing on conductors. Do only orchestral works matter for the thing you are calling "canon"? (This is what many CM lovers might do ... )

In my humblest opinion, things like "canon" stem from 19th century thinking. It belongs to the time when hero worshipping was modern. Instead of human heroes there are just musical works.

Yes, there are also today conductors, pianists, violinists etc. that are playing the common stuff from the CM charts up and down. The guys and girls like Jansons, Gergiev, Barenboim, Nelsons, Nézet-Séguin, Janine Jansen, Igor Levit e tutti quanti. They know that there is a need for many CM lovers to stay within their preferences, stabilizing their "knowledge" that there is a canon and that these CM lovers know what the canon is and therefore are part of the hero's tale.

However, there are musicians like Olafsson, Hamelin and others, looking left and right. Breaking 19th century's concert dramaturgies. Finishing the "Bach, then Beethoven, then a break, then Chopin, then some russian crowd-pleaser", which was already criticised by Glenn Gould in the 1970s. Looking for new ways of communicating music. Stopping the perpetuation of 19th century ideologies and ideas of "canon" and "per aspera ad astra" and stuff like this.

Sometimes you need a meteor to stop dinosaurs.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

The canon exists as much as any socially-agreed convention exists, like law, or language. Of course there is not a literal list somewhere, and to be skeptical that the socially-agreed-upon repertoire of masterpieces necessarily represents some sort of grand filtering process of wheat from chaff is something that it's natural to be skeptical of. 

I don't think it's necessary to deny it's existence, though - even if it's not a physical thing with specific entries.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

My view of the canon is that there is a reasonably well defined concept of a canon, but there is not _a specific canon. _There are multiple actual canons such as the Dubal's The Essential Canon of Classical Music. Those actual canons have significant overlap, but the fact that they may not be identical does not matter. The vast majority of canons would work quite well for the purposes they are compiled.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Philidor said:


> So please show this canon.
> 
> Or at least answer the simple questions whether Schubert's 3rd symphony and 5th string quartet are in the canon or not.
> 
> Can you?


What I think of as the CM canon is really the repertory which is consistently recorded and performed and has been for a long time. So, yes, most of the symphonies and the late string quartets by Schubert are in the canon. As are most of the major works by the most highly performed composers.

But the bottom line is that the existence of a CM canon is not worth arguing over. New listeners rely on these lists in order to familiarize themselves with the basic repertory, but experienced listeners don't need them. 

My question is what is it about the idea of a CM canon that bothers you so much?


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

Philidor said:


> So please show this canon.
> ...


It's a more or less informal consensus on the music deemed most "worthwhile", "worthy", "well-made" and it includes the opinions of musicians, critics, musicologists, and just plain old listeners. It's vast and reflects many different tastes and attitudes. Composers like Stockhausen, Ferneyhough and Xenakis are canonical, I would say.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Philidor said:


> That's a 19th century attitude that comes along with such behaviour as hero worship and similar things.
> 
> What a pity! So we are listening (mostly) to music that was alive and fresh decades ago ... our dead spirits are enjoying dead music.
> 
> ...


The canon is the stuff that's regularly recorded and performed. And it's largely the same works as fifty years ago. You deliberately chose works that are not in the canon because you don't want to pick the canonical works of Schubert like the Trout Quintet, the last three string quartets, the String Quintet, the last three piano sonatas, Winterreise, the Wanderer Fantasy, or the last two symphonies. Please distinguish between your personal taste, and the consensus.

Meyerbeer is not part of the canon. The canon consists of the works that are enduringly popular.

There's also a slight difference between the compositions canon consisting of the enduringly popular works and the composer canon consisting of the famous composers. I also distinguish between the canon and the recorded reportoire (the latter category is broader and includes stuff like Nielsen Symphony no. 4, the Brahms Sextets, Sibelius Symphony no. 3, and the Scriabin Piano Sonatas...and the canon. Not obscure but not necessarily popular either


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Shaughnessy said:


> Just needed a slight re-write, Zach -


Or Barbebleu! Just saying!😂


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Philidor said:


> Or at least answer the simple questions whether Schubert's 3rd symphony and 5th string quartet are in the canon or not.


A middle-of-the-road answer would be: Those are non-canonic works by a canonic composer.

Canonicity exists. "Canonic works" is a viable conceptual category. What it comprises depends on the context in which it is used and the people and purposes to whom and for which it is useful.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

"_So many people around the world without the knowledge of the music theory behind canons go onto youtube to listen to Pachelbel's canon. From observing such a phenomenon, don't you feel the universal power of classical music that speaks to all mankind?"_
Of course, to convince ourselves in our "elitist" circles that we're "different from the masses", we're not supposed to talk this way. Instead, we've created in our minds our own weird rules to discriminate the so-called "classical pop" from the so-called "classical great", with longer works typically thought to belong in the latter category. But there are videos of, for example, Mozart's requiem and Beethoven's 9th getting like 200 million views on youtube, and somehow we're not supposed to think they belong in the former category.


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

If I put you in a room, alone with the scores of Mahler 10 (the finished movement), Webern's Symphony, Shostakovich 11, Norgard 3 and some symphony written in 2022 which has not been published yet, no cell phone, no internet access, I would be interested how you find out which of these works belongs to the canon and which not.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Philidor said:


> So please show this canon.
> 
> Or at least answer the simple questions whether Schubert's 3rd symphony and 5th string quartet are in the canon or not.
> 
> ...


The Canon includes the popular works of JS Bach, Handel, Vivaldi, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven...and so on all the way to Shostakovich and John Williams. Schubert's String Quartet no. 5 and Third Symphony are probably in the reportoire but not quite the Canon-- unless there are a lot of single recordings of them not part of a Schubert symphony or string quartet cycle. Unless one defines the Canon as the standard reportoire-- then they are in the Canon.

However, the last 3.5 string quartets and last two symphonies of Schubert are unambiguously in the Canon. That's why you didn't ask about them-- you'd know you'd look silly.

Why are you so bothered by the fact there is a canon of works that are regularly performed and recorded, and that this canon's contents have been quite stable for decades? It doesn't mean that the canonical works are automatically better than unpopular works, or that record companies SHOULD focus on producing new Beethoven symphony cycles when there's already a zillion of them.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

*Canon*. An undefined list.

But you could assemble one with a little effort.

Google "100 Greatest Classical Works" or "100 Classical music before you die" (or other variations) and look at the top ten results. You could even include the word "canon".

Go to *Amazon* and search for Best Classical box set

Go to *Chilham's* list, or my *Beginner's Guide*. 

See what works are listed in *Grout's* History of Western Music.

Peruse the playlists of *ClassicFM* or *KUSC*.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Philidor said:


> If I put you in a room, alone with the scores of Mahler 10 (the finished movement), Webern's Symphony, Shostakovich 11, Norgard 3 and some symphony written in 2022 which has not been published yet, no cell phone, no internet access, I would be interested how you find out which of these works belongs to the canon and which not.


That's a silly recommendation.

The Classical Music "canon" is determined by consensus, not the opinion of one person conducting a blind taste test.

Works that are considered "canon" would have a track history of being considered "Great" by composers, musicians, music scholars, and popular opinion. There's ALWAYS that ONE guy that thinks one particular piece is the greatest, even though no one else does. 

