# Which composer has the most annoying fans?



## lukecubed (Nov 27, 2011)

For me, it's Mahler. Sometimes there's no conversation to be had with these people. It's as if he's the summation and apotheosis of the entire tradition and music no longer needs to be made. I love Mahler, btw. But I dread talking about him. And I can admit that sometimes he's pretty corny.

I had hesitated to start this thread but then I saw that Haitink agrees:
linkypoo

Followed closely by Wagner, for the exact same reasons. And Shostakovich, for his fans' inability to separate the man's biography from the value of his music and their relentless attempts to paint him as some hero of resistance. Again, I enjoy both composers' music.

Which composers' fans do you dread?


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Wolfgang Mozart.


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

*Ligeti*. Definitely Ligeti.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

Although I know people who are exceptions, I've observed 2 things about many Mahler fans. 
1) They are indeed fanatical "He's GOD!" etc.
2) They are very sensitive to criticism of Mahler "Oh no you don't! You don't say that about him!" etc.


----------



## Carpenoctem (May 15, 2012)

Ligeti, Cage, and other atonal composers. At least on this forum.


----------



## DrKilroy (Sep 29, 2012)

Frederic Chopin. Not all of them, I guess.

Best regards, Dr


----------



## lukecubed (Nov 27, 2011)

Carpenoctem said:


> Ligeti, Cage, and other atonal composers. At least on this forum.


Oh PLEASE let's not turn this into another tonal-vs.-atonal thing. That's why I said "composers" not "eras" or "styles." It's not as if Ligeti never composed tonally or never used tonal elements, anyway.


----------



## Janspe (Nov 10, 2012)

I've had a fair share of pointless arguments with fans of Bach. Sometimes it feels that there's no limit to their absolute disgust towards anything that doesn't contain elements of counterpoint.

Try talking about Liszt with a Bach fan. I _dare_ you.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

I have to say that I have found some fellow Mahler fans to be especially cranky at times, and I don't mean on here which has been a paragon of reason and common sense in comparison. In rock music some fans of Hawkwind can be especially one-eyed crashing bores who live in their own bubble - they don't seem to understand that this once-great group have been a complete shambles since the mid-80s yet even their most wretched albums (especially the dodgy, badly-recorded live ones) receive the most fanatical defence as if they are still (to quote one of their songs) Masters of the Universe.


----------



## lukecubed (Nov 27, 2011)

elgars ghost said:


> In rock music some fans of Hawkwind can be especially one-eyed crashing bores who live in their own bubble - they don't seem to understand that this once-great group have been a complete shambles since the mid-80s...


Haha, wow, really? Had no idea. Sounds a bit like Grateful Dead fans here in the states. I was always told that everything HW after the 70's was hooey. And that most of the post-Lemmy works were not worth it. So I stopped with _Warrior on the Edge of Time_. Love that one though.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

The best way to deal with annoying fans is to ignore the droning, turn up your music a little, and enjoy how cool they make you, by virtue of not getting upset by them. All that work and effort they put in to convince people, apparently unaware how detrimental to their cause their own fanaticism is. I love reading fan rants and seeing their soaring disconnect from reality.

Anyway I hate Heinrich von Herzogenberg's demented fans, with their constant harping on about how beautiful his symphonies are and how awesome his mass is.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

BurningDesire said:


> Wolfgang Mozart.


That's, "Johannes Chrysostomus Wolfgangus Theophilus Mozart!" :devil:

Now, how are we annoying again? :tiphat:


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

I'd say Wagner fans except there can't be that many of them...


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

Janspe said:


> I've had a fair share of pointless arguments with fans of Bach. Sometimes it feels that there's no limit to their absolute disgust towards anything that doesn't contain elements of counterpoint.
> 
> Try talking about Liszt with a Bach fan. I _dare_ you.


Hey, I love both!


----------



## Janspe (Nov 10, 2012)

crmoorhead said:


> Hey, I love both!


Make no mistake, I like both composers enormously as well! But unfortunately that can't be said of all hardcore Bach fans...


----------



## jani (Jun 15, 2012)

Those who say " Tonality is a total dead end, everything has been already done. There is no possibilities to create anything new anymore".
So i say hardcore fans of atonal composers are the most annoying ones.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

lukecubed said:


> Haha, wow, really? Had no idea. Sounds a bit like Grateful Dead fans here in the states. I was always told that everything HW after the 70's was hooey. And that most of the post-Lemmy works were not worth it. So I stopped with _Warrior on the Edge of Time_. Love that one though.


That's about right - in some ways Hawkwind were the nearest thing to the Dead in the UK. After Lemmy was fired the group streamlined their sound which still led to some fine work, especially 1977's Quark Strangeness and Charm, but some of their fans still suffer from a living in a science fantasy la-la land who act and talk like they've had one trip too many when most of the latterday ones have probably had nothing stronger than low-octane dope and a few pints of beer. Harmless geeks at their best, acid-blasted nutjobs at their worst.


----------



## Carpenoctem (May 15, 2012)

lukecubed said:


> Oh PLEASE let's not turn this into another tonal-vs.-atonal thing. That's why I said "composers" not "eras" or "styles." It's not as if Ligeti never composed tonally or never used tonal elements, anyway.


Read the thread name again and you'll realize that it will turn into this vs. that thread. I think it's quite obvious.

Also, I didn't say that I don't like atonal music, I only dislike attitude of some members here.


----------



## perduto (Aug 28, 2012)

In the Netherlands: Simeon ten Holt. 
(If you've never heard of him: consider yourself lucky)


----------



## pendereckiobsessed (Sep 21, 2012)

"Fans" of ANY composer who only have listened to only 2-3 of their pieces.....


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Although I know people who are exceptions, I've observed 2 things about many Mahler fans.
> 1) They are indeed fanatical "He's GOD!" etc.
> 2) They are very sensitive to criticism of Mahler "Oh no you don't! You don't say that about him!" etc.


Thats what annoys me about Mozart fans X3


----------



## Janspe (Nov 10, 2012)

I find extremists of both camps in this never-ending "tonal vs. atonal" battle highly annoying. Am I the only one who doesn't care that much about categorizing music like that? I take my music one piece at a time and make my judgements as I go.

I started to ponder whether I'm an annoying fan of some composers or not. I sort of identified myself from the opening post of this thread: I may well be a bit over-enthusiastic Shostakovich-fan... And one should never come and try underestimate the artistic quality of Rachmaninoff's music to me.


----------



## lukecubed (Nov 27, 2011)

Janspe said:


> I find extremists of both camps in this never-ending "tonal vs. atonal" battle highly annoying. Am I the only one who doesn't care that much about categorizing music like that? I take my music one piece at a time and make my judgements as I go.


No you're not the only one. The whole "debate" is ridiculous. Music is music. Acting as though it has to conform to any preconceived stricture for reasons of aesthetics/context/history/style and so forth, or that it obtains its value from the degree of its conformity, is bizarre to me. The extremists on both "sides" do this. That's politics, not music.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

So far people have mentioned _fans_ of Mahler, Wagner, Mozart, Ligeti, Cage, Chopin, Bach, Herzogenberg, Simeon ten Holt, Hawkwind, Grateful Dead, and atonal music (all in 22 posts). I think the common denominator is that all of these fans are people, and people can be annoying to others.

I would ask if anyone actually believes that the composer's music itself has much to do with their displeasure with the _fans_ of that music.


----------



## Guest (Nov 10, 2012)

mmsbls has once again injected a fine dose of sense into the discussion.

People can be annoying. And I'd much rather deal with a fan than with a hater. A fan at least has listened and had a positive reaction. Haters simply reject.

And, of course the putative values of a composer's music has nothing to do with the behaviors of the fans. Silly premise. If that were true, Beethoven's music would be unlistenable.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

mmsbls said:


> So far people have mentioned _fans_ of Mahler, Wagner, Mozart, Ligeti, Cage, Chopin, Bach, Herzogenberg, Simeon ten Holt, Hawkwind, Grateful Dead, and atonal music (all in 22 posts). I think the common denominator is that all of these fans are people, and people can be annoying to others.
> 
> I would ask if anyone actually believes that the composer's music itself has much to do with their displeasure with the _fans_ of that music.


I like to think not in my case - I like Mahler and Hawkwind very much but am all too aware that acolytes of both get very defensive at any slight, real or imagined, to a degree that I have rarely encountered elsewhere. Some are actually my friends and acquaintances so I can honestly say that I'm not singling Mahler and Hawkwind due to any prejudice on my part but all too often their bunker mentality reminds me of Schulz's Schroeder being devoured by his obsession with Beethoven.


----------



## lukecubed (Nov 27, 2011)

mmsbls said:


> I would ask if anyone actually believes that the composer's music itself has much to do with their displeasure with the _fans_ of that music.


I'm sure for some, it does. I think a type of music is more likely to attract a type of listener, but that is modulated by a huge complex of forces--received opinion, the historical and current reception of said composer/music, how the listener desires to situate him or herself with regard to these things, and so forth. For instance, it might be easier for one person to enjoy Mozart more than Hummel because there has been far more written about Mozart's virtues, which that listener might feel validates one's enjoyment. But another listener may feel that "discovering" his or her own reasons for liking Hummel is purer because there isn't that mass of recieved opinion about him informing the listener's opinion. A third listener may aspire to avoid all of that clutter and simply judge the music "on its own merits," though of course no one can listen in a vacuum.