Listening to 
Mahler 10, 
Webern's Symphony, 
Shostakovich 11, 
Norgard 3 and 
John Doe's Symphony No. 2.0

to prove one cannot tell which is great without looking it up is silly. Besides, there are plenty of great Classical Symphonies and other works that ARE great, but are NOT in the canon.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> "_So many people around the world without the knowledge of the music theory behind canons go onto youtube to listen to Pachelbel's canon. From observing such a phenomenon, don't you feel the universal power of classical music that speaks to all mankind?"_
> Of course, to convince ourselves in our "elitist" circles that we're "different from the masses", we're not supposed to talk this way. Instead, we've created in our minds our own weird rules to discriminate the so-called "classical pop" from the so-called "classical great", with longer works typically thought to belong in the latter category. But there are videos of, for example, Mozart's requiem and Beethoven's 9th getting like 200 million views on youtube, and somehow we're not supposed to think they belong in the former category.


That is one huge straw man you've constructed there. "Elitist circles"? I don't know of anyone who obsesses over "classic pop" vs "classical great", or the idea that we're "different from the masses". I always despised the dehumanizing term "the masses", by the way.


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

ORigel said:


> The Canon includes the popular works of JS Bach, Handel, Vivaldi, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven...and so on all the way to Shostakovich and John Williams.


I see ... the membership in the canon is decided by popularity. So McDonalds is in the canon of restaurants, but some three-star restaurant from the Guide Michelin is not, right?


ORigel said:


> Why are you so bothered by the fact there is a canon of works that are regularly performed and recorded, and that this canon's contents have been quite stable for decades? It doesn't mean that the canonical works are automatically better than unpopular works,


I still don't see that there is a canon. There are works that are performed more than others, ok. But there are also newspapers that are read more than others.


pianozach said:


> That's a silly recommendation.


Thank you.


pianozach said:


> The Classical Music "canon" is determined by consensus,


I see. Concensus among whom? Can you clarify? Musicologists? Professional musicians? Amateur listeners? Or are different canons for these groups?

Is Dufay's motet "Nuper Rosarum Flores" in the canon? Or Boulez' "Marteau"? You can't deny that these are works that are highly regarded among experts as climaxes within their time, among guys that know what's going on and that choose their playlist maybe not from classic FM. Are they in the canon or not?


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

If someone could give a definition of the hypothetic "canon", one could discuss more precisely.

Writing the canon down seems impossible for the noble members of this discussion.

Maybe someone could give a definition in a general way: "A musical work is member of the CM canon, if and only if ..."


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Philidor said:


> I see. Concensus among whom? Can you clarify? Musicologists? Professional musicians? Amateur listeners? Or are different canons for these groups?


*Already answered*



Pianozach said:


> The Classical Music "canon" is determined by consensus, . . .
> 
> . . . by composers, musicians, music scholars, and popular opinion.


So, yes, by Musicologists, Professional musicians, and Amateur listeners.

I'm perplexed that you continue to press for a concrete answer to what "Canon" is. There is no "official list". 

There are works that everyone would agree on, such as Beethoven's 3rd, 5th, and 9th Symphonies, Handel's Water Music, Bach's WTC, Mozart's Jupiter Symphony, Holst's The Planets, Stravinsky's The Rite of Spring. 

There's not been a single Judge or Moderator to say "Yay" or "Nay" to works. Some are in the public Consciousness, and some aren't. And there's a gray area of works that people disagree on.

But works that are generally agreed upon by _"Musicologists, and Professional musicians"_ are probably part of the canon. If you include "Amateur listeners" the list might be a bit shorter. 





Philidor said:


> Is Dufay's motet "Nuper Rosarum Flores" in the canon? Or Boulez' "Marteau"? You can't deny that these are works that are highly regarded among experts as climaxes within their time, among guys that know what's going on and that choose their playlist maybe not from classic FM. Are they in the canon or not?


I don't know. This might be the first time I've heard of either of them. So they're probably not "Canonical" works. Or maybe they are. I'm not the caretaker of "The Canon". I don't know how large the "canon" is. I know a good deal about Classical Music, but I am by no means a musicologist. But I learn all the time. I've learned a lot from this site.

But you're really trying to get people to defend this nebulous 'canon', when it's just a catch-all phrase meant to convey a sense of all the really important works and important composers.


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

pianozach said:


> I don't know. This might be the first time I've heard of either of them.


So I think you are out of (serious) discussion about such things as a "canon of CM", since these works are undoubted masterworks of their time. (Qed.)

Would you agree?


pianozach said:


> There are works that everyone would agree on, such as Beethoven's 3rd, 5th, and 9th Symphonies, Handel's Water Music, Bach's WTC, Mozart's Jupiter Symphony, Holst's The Planets, Stravinsky's The Rite of Spring.


Maybe there could be some majority in the claimed group for decision of membership to the canon, that these works are within. But the spectre from Bach to Stravinsky seems to be a little narrow from my point of view, what do you think?


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

"Canon of CM" is maybe something like quantum mechanics ... everyone thinks that it exists, but the more precise you're asking, the worse the answers are ...


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Philidor said:


> So I think you are out of (serious) discussion about such things as a "canon of CM", since these works are undoubted masterworks of their time. (Qed.)
> 
> Would you agree?


No. Don't be an elitist. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here.

You say they are masterworks of their time, and that may well be true. Simply being a masterwork doesn't make it "canonical". It also doesn't mean that YOU get to decide WHO gets to discuss the concept of "canon". In fact, it appears that most folks here are arguing with you rather than agreeing with you.

Or, to be even more specific, YOU are simply disagreeing with everyone that has something to say about the subject.

But you're asking about what qualifies a work to be considered "canon", when there is no widely regarded specific definition of what qualifies a work to be canon.

I'm not in charge of the Canon.

I think the question you're asking was answered early on in the thread: TO EACH THEIR OWN.

You can have YOUR canon, I can have mine, and everyone else has theirs.


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

pianozach said:


> But you're really trying to get people to defend this nebulous 'canon', when it's just a catch-all phrase meant to convey a sense of all the really important works and important composers.


"Composers" are members of the canon? I thought that we are talking about works. Ok ...


pianozach said:


> Simply being a masterwork doesn't make it "canonical".


What else then? Turnover in USD? Total shares value?


pianozach said:


> YOU are simply disagreeing with everyone that has something to say about the subject.


"Everyone" is way to far to describe the few honourable members of the discussion. It is a cheap trick in social media to claim " ... and everyone is thinking the same way as I do:" (To my experience it is mostly wrong if someone argues like this, and it can be a sign of a lack of arguments ad rem.)


pianozach said:


> But you're asking about what qualifies a work to be considered "canon", when there is no widely regarded specific definition of what qualifies a work to be canon.


So what are we talking about?


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

I get to the opinion that if we wanted to discuss the existence of ruxytovers, we needed to define what a ruxytover is or is supposed to be.

(Of course we could also discuss the meaning of the word "existence", in the direction of Kant, Hegel, Kierkegaard or even Sartre.)


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Philidor said:


> "Composers" are members of the canon? I thought that we are talking about works. Ok ...


Yes, the discussion has *included* composers. At least two other commenters have recently mentioned this.

I think you're just trolling now.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Steatopygous said:


> Of course how people enjoy music, and what they enjoy, is subjective. But there are objective canons that have developed over centuries by which we can gain a measure of agreement.


Returning to the post that opened the rabbit hole down which the discussion has fallen, I disagree with Steatopygous that there are "_objective_ canons". Philidor's refusal to accept that there exists a concept of an imprecisely defined body of works is just perverse. I suggest that we withdraw from the rabbit hole and return to the OP's main topic about hypocrisy....(!)


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

It is similar to the discussion on the existence of black holes in astrophysics.

According to Einstein's equations it was possible that black holes exist. However, nobody had seen one.

So people started to list properties of (then hypothetical) black holes and which phenomena should occur if they existed.