In Mahler's case, his music is self-consciously grand according to Mahler's conception of what grandeur meant in music. So I can see some connection between the music and the type of cult he has attracted. But some of that adulation also probably has to do with historical perspective (for instance, the perception that he was "unfairly neglected" in his own time) and modern context (in which his music is often venerated as the height of late romanticism, in which there is this cult around him and so cultish behavior about him is more acceptable). I say this because I don't feel the same way about Bruckner, Strauss, or Sibelius fans, though the music of those composers is also self-consciously grand and similar in style and of the same era.

But, honestly, I was just trying to have a bit of fun and didn't mean it all that seriously. As I said, I enjoy all the composers whose fans I find annoying


----------



## perduto (Aug 28, 2012)

mmsbls said:


> ... I would ask if anyone actually believes that the composer's music itself has much to do with their displeasure with the _fans_ of that music.


In the case of Simeon ten Holt: definitely. The guy writes sugary pseudo-minimal elevator music that somehow makes his fans feel they are part of an enlightened elite. Pathetic and annoying.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

some guy said:


> mmsbls has once again injected a fine dose of sense into the discussion.
> 
> People can be annoying. And I'd much rather deal with a fan than with a hater. A fan at least has listened and had a positive reaction. Haters simply reject.
> 
> And, of course the putative values of a composer's music has nothing to do with the behaviors of the fans. Silly premise. If that were true, Beethoven's music would be unlistenable.


Which brings us to Brucknerians. Actually they don't annoy me though. I am particularly amused by the Bruckner - Mahler rift among many Brucknerians. To me those composers have little in common beyond _length_.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I've gotta say, my biggest problems have been with fans of J.C. Bach. And not just on this board, but in the streets. You've seen 'em, how they dress, how they force you off the sidewalk or purposely jostle you.

I made the mistake once of telling one that the music of JC's father was better. He went and got a few of his mates and they beat and robbed me. But I felt better after a beer and a listen to:


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

KenOC said:


> I've gotta say, my biggest problems have been with fans of J.C. Bach. And not just on this board, but in the streets. You've seen 'em, how they dress, how they force you off the sidewalk or purposely jostle you.
> 
> I made the mistake once of telling one that the music of JC's father was better. He went and got a few of his mates and they beat and robbed me. But I felt better after a beer and a listen to:
> 
> View attachment 9752


Yeah, those JC guys with the hankies up their sleeves and their codpieces... ruffians they are.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Personally, the Bach and Wagner nutters bug me the most: they seem more inclined to truly dismiss all other music as less or completely invalid - which also,i n my eyes, makes them appear patently absurd.

Fan = Fanatic. There is just no reasonable give and take conversation possible with any fan re: the object of their fanaticism.

Most fanatics are just flat out obsessed mono-thematic 'nutters.' What many of them do not realize, is their attachment (unnatural?) and zeal (a little freaky, ma'am, sir) says far more about them as individuals than they can ever say about their idol or that composer's work.

It is first and foremost any of "All the Usual Suspects" - just how boring is that to begin with? (Hypothetical, folks.) 

Just place the word "Nutter" after any top pops big composer's name.... et voila. A nutter with zero entertainment / engagement value and a near certifiable bore. 

The nutter whose object of zeal is a second tier composer, or someone more obscure, I find has a bit more charm -- and interest.

To me, there is something disturbingly and unattractively neurotic underlying every nutter I've encountered (i.e. what compels / allows them to become a nutter in the first place). whether in real life or as participants in various fora.


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Fan = Fanatic. There is just no reasonable back and forth conversation with any fan re: the object of the fanaticism.
> 
> Most fanatics are just flat out obsessed mono-thematic 'nutters.' What many of them do not realize, is their attachment (unnatural?) and zeal (a little freaky, ma'am, sir) says far more about them as individuals than they can ever say about their idol or that composer's work.
> 
> ...


Alrighty then...

I happen to think that obsession is what drives progress. 'Fan' may derive from 'fanatic' but that isn't the same thing as being identical in meaning. Fan generally has much milder connotations. If you want to take the term 'fan' to an extreme, replace it with the word 'scholar'. Devoting a reasonable portion of one's life to one particular composer is radical, although they are the ones that provide useful things like biographies, catalogues of works and essays. I'm at least a little grateful that someone might have sacrificed some part of their sanity for my sake. I might not want to sit next to them at a dinner party (though that might depend), but enthusiasm to be an expert in something is not totally without merit. As for nutters, some of the best people I know aren't exactly normal and some of the greatest geniuses have been nutters.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

BurningDesire said:


> Wolfgang Mozart.


How did I know you were going to say that?


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

It has nothing to do with the composers,it is the fanatics themselves.
If your favourite is being criticised you are at complete liberty to defend him--but get your facts right !!
Do not get carried away however dumb the remarks being made by the "fanzenes",and they can be very dumb.
I do not agree with the comment that it rather depends on the composer because certain composers attract certain types.
I like Mahler,but I also like Liszt,Soler,Schubert,Verdi,Beethoven and Mozart--where does that leave me?
I've given a lot of "likes" on this thread because I think the replies have been of high quality.


----------



## Carpenoctem (May 15, 2012)

moody said:


> I like Mahler,but I also like Liszt,Soler,Schubert,Verdi,Beethoven and Mozart--where does that leave me?


Nowhere, it just means that you have a healthy taste in classical music. Overall, I think diversity is the key of music appreciation.

Even though I don't like the attitude of some die hard composer fans here, that won't stop me from listening to their "gods" or any other composer.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Meaghan of TC: a genuinely likable and unpretentious Mahler fan. She just likes Mahler quite a lot, but most of you probably like her if you know her. I certainly do. I wonder what bad eggs of Mahler fans people here have run into. I admit that I was not initially crazy about Mahler, but I never encountered any truly overbearing fans. I did encounter overbearing Wagner and Bruckner fans, and was too silly to separate Mahler from them at the time. 

Russian music fans can be pretty overbearing, but I sympathize with them nonetheless, because a lot people have a soft spot for Russian music they can't help and the fans more or less, are just following some natural inclinations that I am very familiar with. 

I'm a recovered fan of obscure piano composers as something exclusive. I must be gentle with such fans I encounter like that now, because I've been there, but my tastes have become a bit more refined. I love a lot of those obscure composers like Medtner, Alkan, Lyapunov. But if you put them all together as though they are one composer, you just make a stereotype out of yourself and people the wiser to it will pick up on it. Medtner, Alkan, and Lyapunov are all very good composers. Medtner in particular is a very clever composer, and Alkan is a very unique one, but are any of them that similar? I do not think so but, some fans and haters seem to agree about that nonetheless.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

I met a really annoying Schubert fan once. It may not have been a long standing thing with him, but he was so utterly particular about great music and such, had a very closed mind and couldn't see the value of most pre-late classical music and much of the 20th century, and went so far as to cover his ears when we walked by some rock music being played outside. What a priss-pot! I don't usually meet Schubert fans like that. I sympathize with some of this guy's traits and thought he could use a friend, but he sure was making it hard.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

KenOC said:


> I've gotta say, my biggest problems have been with fans of J.C. Bach. And not just on this board, but in the streets. You've seen 'em, how they dress, how they force you off the sidewalk or purposely jostle you.
> 
> I made the mistake once of telling one that the music of JC's father was better. He went and got a few of his mates and they beat and robbed me. But I felt better after a beer and a listen to:


That's quite a story,are you sure they weren't Glasgow Rangers soccer fans?


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Music isn't football y'know! Composers aren't rival teams!
To be fanatical about one composer is just childish!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Petwhac said:


> Music isn't football y'know!


Oh?


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Petwhac said:


> Music isn't football y'know! Composers aren't rival teams!
> To be fanatical about one composer is just childish!


Wait! These are two different concepts! We can, of course, be fanatical about a composer without having to send him off to compete with other composers. I shouldn't have to be ecumenical, either, but fanaticism about a composer doesn't imply we have to equally dislike other composers.

Including Wagner.


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

In the same way a man's jingoism is proportional to the political weight of his country, the pomposity of a musical follower is proportional to the historical weight of the composer. Every big name composer is going to have his zealots.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

KenOC said:


> Oh?


Brilliant! I'd heard it but never seen it.

Wish they'd do it for Mahler 6 :lol:


----------



## Ravndal (Jun 8, 2012)

mozart/beethoven


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Yiruma, it is composed music after all. Video link is posted for the comments just as much as the music.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Kieran said:


> Wait! These are two different concepts! We can, of course, be fanatical about a composer without having to send him off to compete with other composers. I shouldn't have to be ecumenical, either, but fanaticism about a composer doesn't imply we have to equally dislike other composers.
> 
> Including Wagner.


Fanaticism is a sign of immaturity. Zealots need to be kept at arms length.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Petwhac said:


> Fanaticism is a sign of immaturity. Zealots need to be kept at arms length.


Well, we need to define this closely. For instance, a lot of people on this forum are classical music fanatics. But are they evangelists against anybody else? Not all. I think we can be obsessive about our composers without having to prove that anybody else is a lesser composer. Fanaticism can be how we get so consumed with love for a certain composers music.

It doesn't imply partisanship, however. I'm fanatical about Mozart's music, but I'm quite open to other peoples views on other composers, so I can learn more about music in general. I certainly don't view music in terms of competition - because it isn't competition, each composer is different - much as I like the comparison threads...


----------



## jani (Jun 15, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Oh?


OMG xDDDD!!
Thanks that video made my day.