Then the phenomena could be observed in a way that delivered strong evidence for the existence of black holes.

At this point it was clearly more reasonable to assume the existence of black holes than denying their existence.

Could we get thus far with the hypothetical "canon of CM"?


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

Forster said:


> I suggest that we withdraw from the rabbit hole and return to the OP's main topic about hypocrisy....(!)


We are fully right at the centre of the OP's main topic.

The existence of a canon for CM is just hypocrisy.

Why is Mozart's "Don Giovanni" better than Cavalli's "La calisto"? And what exactly means "better"?

(For this statement I assumed that a majority of the decision committee for CM canon membership decided that Mozarts "Don Giovanni" was member of the hypothetical canon whereas Cavalli's "La calisto" was not. - I hope that I understood the honourable supporters of the concept of a CM canon correctly when making this assumption.)


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

pianozach said:


> I think you're just trolling now.


May I reject such offensive statement?

I would be glad if you made a statement ad rem.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Philidor said:


> We are fully right at the centre of the OP's main topic.
> 
> The existence of a canon for CM is just hypocrisy.
> 
> ...


Do stop saying "we". You and I are not in the same place at all.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Philidor said:


> May I reject such offensive statement?
> 
> I would be glad if you made a statement ad rem.


Oh, that's right. The OP stated that everyone here are hypocrites: _"I often notice some kind of hypocrisy vibe, especially here on forum"_. *Calipso* went on to give several examples of why we're hypocrites.

I reject the original subject matter proposal. We're not being hypocritical. 

I've even addressed the matter of "ranking" one work to another in the The Beginner's Guide thread - it went something like this . . . how can one compare The Four Seasons to The Brandenburg Concertos and say which is better? How does one rank Ave Maria against Night on Bald Mountain. What's better; Beethoven's 5th symphony or Dvorak's 9th Symphony?

Works exist, and do not compete with each other. They ARE. And they are what they are.


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

pianozach said:


> I've even addressed the matter of "ranking" one work to another in the The Beginner's Guide thread - it went something like this . . . how can one compare The Four Seasons to The Brandenburg Concertos and say which is better? How does one rank Ave Maria against Night on Bald Mountain. What's better; Beethoven's 5th symphony or Dvorak's 9th Symphony?
> 
> Works exist, and do not compete with each other. They ARE. And they are what they are.


We fully agree on this point.

But what does this mean to a hypothetical canon which states that not all animals works are equal? There are works in the canon and works outside the canon. 

How does this go together with the statement "works do not compete with each other"?


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Philidor said:


> We fully agree on this point.
> 
> But what does this mean to a hypothetical canon which states that not all animals works are equal? There are works in the canon and works outside the canon.
> 
> How does this go together with the statement "works do not compete with each other"?





Philidor said:


> We fully agree on this point.
> 
> But what does this mean to a hypothetical canon which states that not all animals works are equal? There are works in the canon and works outside the canon.
> 
> How does this go together with the statement "works do not compete with each other"?


*Wellington's Victory*

Discuss.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Philidor said:


> We are fully right at the centre of the OP's main topic.


The OP did not make a cogent case for the hypocrisy they claimed is to be found here at TC, which depended on the idea that the members who said that pop and classical are equal are also the same members who say that there is a hierarchy of classical greats.

Calipso did not show that these two groups of people are the same. Therefore, no hypocrisy has been proven.

The case for or against is not dependent on whether there is a classical canon.


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

pianozach said:


> *Wellington's Victory*
> 
> Discuss.


What do you want to be discussed?

The musical quality or the popularity? (Popularity at which time? The piece was immediately popular after its premiere and Beethoven earned a lot of money with it ... )


----------



## Chilham (Jun 18, 2020)

I read somewhere that you can "Describe" the canon, but you can't "Prescribe" the canon.

I'm good with that.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Chilham said:


> I read somewhere that you can "Describe" the canon, but you can't "Prescribe" the canon.
> 
> I'm good with that.


I read that too, just this morning, here...






You can’t change the canon…or can you?


Musicologist Linda Shaver-Gleason finds articles about classical music that contain debunked myths and cliché descriptions.




notanothermusichistorycliche.blogspot.com







> There isn’t an official list of works that are in the canon. It’s something that we can describe but not prescribe; there are lists of works that are performed most often by orchestras, or people’s opinions of works that “everyone should know,” but there’s no regulatory body deciding which pieces are admitted to the canon.


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

Conductors like Bernstein, Haitink, Solti and Abbado definitively changed something.

By their commitment, the crowd's view on Mahler changed from the former quasi-canonical judgement "Kapellmeistermusik" to something that marked more or less the peak of listener's attractivity.

(Haitink had some Mahler tradition by Mengelberg in Amsterdam.)


----------



## 4chamberedklavier (12 mo ago)

All I know of cannons is that they're big guns on wheels


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Philidor said:


> I see ... the membership in the canon is decided by popularity. So McDonalds is in the canon of restaurants, but some three-star restaurant from the Guide Michelin is not, right?
> 
> I still don't see that there is a canon. There are works that are performed more than others, ok. But there are also newspapers that are read more than others.
> 
> ...


How many people are in poverty? You can choose some arbitrary threshold (like many organizations do), or you can say there is no precise answer. And you, in this analogy, says that because I can't say rather X family is in poverty or not, there is no such thing as poverty. 

But there are people that everyone would agree are living in poverty, and people who everyone would agree are filthy rich.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Philidor said:


> Conductors like Bernstein, Haitink, Solti and Abbado definitively changed something.
> 
> By their commitment, the crowd's view on Mahler changed from the former quasi-canonical judgement "Kapellmeistermusik" to something that marked more or less the peak of listener's attractivity.
> 
> (Haitink had some Mahler tradition by Mengelberg in Amsterdam.)


The canon can and has changed, but it's been stable for decades at this point. I'm reasonably confident that Mahler was/is a permanent addition to the canon


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

ORigel said:


> How many people are in poverty? You can choose some arbitrary threshold (like many organizations do), or you can say there is no precise answer.


In the country where I live, the limit for poverty was at € 781 per month in 2020. 

That's quite clear.

I agree that someone having € 782 cannot be called rich, but there is a definition. In other words, rich and poor are not a dichotomy.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

pianozach said:


> *Already answered*
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Philidor said:


> In the country where I live, the limit for poverty was at € 781 per month in 2020.
> 
> That's quite clear.
> 
> I agree that someone having € 782 cannot be called rich, but there is a definition. In other words, rich and poor are not a dichotomy.


1. That threshold is arbitrary, so the clarity is an illusion.

2. There is not a dichotomy between obscure and canonical-- there are works that are not exactly obscure but probably not canonical. For example, Mendelssohn's string symphonies, Schnittke's Requiem, Dvorak's American suite.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Philidor said:


> Is Dufay's motet "Nuper Rosarum Flores" in the canon? Or Boulez' "Marteau"? You can't deny that these are works that are highly regarded among experts as climaxes within their time, among guys that know what's going on and that choose their playlist maybe not from classic FM. Are they in the canon or not?


There are really multiple canons endorsed by different groups of people and institutions for different reasons. Both the Dufay and the Boulez are in the canon as far as academia is concerned. They're standard works and I've introduced them to undergrads in music history surveys.


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

ORigel said:


> 1. That threshold is arbitrary, so the clarity is an illusion.


The clarity is reality. The threshold is oriented at the actual needs, however, no one can say whether € 782 was really better than € 781.


EdwardBast said:


> There are really multiple canons endorsed by different groups of people and institutions for different reasons.


Imho this comes closer to some acceptable statement.