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

Petwhac said:


> Fanaticism is a sign of immaturity. Zealots need to be kept at arms length.


Most of the great geniuses were zealots in one way or another, not only in music but in all fields.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Logos said:


> Most of the great geniuses were zealots in one way or another, not only in music but in all fields.


As were most of the great villains.


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

KenOC said:


> As were most of the great villains.


Can't argue with that. It's hard to be a great hero or a great villain without some spark of genius.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

Well, I am something of a Beethoven/Haydn fan, however I do greatly like Mozart, Mahler etc.

Usually the fans I find most annoying are those who are obsessive over composers I like but don't love to the same extent they do, e.g. Bach and Schubert. I guess if someone is strongly removed from my opinion then I just don't take note of the obsessiveness... unless they start striking out.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Logos said:


> Can't argue with that. It's hard to be a great hero or a great villain without some spark of genius.


And only history will decide which is which.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Kieran said:


> Well, we need to define this closely. For instance, a lot of people on this forum are classical music fanatics. But are they evangelists against anybody else? Not all. I think we can be obsessive about our composers without having to prove that anybody else is a lesser composer. Fanaticism can be how we get so consumed with love for a certain composers music.
> 
> It doesn't imply partisanship, however. I'm fanatical about Mozart's music, but I'm quite open to other peoples views on other composers, so I can learn more about music in general. I certainly don't view music in terms of competition - because it isn't competition, each composer is different - much as I like the comparison threads...


Well we must have a differing view on the meaning of fanaticism. My view of a fanatic is not someone who has an extremely high regard for someone or something but someone who takes an attack on their object of esteem, personally. 
It absolutely implies partisanship because it is nearly impossible to change their mind as they are so married to their position.
Like religion.
To love the music of a composer is excellent and I would not expect anyone to be a member of this forum if they did not have a great love of several composer's music. To be _consumed_ with that love is not healthy and clouds one judgement.


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

Petwhac said:


> Well we must have a differing view on the meaning of fanaticism. My view of a fanatic is not someone who has an extremely high regard for someone or something but someone who takes an attack on their object of esteem, personally.
> It absolutely implies partisanship because it is nearly impossible to change their mind as they are so married to their position.
> Like religion.
> To love the music of a composer is excellent and I would not expect anyone to be a member of this forum if they did not have a great love of several composer's music. To be _consumed_ with that love is not healthy and clouds one judgement.


But isn't all that predicated on accepting the axiom that art is mere amusement? If one accepts the possibility of great art as transforming, edifying, and ennobling not just individuals but entire masses of people, can one remain passive while that opportunity is squandered in favor of inferior art that is incapable of that transformation? In the face of that, isn't zealotry in some form understandable?


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

I don't like certain kind of fans of germanic composers (like Beethoven, Wagner, etc) who are also germanophiles and they often say "we must protect western art", etc. Believe it or not, I have came across with that specie.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Which composer has the most annoying fans?

None. Enthusiasm, even over-the-top enthusiasm, is good for the game. :tiphat:


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Logos said:


> But isn't all that predicated on accepting the axiom that art is mere amusement? If one accepts the possibility of great art as transforming, edifying, and ennobling not just individuals but entire masses of people, can one remain passive while that opportunity is squandered in favor of inferior art that is incapable of that transformation? In the face of that, isn't zealotry in some form understandable?


There is nothing _mere_ about amusement. But let's replace the frivolity of the term _amusement_ with that of _pleasure_.

There is nothing wrong with _championing_ a cause. You can do it without fanaticism or zealotry which almost always are counter- productive. (See religion or politics).


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

crmoorhead said:


> Alrighty then...
> 
> I happen to think that obsession is what drives progress. 'Fan' may derive from 'fanatic' but that isn't the same thing as being identical in meaning. Fan generally has much milder connotations. If you want to take the term 'fan' to an extreme, replace it with the word 'scholar'. Devoting a reasonable portion of one's life to one particular composer is radical, although they are the ones that provide useful things like biographies, catalogues of works and essays. I'm at least a little grateful that someone might have sacrificed some part of their sanity for my sake. I might not want to sit next to them at a dinner party (though that might depend), but enthusiasm to be an expert in something is not totally without merit. As for nutters, some of the best people I know aren't exactly normal and some of the greatest geniuses have been nutters.


Uh, the OP says 'most annoying fans.' I studied with dozens of 'not exactly normal' teachers (how could they be normal, they were / are musicians  None of them were annoying. Oversensitive reaction, methinks.


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

But doesn't using the term pleasure just make it even more explicitly hedonistic? I don't see the profitability of replacing fanaticism with hedonism; and if one approach is more successful than the other couldn't that be attributed simply to the fact that most people are pleasure seekers rather than thinkers?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Carpenoctem said:


> Read the thread name again and you'll realize that it will turn into this vs. that thread. I think it's quite obvious.
> 
> Also, I didn't say that I don't like atonal music, I only dislike attitude of some members here.


_It is a complete Non-Issue,_ and, seriously it is time to let it go. How about that manifestation of advanced chromatic tonality fanatic - the sometimes colorful at times banned Wagnerite? Did you get your knickers in a twist because of that obsessive harping about a tonal composer? Was it as 'offensive' to a point you could 'take issue with the attitude.' Sure, but did you, since it was 'tonal' music being raved about? No, you did not.

Perhaps the tonality / atonality camp members could figure when to meet in the sandbox and war that one out, Personality vs. Personality, Ego vs. Ego, with a few of TC's 'official' adult monitors present to ensure no one really gets hurt.


----------



## MaestroViolinist (May 22, 2012)

Easily answered: Wagner.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Perhaps the tonality / atonality camp members could figure when to meet in the sandbox and war that one out, Personality vs. Personality, Ego vs. Ego, with a few of TC's 'official' adult monitors present to ensure no one really gets hurt.


I'd prefer a Texas Cage Match, without any monitors. I'll keep book.


----------



## palJacky (Nov 27, 2010)

Those who seem to like wagner for the wrong reasons can be rather annoying.

However, the ones who think every work of music written after 1960 is somehow directly inspired by John Cage are the people that really make me want to spit food.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Everyone desist from bickering this instant or I'll introduce my previously-mentioned Hawkwind-loving friends to this forum.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> I've gotta say, my biggest problems have been with fans of J.C. Bach. And not just on this board, but in the streets. You've seen 'em, how they dress, how they force you off the sidewalk or purposely jostle you.
> 
> I made the mistake once of telling one that the music of JC's father was better. He went and got a few of his mates and they beat and robbed me. But I felt better after a beer and a listen to:


Yes, mate, it is the Bach hooligans who are the meanest, followed by zealous HIPsters.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

clavichorder said:


> Yiruma, it is composed music after all. Video link is posted for the comments just as much as the music.


Now you are somewhat singling out tweens and teens, primarily female. The hormonal flood, the new awareness of inchoate masses of 'feelings.' to some degree, if you're over sixteen, we've all been there.... because it is popular music, you are going to hear spates of gush the size of several of the world's largest oceans.

Yes, agreed it gets really annoying / cloying, but I think you have to 'just allow it' from that particular demographic: it is a rather unfortunate and unavoidable life-phase.

Hint - if you're in a position to refer them to some 'better' music, without of course ever using the word 'better,' refer them to:

John Cage
In a landscape




Dream





David Lang ~ Wed





John Adams ~ China Gates





... it is to be hoped....


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Logos said:


> But doesn't using the term pleasure just make it even more explicitly hedonistic? I don't see the profitability of replacing fanaticism with hedonism; and if one approach is more successful than the other couldn't that be attributed simply to the fact that most people are pleasure seekers rather than thinkers?


If writing music or at least, the fact of having written music, (as the actual act of writing may be fraught sometimes) did not bring the composer pleasure, no music would have been written. What possible reason could there be to listen to music other than to derive pleasure. Pleasure from the contemplation of beauty or truth or both or neither.
If music did not bring pleasure it would not exist.


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

Petwhac said:


> If writing music or at least, the fact of having written music, (as the actual act of writing may be fraught sometimes) did not bring the composer pleasure, no music would have been written. What possible reason could there be to listen to music other than to derive pleasure. Pleasure from the contemplation of beauty or truth or both or neither.
> If music did not bring pleasure it would not exist.


You make a good point, but isn't pleasure for it's own sake different from pleasure which is simply concomitant with the achievement higher ideal of human edification? Don't you find that most great composers and artists aimed at the later rather than the former?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

lukecubed said:


> ...And Shostakovich, for his fans' inability to separate the man's biography from the value of his music and their relentless attempts to paint him as some hero of resistance. Again, I enjoy both composers' music.


Shostakovich did have a hard time under STalin. He's not my hero, he's just human. He did suffer, but of course so did the majority of people suffer under the Soviet dictatorship. He did not get big commissions, or as many, as composers who where Stalinist ideologues who are now largely forgotten. Shosty's 'bread and butter' was film music, that's what composers did who where not in the good books of the regime. I can go on but I won't. I feel you are just painting a caricature of people who empathise with his situation and enjoy his music for more than being just something like emo ear candy. Anyway forget it.



> ...
> Which composers' fans do you dread?


On this forum, I've been insulted by hard core fans of:
Atonal/serial
Wagner
Mozart & the wigs
blah blah blah

But its the fans with these attitudes I detest. I detest bad attitudes, not what they do or don't listen to. But as someone on this thread said, better ignore it. Its not like this out there in the real world of listeners.