If at all, various groups have various canons. The existence of "the one and only canon" is nonsense imho.

There is a canon for well-educated people that need the feeling to belong some imaginary upper class (which is so imaginary as "the one and only canon"). They try to love the music belonging to "their" canon to underline their consciousness of "being part of it". "We are the good and knowing ones and we want to stabilize this for the decades of our lives."

Please acknowledge that I do not say that any honourable participant of this discussion is thinking in the way outlined in the preceding paragraph.

As a matter of fact, once you see how many masterworks such as Dufay's "Nuper rosarum flores" and Boulez' "Le Marteu sans maître" some of them actually don't know, you easily recognize the fiction of belonging to "the knowing ones".

Then there are musicologists that are looking rather for development than for settling a status. Which work put the development of music on fire? Bach's Mass in B minor did not (any successors or elements taken over to other works within the next 10 years or so?), Mozart's symphony No. 41 did not (was printed not earlier than in the 1810s), Schuberts unfinished symphony did not (the score was found not earlier than 1865), Beethoven's 9th did, Weber's Freischütz did. (I do not say that "putting on fire" is binary - it puts or it doesn't - it may happen more or less.)

So we have at least the gaps between popularity, mastery and relevance for development. Sometimes all three criteria meet, e. g. Tristan, however, that's not always the case.

So at least we need several canons - and imho we have to ask who uses which canon for which purpose.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Philidor said:


> The clarity is reality. The threshold is oriented at the actual needs, however, no one can say whether € 782 was really better than € 781.
> 
> Imho this comes closer to some acceptable statement.
> 
> ...


The relevant canon for most purposes is the popular and semi-popular works in the reportoire. The canons among academia and in different countries differ, but when we say canon, we mean the most important composers and works to most serious* listeners

*For casual listeners, there's a pops classical assembly of warhorses like the Four Seasons, Albinoni Adagio, Blue Danube, Hungarian Dance No. 5, Beethoven's Fifth...stuff like that. They're a subset of the broader Canon since they're all super-popular.


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

ORigel said:


> The canons among academia and in different countries differ,


Oh yes, important observation ... the canon in the UK might contain more Elgar, Vaughan Williams, Finzi etc, than elsewhere, whereas in Italy there could be a focus on Verdi, Puccini, Respighi etc.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Philidor said:


> So at least we need several canons - and imho we have to ask who uses which canon for which purpose.


A couple you didn't mention:
The putting butts in seats with minimum risk and creative thought canon (the All the Pretty Warhorses canon).
The keeping the crowd happy at the free concert in the park canon (aka the Tchaikovsky with real cannons canon).


----------



## N Fowleri (5 mo ago)

EdwardBast said:


> The keeping the crowd happy at the free concert in the park canon (aka the Tchaikovsky with real cannons canon).


I personally wish the "real cannons canon" was larger. I guess I belong to the great unwashed masses.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

N Fowleri said:


> I personally wish the "real cannons canon" was larger. I guess I belong to the great unwashed masses.


Washing is overrated. They could add Wellington's Victory and make a night of it — and maybe my dad's old favorite, Victory at Sea.


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

EdwardBast said:


> Washing is overrated. They could add Wellington's Victory and make a night of it.


Water for washing may be replaced by alcohol for drinking. The latter is even more funny. 🍾


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

ORigel said:


> *For casual listeners, there's a pops classical assembly of warhorses like the Four Seasons, Albinoni Adagio, Blue Danube, Hungarian Dance No. 5, Beethoven's Fifth...stuff like that. They're a subset of the broader Canon since they're all super-popular.


But why wouldn't you include [ Symphony No. 9 ~ Beethoven (113,330,632 views) www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3217H8JppI ] and [ Mozart - Requiem (104,450,736 views) www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zi8vJ_lMxQI ] in that group? Because of the longer length? But apparently, the length isn't an obstacle for the casual listeners (the numbers of views on youtube even surpass those of Hungarian Dance No. 5, Blue Danube, for example). The distinction you make between casual listeners and serious listeners - strikes me as elitist.


hammeredklavier said:


> Who are these "serious CM fans"? How are they distinguished from the "masses"? People like Simon Moon, who find the tonal tunefulness of Bach's B minor mass "trite", and rates anything by Ligeti, Schoenberg higher?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

ORigel said:


> Experts


What makes them fundamentally different from us when it comes to music appreciation anyway? Wasn't Clement Greenberg an expert too?




"One critic shaped how we look at a half-century of painting. If Pollock was overrated, Clement Greenberg was the one doing it. We just followed his lead. So what is the correction here? It's not to discount Jackson Pollock. It's to give more attention to those other abstract expressionists as well. And to know the critic who decided which names we'd learn."


----------



## Fredrikalansson (Jan 29, 2019)

Music_Enthusiast1993 said:


> I sought it [classical music] out at some point while I was in high school because I needed a reason to find joy in this world and classical music provided me with that joy.


I completely relate to what you said here. I discovered classical music quite by accident. There was nothing in my background that directed me in that direction or even let me know such music existed. My parents were Philistines (with apologies to all the Philistines out there). And at no point, did I say to myself "I bet listening to this music shows that I'm smart and superior". I was smitten by the beauty, the strange complexity and (to be honest) all the great cheap emotional thrills. I had discovered joy. My parents, of course, told me it was just a phase I was going through. Over fifty years later, it still brings me joy, and I'm still waiting for my real parents to show up in their space ship and take me home.


----------



## Bernamej (Feb 24, 2014)

If I had total power, I would implement a classical music dictatorship, based on the natural order.
I would be called Das Kapellmeister and declare pop music and aotnal modern music our mortal enemies. 
Scriabin’s atonal works would be spared censorship, and Scriabin would be declared a Friend of Beauty.
My political foundation would be Beauty, and I would fight nihilism with every instrument of the orchestra. 
Dissonent notes would be allowed as long as they remain under Tonality’s control. 
Relativism would be shamed as the expression of weak and ugly mongrels.


----------



## adrien (Sep 12, 2016)

Forster said:


> What on earth are these? No, really - I haven't any idea what this means.


pieties.

A whole bunch of people wearing ties, eat a whole bunch of pies.


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

Bernamej said:


> If I had total power, I would implement a classical music dictatorship, based on the natural order.
> I would be called Das Kapellmeister and declare pop music and aotnal modern music our mortal enemies.
> Scriabin’s atonal works would be spared censorship, and Scriabin would be declared a Friend of Beauty.
> My political foundation would be Beauty, and I would fight nihilism with every instrument of the orchestra.
> ...


That's exactly what happened with all totalitarian régimes. Give easy stuff to appease the simple ones and suppress those thinking forward.


----------



## advokat (Aug 16, 2020)

Philidor said:


> That's exactly what happened with all totalitarian régimes. Give easy stuff to appease the simple ones and suppress those thinking forward.


Speaking from the experience of XXI century Germany? Or you have read it on the internet? Be advised that moderators do not take lightly to obvious politics-tinged content, at least not from me.


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

advokat said:


> Speaking from the experience of XXI century Germany?


If you are talking of 20th century Germany (I suppose this is what you wanted to ask), the answer is clearly yes.

But it is not the only example. Think for Shostakovich in Russia, Ligeti in Hungary and many more.


advokat said:


> Be advised that moderators do not take lightly to obvious politics-tinged content, at least not from me.


Thank you for pointing out this. Should I have violated any rule of this forum, I a willing to correct my posting for being in compliance with the given rule set.

Maybe my statement was a little to general and should be underlined with concrete historical examples such as Schreker, Ullmann, Pavel Haas or Shostakovich, Ligeti and many others.

At this point it is very difficult to separate musics and politics. There is no non-policial music. Take Bach's Overture No. 3: Trumpets were only allowed in this time to honour God and the Sovereign. Using trumpets in chuch was religious music, using trumpets outside the church was political music supporting absolutism.

It is not that easy ...


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

A reminder:

From our rules








Talk Classical Forum Rules


The following is a list of basic rules and guidelines about what is and is not allowed while posting on our site. These rules are in addition to what is listed in our Terms Of Use. Please read through all of these sections before using our site. If you have issues with your account or need help...




www.talkclassical.com







> 8. A special forum has been created for Political and/or Religious discussions that are related to Classical Music. In general political comments and posts are not allowed on Talk Classical, neither in threads nor posts in its forums, social groups, visitor messaging, blogs, avatars, and signatures, other than those specified related solely to Classical Music in this special dedicated forum. For religious comments and posts, the same holds, except that religious statements are allowed in signatures, and general religious threads and posts are allowed in the social groups.


This thread is not in the Political and/or Religious discussions sub-forum, which means that political discussion, even when related to classical music, should not take place. Let's focus on the music again in this discussion.


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

Art Rock said:


> A reminder:


Thank you for pointing out! It is the sub-forum that matters - I will keep this in mind. Thank you again.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Calipso said:


> Thread about pop vs classical music and comments remind me one thing. I often notice some kind of hypocrisy vibe, especially here on forum. Opinions, tastes, things are different but equal, no one is better. Music is subjective, pop is equal with classical, everything is art , no objective criteria of great music, etc.
> 
> But, somehow always, Bach, Mozart and Beethoven are best composers ever. It is more interesting how you can measure three best composers, or best works, but then equalizing clasical with pop where is gap so obvious. No problem to say that somebody is better than Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Bartok, Stravinsky, Wagner , Ravel, but somehow Madona, Michael Jackson, Drake, Rihanna are on same level with CM composers. "You know, its all different, but no one is better, but hey, Mozart is the greatest. God give him notes".


On the internet, comparisons are often made to set up a dichotomy, which is just a way to support a flimsy argument. What's the use, for example, of comparing two things in order to elevate one and degrade the other? If someone resorts to a dichotomy like this to prove they're right, then their argument must be full of holes in the first place.

Another thing to note is that it's not only classical that has developed its own canon, or set of canons. The same has been done in the popular realm. One example is various top 100 lists produced by the Rolling Stone magazine. Its a reputable magazine, the contributors include musicians. This is their "Top 100 Greatest Artists of All Time":









Rolling Stone – 100 Greatest Artists


1. The Beatles / 2. Bob Dylan / 3. Elvis Presley / 4. Rolling Stones / 5. Chuck Berry / 6. Jimi Hendrix / 7. James Brown / 8. Little Richard / 9. Aretha Franklin / 10. Ray Charles




genius.com





Then there's snobbism. There was a time when flaunting your superior taste meant something, but nowadays I think most people see it as sort of lame. It can be a matter of degree. The blatant way I've seen it done on the internet reminds me of George's goretex jacket. Its hard to take seriously.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> But why wouldn't you include [ Symphony No. 9 ~ Beethoven (113,330,632 views) www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3217H8JppI ] and [ Mozart - Requiem (104,450,736 views) www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zi8vJ_lMxQI ] in that group? Because of the longer length? But apparently, the length isn't an obstacle for the casual listeners (the numbers of views on youtube even surpass those of Hungarian Dance No. 5, Blue Danube, for example). The distinction you make between casual listeners and serious listeners - strikes me as elitist.


Beethoven Symphony no. 9 is a warhorse. Berlioz's Requiem obviously isn't-- it's not that popular or frequently performed (largely because of the forces involved). Views on Youtube is a bad guide to deciding what is and is not a warhorse.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

I'll be honest this doesn't do anything to make the "warhorse/Canon" dichotomy seen less arbitrary


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

ORigel said:


> Beethoven Symphony no. 9 is a warhorse. Berlioz's Requiem obviously isn't-- it's not that popular or frequently performed (largely because of the forces involved). *Views on Youtube is a bad guide to deciding what is and is not a warhorse.*


Why? It shows statistics of whom you describe as "casual listeners" are drawn to.
Actually, I know what you mean, but it just seems like a pretentious elitist mindset we've developed in our circles. Think of the reasons why you refuse to call stuff like Pachelbel's canon, a "great miracle" (of perfection and simplicity), a "great legacy" of "Western musical art", even though it expresses sentiments of a by-gone period and uses the canon form in a way that hundreds of millions people around the world even without the complex knowledge of how a canon works would go onto youtube to listen to it. What if it were Non-Western classical music and still attracted that much interest and attention, would you have viewed it differently?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

ORigel said:


> The relevant canon for most purposes is the popular and semi-popular works in the reportoire. The canons among academia and in different countries differ, but when we say canon, we mean *the most important composers and works to most serious* listeners*


Maybe that's how we "fool" ourselves in our "elitist" circles, but what if I told you that there are 3 kinds of listeners:

1. Casual listeners
2. "Fake" serious listeners
3. Serious listeners

Casual listeners (#1) are just like what you described (people who listen to the most "popular" classical music on youtube without discriminating anything for being "way too popular").

Fake serious listeners (#2) need to treat stuff like Beethoven 9th and Mozart's requiem as "classical great", and not "classical pop", even though it's apparent there's not much difference between them and the kind listeners of type #1 listen to (in terms of "musical accessibility"). Realizing they can't get into avant-garde stuff no matter how much time and effort they put into it, they must still "fool" themselves with the "wishful thinking" they're really different from the masses of type #1 (and they do this by making the distinction between the "classical great" and the "classical pop"). They make up the majority of people in classical music communities, but they can be subjectively seen as the "masses" within classical music communities.

Serious listeners (#3) are people like Simon Moon, Norman Bates, etc, people who listen to avant-garde stuff, and have no need for crowd-pleasing qualities like tonal tunefulness, in classical music.

Accepting everything the Fake serious listeners (#2) say as objective truth regarding these matters would be "argumentum ad populum".


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

To my mind, the word "canon" has a more absolute meaning as with the Bible or the _Star Wars_ universe. Along this line, and despite denominational differences and multiple translations, most Christians more-or-less follow a Bible that follows the "canon" that was put in place at the Council of Nicea in 325 when the church fathers of that time decided which of the existing accounts related to the life and teachings of Jesus would be included in the New Testament. Likewise, the _Star Wars_ universe as I understand it has had a similar treatment where some _Star Wars_ movies and literature are considered to be in line with a narrative that preserves as much as possible a continuity that respects the integrity of the characters and the events that make up the _Star Wars_ universe. This doesn't mean that one can't watch and enjoy, for example, the non-canonical _Star Wars Holiday Special_ that I as a child watched on network TV the one and only time it was officially released to the public in 1978. In the _Simpsons_ universe the annual _Tree House of Horror_ Halloween specials are taken as non-cannonical as it is assumed that whatever happens in those episodes, including our favorite characters dying, time traveling, shape-shifting, or whatever other bizarre things we see are not part of the _Simpsons_ timeline. Hence the outrage over the _Principal and the Pauper_ episode that completely deconstructed the character that fans came to know as the lovable mama's boy, "Principal Skinner" that much of the fandom refused to recognize that episode as "canon".

In this regard, classical music, I think of "non-cannonical" as classical music that was withdrawn or not recognized by the composer as part of a continuous body of material, say Tchaikovsky's _Manfred Symphony_, Ives' _Holidays Symphony_, or the anyone of the several versions of Mahler's _Symphony #10_ that were completed by others, most notably, Derrick Cooke; also the "discovered" symphonies by Mozart or the delightful "Irish Songs" by Beethoven that I take out every St. Patrick's Day which were never given an opus number.