----------



## palJacky (Nov 27, 2010)

<<<but isn't pleasure for it's own sake different from pleasure which is simply concomitant with the achievement higher ideal of human edification>>>
but isn't finding 'a higher ideal of human edification' a source of pleasure for many of us?

feeding my 'intellectual curiosity' certainly gives me pleasure.


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

palJacky said:


> <<<but isn't pleasure for it's own sake different from pleasure which is simply concomitant with the achievement higher ideal of human edification>>>
> but isn't finding 'a higher ideal of human edification' a source of pleasure for many of us?


Yes, that was what I was saying. Human edification accompanied by pleasure is different from pleasure seeking for its own sake. As Socrates said, if one enjoys doing good, one should do what one enjoys, but since most people find doing good sometimes unpleasant, that practice cannot hold true for all people or all situations.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Logos said:


> You make a good point, but isn't pleasure for it's own sake different from pleasure which is simply concomitant with the achievement higher ideal of human edification? Don't you find that most great composers and artists aimed at the later rather than the former?


Maybe some saw/see themselves as 'prophets' of higher ideals or edifiers of humanity but they would be the more vain composers and not necessarily the best composers. In any case, those composers who one associates with having a self proclaimed higher goal such as JS Bach (glory of god) Wagner (ultimate synthesis of arts etc) Schoenberg (ensuring the supremacy of German music) even those composers would not be listened to if their music did not bring pleasure. And I doubt very much if the initial impulse for them was anything other than the pleasure of making music.
Each of the three aforementioned composers's ideals are fairly questionable anyway.
You see, what makes a composer great is their ability to bring pleasure. This ability may be a result of their morality or ideals or it may be in spite of them. They are only making patterns with sound after all.


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

Petwhac said:


> Maybe some saw/see themselves as 'prophets' of higher ideals or edifiers of humanity but they would be the more vain composers and not necessarily the best composers. In any case, those composers who one associates with having a self proclaimed higher goal such as JS Bach (glory of god) Wagner (ultimate synthesis of arts etc) Schoenberg (ensuring the supremacy of German music) even those composers would not be listened to if their music did not bring pleasure. And I doubt very much if the initial impulse for them was anything other than the pleasure of making music.
> Each of the three aforementioned composers's ideals are fairly questionable anyway.
> You see, what makes a composer great is their ability to bring pleasure. This ability may be a result of their morality or ideals or it may be in spite of them. They are only making patterns with sound after all.


Is the motivation of the typical listener or typical composer of any concern here? As I asked earlier, wouldn't that simply prove that most people are pleasure seekers rather than thinkers? I don't doubt that the greatest composers bring great pleasure, but the question is whether that pleasure is unalloyed and for its own sake, or whether it is simply the natural accompaniment of a deeper, ennobling effect on the listener which is the real purpose of the art, and the truest measure of greatness.

Isn't it hard to claim that any of the composers you mentioned, or Wagner, or Beethoven, or Palestrina simply created music only to give people a sensory pleasure? Weren't they trying to say something more (not that they were all trying to say the same thing) through their art?


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Logos said:


> Is the motivation of the typical listener or typical composer of any concern here? As I asked earlier, wouldn't that simply prove that most people are pleasure seekers rather than thinkers? I don't doubt that the greatest composers bring great pleasure, but the question is whether that pleasure is unalloyed and for its own sake, or whether it is simply the natural accompaniment of a deeper, ennobling effect on the listener which is the real purpose of the art, and the truest measure of greatness.


How do you measure 'ennobling effect'? How do you know when you've been ennobled? What does ennobled mean?
The purpose of art? You may as well ask what's the purpose of life. Art seems to be something we humans are driven to do (some anyway).
Maybe it is a symbolic activity or maybe it just passes the time.

I think the greatest thing a work of art can do (for me) is give me the feeling, 'this makes life worth living'.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Sid James said:


> He did not get big commissions, or as many, as composers who where Stalinist ideologues who are now largely forgotten.


Shostakovich did OK and lived a lifetyle appropriate to a major artist in the Soviet Union, given the times. He had the occasional major payout, as in 1940 when he won the Stalin Prize for his quintet, accompanied by the modest sum of 100,000 rubles. I believe this still stands as the most money ever earned by a chamber work. But he donated it all to "the poor people of Moscow," which may have been the politic thing to do.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

lukecubed said:


> Which composers' fans do you dread?


I dread fans of Handel. They are total pigs.


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

Petwhac said:


> How do you measure 'ennobling effect'? How do you know when you've been ennobled? What does ennobled mean?
> The purpose of art? You may as well ask what's the purpose of life. Art seems to be something we humans are driven to do (some anyway).
> Maybe it is a symbolic activity or maybe it just passes the time.
> 
> I think the greatest thing a work of art can do (for me) is give me the feeling, 'this makes life worth living'.