I do think that there is a basic repertoire, though, that is a more ambiguous collection of popular works and even here, we can identify works that are in the heart of the repertoire and other works which hover on the outskirts or outer reaches of the basic repertoire. While Stravinsky is almost universally recognized as the greatest composer of the 20th century (often compared to Picasso in art) there are actually very few Stravinsky works that occupy a place at the heart of the basic repertoire: _Rite of Spring_, _Firebird_, _Petroushka_, and few other things. The Neo-Classical, _Violin Concerto _or_ Symphony of the Psalms_, for example, are much less programmed or recorded by major conductors and orchestras; and the serial works such as _Threni_ or _The Flood_ are programmed and/or recorded almost never, even if _The Flood_ is a very entertaining piece of music that is also probably one the most listenable and accessible pieces of serial music there is. Likewise, while Arnold Schoenberg is recognized as probably the second greatest composer of the 20th century (if not on par with Stravinsky) even less of Schoenberg exists at the heart of the repertoire and apart from the wonderful Pierre Boulez, Glenn Gould, and a few others there are practically no major recording artists in classical music that bothered to record much of Schoenberg except for one or two works as if just to demonstrate that they were aware of it.

I think that the basic repertoire is always a good place to start and that's where I started my journey into classical music many years ago during the 1980s as a teenager; and there are two ways of looking at it. One is in terms of "tiers" where you have composers such as Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Wagner, Stravinsky etc (all the heavy-hitters and their most beloved works) occupying a top shelf. From there you may go down to tier two and tier three; where you find interesting, talented and sincere lesser composers that never caugt on but are still a lot of fun and occasionally border on greatness. As I have a special interest in our own American composers there are many such as Roy Harris, Walter Piston, William Schuman, Ulysses Kay, and many other American academics who were occupy a distinguished place on the second or third shelf. Another way to look at it is terms of a concentric circles with the heavy-hitters located at the "heart of the repertoire, and then as we spread out we are taken to far off different worlds far from the "habital zone" so that we know that once we've found the music of composers such as Varese, Xanakis, Elliott Carter or John Cage, we are in a strange far off land.

It's a fantastic and awesome journey.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

"standard repertoire" and "extended repertoire" are more practical terms to use, i think. 

in literature "canon" was more or less the socially-agreed list of books that anyone who wanted to be "well-read" should at least be familiar with, if not read cover-to-cover. obviously both of these aren't literal lists but they agree as social conventions. 

both are subject to change over time, as all social conventions are, and i think it's foolish to act like either are set in stone.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

I don't believe in a dichotomy between pieces that are in the standard repertoire and the "warhorses". By definition, if people tend to call a work a "warhorse", then it belongs to the canon in my view. Also, it should be noted that some pieces manage to appeal to both casual and seasoned listeners of a certain genre - it's the case with Mozart's requiem and Beethoven's fifth and ninth symphonies in classical, and, why not, The Beatles' Revolver and Pink Floyd's The Dark Side of the Moon in Rock for example.

A "casual listener" of classical music is someone who listens to it sporadically, casually, a beginner in the genre, and therefore someone who doesn't have much experience to distinguish between great and less great works of it yet, but not necessarily someone who is not, or couldn't be, a "good" listener of it.

The casual vs non-casual duality exists in many fields of human interaction and it's no snobbery to recognize it. For example, I'm a casual chess player, but a seasoned (although not pro) Warcraft III player. I have little experience with chess, but a lot of experience with the mentioned electronic game, and there's no snobbery in recognizing this fact.


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

Xisten267 said:


> By definition, if people tend to call a work a "warhorse", then it belongs to the canon in my view.


To my humble opinion, a warhorse is a piece which makes a 1st rate effect even with a 2nd rate performance.

"Warhorse" is also more or less synonymous to "crowd-pleaser". Something like a womanizer for CM fans.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

My favorite joke term I heard for that is a "(censored word for a posterior) symphony", because it gets posteriors in seats.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

Philidor said:


> To my humble opinion, a warhorse is a piece which makes a 1st rate effect even with a 2nd rate performance.
> 
> "Warhorse" is also more or less synonymous to "crowd-pleaser". Something like a womanizer for CM fans.


I disagree with this notion. A "warhorse", according to Google dictionary, is simply "a musical, theatrical, or literary work that has been heard or performed repeatedly". Beethoven's fifth symphony is a "warhorse", but I would hate to listen to it in a 2nd rate performance - I would rather not to, for it would probably have a 5th rate effect on me (I love, love it when well-played by the way).


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> ...
> Serious listeners (#3) are people like Simon Moon, Norman Bates, etc, people who listen to avant-garde stuff, and have no need for crowd-pleasing qualities like tonal tunefulness, in classical music.
> 
> Accepting everything the Fake serious listeners (#2) say as objective truth regarding these matters would be "argumentum ad populum".


So the only "serious listeners" are those who listen to avant garde things? How are we to accept your own description here as "objective truth"? Where do you fall in the spectrum, the "fake" second tier? In which case I wonder how you can say anything about the "seriously (and I mean it) serious" tier. There could be a fourth category: serious listeners who don't really give a rat's doodoo about "pop classical vs great classical objective and subjective" dichotomies.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Repertoire piece = One that every orchestra or soloist records by obligation, and you're likely to see in concert
Warhorse = the same except the speaker is sick of the piece


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

fbjim said:


> Repertoire piece = One that every orchestra or soloist records by obligation, and you're likely to see in concert
> *Warhorse = the same except the speaker is sick of the piece*


Is "warhorse" necessarily a pejorative word? At least from what I've seem in this community, it doesn't seem to be (I'm not from an English speaking country and couldn't be sure though).


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

fbjim said:


> Repertoire piece = One that every orchestra or soloist records by obligation, and you're likely to see in concert
> Warhorse = the same except the speaker is sick of the piece


It could also be "warhorse=what every composer wishes his/her work would become"


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Yabetz said:


> So the only "serious listeners" are those who listen to avant garde things?....


Maybe. I was just "posing a question", (notice the phrase _"what if I told you..." _in Post#147). All I know is that we should not at least rely on "tyranny of the majority" to make a point. In many things, there are "dedicated fans", who would defend their "idols" (just like in sports, for example) at all costs, against all criticisms. Just cause they are dedicated and many, it doesn't mean what they say are objective truth.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> Maybe. I was just "posing a question", (notice the phrase _"what if I told you..."_). All I know is that we should not at least rely on "tyranny of the majority" to make a point. In many things, there are "dedicated fans", who would defend their "idols" (just like in sports, for example) at all costs. Just cause they are dedicated and many, it doesn't mean what they say are objective truth.


That's a little passive aggressive. Say what you mean. Again I ask, where are you in your categories? And what do you mean, "defend at all costs"? I don't think anybody's ready to rumble if someone dares to say that they don't like Beethoven.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Yabetz said:


> That's a little passive aggressive. Say what you mean. Again I ask, where are you in your categories?


Maybe #2? I dunno.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> Maybe #2? I dunno.


So you're "fake" too and we can't put much stock in what you say either. The only honest ones are avant garde fans.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Xisten267 said:


> Is "warhorse" necessarily a pejorative word? At least from what I've seem in this community, it doesn't seem to be (I'm not from an English speaking country and couldn't be sure though).


I'd say it's very mildly pejorative since it's frequently said in a "Oh, they're performing Beethoven's 5th again?" context, but only a mild one. It's a joke, anyway.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Yabetz said:


> So you're "fake" too and we can't put much stock in what you say either. The only honest ones are avant garde fans.


I mean, listeners who discriminate "crowd-pleasers" and yet praise (by using imaginary concepts like "objective greatness") other "crowd-pleasers", that are simply longer in length or bigger in scale, remind of the phrase "the pot calling the kettle black". What is a "serious" listener, anyway? A fancy way of saying "nerdy" or "infatuated"?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

"it's a curious paradox that we (sorry, "some of us") like to feel that we're in the avant-garde, smarter than the average bear, but, simultaneously, want to be in the big gang that recognises the same tastes, thereby validating our own." -said by Forster in another thread.
I still think it's very well said.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> I mean, listeners who discriminate "crowd-pleasers" and yet praises (by using imaginary concepts like "objective greatness") other "crowd-pleasers", that are simply longer in length or bigger in scale, remind of the phrase "the pot calling the kettle black". What is a "serious" listener, anyway? A fancy way of saying "nerdy" or "infatuated"?


Number one, what particular listeners do you have in mind? Number two, maybe there are more differences than greater length and scale. As if there are no differences between Wagner and Suppé other than length and scale. Number three, copying and pasting that quote for the hundredth time doesn't make it any more true. I may recognize similar tastes or a shared admiration for a work or body of work, but it doesn't mean I'm seeking to have my tastes "validated".


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

hammeredklavier said:


> I mean, listeners who discriminate "crowd-pleasers"


To my mind, discriminating is not appropriate. Whoever likes Burger King is free to do so. However, there is no need to check more than once or twice whether they are right.


hammeredklavier said:


> I mean, listeners who discriminate "crowd-pleasers" and yet praise (by using imaginary concepts like "objective greatness") other "crowd-pleasers", that are simply longer in length or bigger in scale, remind of the phrase "the pot calling the kettle black".


Yes. There is no point in saying "I prefer McDonalds to Burger King".


hammeredklavier said:


> "it's a curious paradox that we (sorry, "some of us") like to feel that we're in the avant-garde, smarter than the average bear, but, simultaneously, want to be in the big gang that recognises the same tastes, thereby validating our own." -said by Forster in another thread.
> I still think it's very well said.



There seems to be a need for distinction.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

I think the posts are needlessly provocative but I do get the point. If both Ravel's _Bolero_ and Beethoven's Fifth Symphony are canonical, crowd-pleasing rep, there's something strange going on when one is a shallow, mere "pops repertoire" piece while the other is an undisputable masterpiece.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

fbjim said:


> I think the posts are needlessly provocative but I do get the point. If both Ravel's _Bolero_ and Beethoven's Fifth Symphony are canonical, crowd-pleasing rep, there's something strange going on when one is a shallow, mere "pops repertoire" piece while the other is an undisputable masterpiece.


So it's hypocritical not to regard _Bolero_ and the Fifth in the same way?


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Yabetz said:


> So it's hypocritical not to regard _Bolero_ and the Fifth in the same way?


I think it's inconsistent to say, point to the general audience popularity of the Fifth as a virtue, but use the general audience popularity of Bolero, Rhapsody in Blue, or the Canon in D as a mark against it for being "mere pops".


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

fbjim said:


> I think it's inconsistent to say, point to the general audience popularity of the Fifth as a virtue, but use the general audience popularity of Bolero, Rhapsody in Blue, or the Canon in D as a mark against it for being "mere pops".


"Mere pops" could be just "these have less to say". And also I don't know of many admirers of the Fifth who point out its popularity as something that gives it "worth". It could also be that its "worth" gives it popularity, of a different kind from Bolero or the Rhapsody in Blue. If I admire the work of Chaucer I don't know why I'm then obligated to like Bram Stoker equally.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Yabetz said:


> "Mere pops" could be just "these have less to say".


Or maybe we've been "educated" to believe that way. ( What is "Profundity"?--Revisited! / What is "Profundity"?--Revisited! )



Yabetz said:


> And also I don't know of many admirers of the Fifth who point out its popularity as something that gives it "worth".


It's what ORigel, for example, has done in this thread.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

To some extent I almost see pops rep pieces resented _for_ their popularity. Basically, the wrong sort of people like it. 

I don't think this is even an unusual behavior because sharing tastes in music and art is a social act to a large extent. A lot of people consider their aesthetic and artistic preferences as part of their identity - there's a reason so many musical movements were part of larger scale aesthetic and cultural changes, after all.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> Or maybe we've been "educated" to believe that way.
> ...


Maybe we weren't. I didn't go to a conservatory. Maybe this or that individual listener reaches that conclusion on his/her own. Maybe you were educated to think otherwise.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

fbjim said:


> To some extent I almost see pops rep pieces resented _for_ their popularity. Basically, the wrong sort of people like it.
> ...


That's an assumption without much evidence. First I don't know if there's any more "resentment" of "light classics" than there is of Mahler. Another thing is I quite like the Rhapsody in Blue. It's a great piece. I'd rather hear Gershwin's Three Preludes than Liszt's Transcendental Etudes. I've heard Bolero quite enough though.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Yabetz said:


> Maybe we weren't. I didn't go to a conservatory. Maybe this or that individual listener reaches that conclusion on his/her own. Maybe you were educated to think otherwise.


I respect your views, but I think you should visit various other websites and see how people talk-


hammeredklavier said:


> For instance, have a look at the article <I Believe in Mozart: Symphony No. 41 in C Major> 2013/03/18/i-believe-in-mozart-symphony-41-in-c-major/
> 
> 
> 
> ...





hammeredklavier said:


> It says *"In the 1700s, Johann Sebastian Bach, had defined the system of Western classical tonality"*, (I mean of course guys like www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFV8avEufEw (Missa Omnium Sanctorum, ZWV 21) all learned everything from Bach) and then goes onto discuss Beethoven, and then jumps to Wagner - as if Weber and Spohr never existed in the history of Romantic harmonic practice.
> 
> They all talk this way, unfortunately; it's always about what Bach or Mozart did. This is how we've all been educated. How can we say it was a "fair game" for all the composers from the start?


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> I respect your views, but I think you should visit various other websites and see how people talk-


And I respect yours, but maybe you should get away from websites for a while. I see a lot of garbage on websites that doesn't really jibe with discernible reality.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

hammeredklavier said:


> Maybe that's how we "fool" ourselves in our "elitist" circles, but what if I told you that there are 3 kinds of listeners:
> 
> 1. Casual listeners
> 2. "Fake" serious listeners
> ...


How do you class yourself, 1, 2 or 3?


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> Maybe that's how we "fool" ourselves in our "elitist" circles, but what if I told you that there are 3 kinds of listeners:


_Are _you going to tell us this? Or is it some obscure hypothetical?

If you told _me_, I'd say you were wrong.



hammeredklavier said:


> 1. Casual listeners
> 2. "Fake" serious listeners
> 3. Serious listeners


By your definitions, you miss out probably the two largest groups and possibly others who might self-define differently. I certainly would.

There is the group that doesn't _listen _to classical at all, as an _active _pastime (ignoring the fact that most of us come across some classical bits and pieces in our lifetimes, if only in adverts, cartoons and answering machine tunes!)

There is the group that simply listens to classical as an active pastime, whether it's symphonies and/or opera, Beethoven and/or Tippett, Baroque and/or Classical (etc etc) without reference to any other consideration than the enjoyment of the music. No _worries _about how popular or elitist they are, or whether they'll sound good at dinner parties when they drop a name or two, or whether they find it edifying, uplifting or nourishing (regardless of whether it is), whether they can look down on the pop world with an agreeable sense of superiority...and so on.

I'm not going to label either group or describe them any further. I am sure many TC members will recognise themselves better in my last description. It's where I would put myself.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Forster said:


> _Are _you going to tell us this? Or is it some obscure hypothetical?
> 
> If you told _me_, I'd say you were wrong.
> 
> ...


Definitely the second group for me. My musical taste is eclectic to say the least. I imagine quite a lot of us on this forum are the same.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

fbjim said:


> I'll be honest this doesn't do anything to make the "warhorse/Canon" dichotomy seen less arbitrary


Berlioz's Requiem is probably part of some canons, but it isn't a warhorse. Meanwhile, everyone knows Brahms' Hungarian Dance no. 5.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Xisten267 said:


> I don't believe in a dichotomy between pieces that are in the standard repertoire and the "warhorses". By definition, if people tend to call a work a "warhorse", then it belongs to the canon in my view. Also, it should be noted that some pieces manage to appeal to both casual and seasoned listeners of a certain genre - it's the case with Mozart's requiem and Beethoven's fifth and ninth symphonies in classical, and, why not, The Beatles' Revolver and Pink Floyd's The Dark Side of the Moon in Rock for example.
> 
> A "casual listener" of classical music is someone who listens to it sporadically, casually, a beginner in the genre, and therefore someone who doesn't have much experience to distinguish between great and less great works of it yet, but not necessarily someone who is not, or couldn't be, a "good" listener of it.
> 
> The casual vs non-casual duality exists in many fields of human interaction and it's no snobbery to recognize it. For example, I'm a casual chess player, but a seasoned (although not pro) Warcraft III player. I have little experience with chess, but a lot of experience with the mentioned electronic game, and there's no snobbery in recognizing this fact.


Warhorses are a subset of the standard repertoire that are really popular.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Xisten267 said:


> Is "warhorse" necessarily a pejorative word? At least from what I've seem in this community, it doesn't seem to be (I'm not from an English speaking country and couldn't be sure though).


It depends on the context. Sometimes it's a factual description, sometimes CM listeners think they're overly popular


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> Maybe that's how we "fool" ourselves in our "elitist" circles, but what if I told you that there are 3 kinds of listeners:
> 
> 1. Casual listeners
> 2. "Fake" serious listeners
> ...


I can see that the "Canon" is probably an attempt to make the standard reportoire items seem like they're objectively "the greatest."


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Philidor said:


> [edit]
> 
> 
> Thank you for pointing out this. Should I have violated any rule of this forum, I a willing to correct my posting for being in compliance with the given rule set.
> ...


Granted, it is ofttimes difficult to separate politics from _anything_ anymore. Almost everything has become politicized, or _can_ be.

But as someone who has inadvertently broken the rules a few times, I suppose I should point out that the penalty for making political posts (well, political posts that you cannot tie directly to _music_) is harsher than letting you "correct" your comment to be in compliance.

My first violation consisted of having my comment removed, and receiving a "friendly warning". After that the Moderators/Administrators get serious.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

ORigel said:


> I can see that the "Canon" is probably an attempt to make the standard reportoire items seem like they're objectively "the greatest."


If the standard repertoire is the ‘Canon’, it is because it is the standard repertoire. There is no need for anyone to ‘attempt’ anything to prove anything about the standard repertoire. The challenge is going to be for CM that is not part of the standard repertoire to become part of the standard repertoire.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

DaveM said:


> If the standard repertoire is the ‘Canon’, it is because it is the standard repertoire. There is no need for anyone to ‘attempt’ anything to prove anything about the standard repertoire. The challenge is going to be for CM that is not part of the standard repertoire to become part of the standard repertoire.


The problem with that is that there's only so many pieces that can be popular. For more works to enter the standard repertoire, some would have to become less popular. This may have been even more true when recordings didn't exist, or when they were more expensive.

Sure, some works can be recorded a few times and become more well-known to CM enthusiasts.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

ORigel said:


> The problem with that is that there's only so many pieces that can be popular. For more works to enter the standard repertoire, some would have to become less popular...


I don’t agree that that is the limiting factor. The music that sustains CM i.e. the standard repertoire, is, for better or for worse, pretty much locked in because there is no incentive or major increasing popularity of the genre to add to it. If there was a way to add to it, IMO, there are numerous works from the 19th century that could be eligible. From the mid 20th century on, IMO, not so much.


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

ORigel said:


> Berlioz's Requiem is probably part of some canons, but it isn't a warhorse. Meanwhile, everyone knows Brahms' Hungarian Dance no. 5.


Berlioz" _Requiem_ may not be a warhorse but it's still my favorite Requiem or Mass by any composer including the ones by Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Faure, or Verdi. Berlioz is so over-the-top as he unleashes all the forces of the Apocalypse and then brings it down to the heavenly _Sanctus_ which I wish could go on forever everytime I hear it; and the first time I ever heard the _Sanctus_ was from an LP before I ever heard the entire _Requiem_, as it was featured as a stand-alone on Luciano Pavarotti's Christmas album where the "great one" lent his rich and full tenor voice to it with the boys'choir and quietly clashing cymbols playing in the background. Then the _Requiem_ ends with the hypnotic _Agnus Dei_.

My very first recording of the _Requiem_ in it's entirety was by way of Colin Davis and the London Symphony Orchestra and Chorus with Ronald Dowd as the soloist. Through the years I've acquired many other fine recordings of Berloiz' _Requiem_ with the likes of James Levine, Robert Shaw, Leonard Bernstein, Seiji Ozawa, and Dimitri Mitropoulos at the helm with various rochestras and soloists, and despite the fact that Levine even employs the great Pavarotti in his own recording of the _Requiem_ with the Berlin Philharmonic; I still find Colin Davis' restrained "English" approach to be best as Davis seems to best capture the certain balance between the side of Berlioz who was the grand and colorful Romantic composer, and the other side of Berlioz that also had a certain Classical sensibility and and French sophistication.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Coach G said:


> Berlioz" _Requiem_ may not be a warhorse but it's still my favorite Requiem or Mass by any composer including the ones by Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Faure, or Verdi. Berlioz is so over-the-top as he unleashes all the forces of the Apocalypse and then brings it down to the heavenly _Sanctus_ which I wish could go on forever everytime I hear it; and the first time I ever heard the _Sanctus_ was from an LP before I ever heard the entire _Requiem_, as it was featured as a stand-alone on Luciano Pavarotti's Christmas album where the "great one" lent his rich and full tenor voice to it with the boys'choir and quietly clashing cymbols playing in the background. Then the _Requiem_ end with the hypnotic _Agnus Dei_.
> 
> My very first recording of the _Requiem_ in it's entirety was by way of Colin Davis and the London Symphony Orchestra and Chorus with Ronald Dowd as the soloist. Through the years I've acquired many other fine recordings of Berloiz' Requiem with the likes of James Levine, Robert Shaw, Leonard Bernstein, Seiji Ozawa, and Dimitri Mitropoulos as the helm with various rochestras and soloists, and despite the fact that Levine even employs the great Pavarotti in his own recording of the _Requiem_ with the Berlin Philharmonic; I still find Colin Davis' restrained "English" approach to be best as Davis seems to best capture the certain balance between the side of Berlioz who was the grand and colorful Romantic composer, and the other side of Berlioz that also had a certain Classical sensibility and and French sophistication.
> 
> ...


I do not know all of the Requiems in the fringes of the reportoire, but Berlioz's is the best Requiem I know of.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

Deleted, thought this was a different thread........


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Hypocrites—aren't we all? 😀


----------