Weren't you sure a moment ago that the fundamental purpose of music was simply to give pleasure? But now you're speculating about its nature, as if it could be anything--a symbolic purpose, a means to pass the time, or what makes life worth living.

Do you think the ultimate purpose of music is to give pleasure, that it has some other purpose, or that it has no ultimate purpose? Which argument are you making?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

So simple in some other cultures. The Indian Raga (which means most Indian classical music) was defined over a thousand years ago as "a combination of tones which, with beautiful illuminating graces, pleases the people in general."


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

I have more problems with the anti-Composer fans.


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

KenOC said:


> So simple in some other cultures. The Indian Raga (which means most Indian classical music) was defined over a thousand years ago as "a combination of tones which, with beautiful illuminating graces, pleases the people in general."


Classical civilizations, whether it be Vedic India or Athens in the 5th Century BC, can afford to have those democratic definitions of art because their societies were far narrower and less corrupted than ours. In those days, people were pleased by what was good.

And of course they were pleased, since there weren't mass marketing and communications, and a thousand other debasing distractions to pervert the public taste. Mass communications has led to the mixture of all sorts of arts that should have remained separate, and as Goethe said, blending of forms is always a sign of decadence.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Petwhac said:


> How do you measure 'ennobling effect'? How do you know when you've been ennobled? What does ennobled mean?
> The purpose of art? You may as well ask what's the purpose of life. Art seems to be something we humans are driven to do (some anyway).
> Maybe it is a symbolic activity or maybe it just passes the time.
> 
> I think the greatest thing a work of art can do (for me) is give me the feeling, 'this makes life worth living'.


Well, that's just you. It's pretty clear that _Logos_ has been ennobled. US citizens are forbidden the process, darn it.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

MaestroViolinist said:


> Easily answered: Wagner.


I'm guessing Couchie was banned.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

Anyone mentioned me yet? 

Not that that's my goal here... :tiphat:


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Logos said:


> Classical civilizations, whether it be Vedic India or Athens in the 5th Century BC, can afford to have those democratic definitions of art because their societies were far narrower and less corrupted than ours. In those days, people were pleased by what was good.
> 
> And of course they were pleased, since there weren't mass marketing and communications, and a thousand other debasing distractions to pervert the public taste. Mass communications has led to the mixture of all sorts of arts that should have remained separate, and as Goethe said, blending of forms is always a sign of decadence.


A slave society is "less corrupt" than ours? Some sort of golden age? For whom? I'm sure the priveleged class was made up of simple, noble people thinking simple, noble thoughts!

BTW, debased though we have come, even the meanest of us, here at least, live longer and healthier lives than those ancient worthies, are restrained in most cases from harming others, and (as opposed to then) have better access to high-speed Internet connections.


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

KenOC said:


> I think you just busted my crock-ometer! A slave society is "less corrupt" than ours? Some sort of golden age? For whom? I'm sure the priveleged class was made up of simple, noble people thinking simple, noble thoughts! There are plenty of history texts you might read to learn more about the matter.
> 
> BTW, debased though we have come, even the meanest of us, here at least, live longer and healthier lives than those ancient worthies, are restrained in most cases from harming others, and (as opposed to then) have better access to high-speed Internet connections.


What does owning slaves have to do with the making of great art? Why, there were Roman poets who owned dozens of slaves. Their verses were entirely unaffected, I assure you.

To address the second part of your statement, the improvement in the mere material living conditions beyond a certain point of comfort has nothing directly to do with higher culture.

You seem to state that a lack of corruption will necessarily result in agreement with all the modern liberal axioms and political canards about oppressors and the oppressed which, as I see it, have no basis in a realistic approach to history in general, let alone in music history.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Anyone mentioned me yet?
> 
> Not that that's my goal here... :tiphat:


I didn't mention you specifically, but I did say something about Russian music fans. It wasn't very negative though.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

crmoorhead said:


> *Ligeti*. Definitely Ligeti.


of course the reference here is really "Fan" in the singular


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Logos said:


> Weren't you sure a moment ago that the fundamental purpose of music was simply to give pleasure? But now you're speculating about its nature, as if it could be anything--a symbolic purpose, a means to pass the time, or what makes life worth living.
> 
> Do you think the ultimate purpose of music is to give pleasure, that it has some other purpose, or that it has no ultimate purpose? Which argument are you making?


It depends on what you mean by _ultimate_ purpose. But if by it you mean a purpose that is part of some 'grand design' or some, as yet not fully understood function of evolution, I don't know and frankly I don't really care. There are some things we don't know and maybe we never will know.
The things I know are:
Humans make art. Humans take pleasure in making art and in experiencing other human's art. The more humans that are released from the necessities of survival, the more art is produced.
The development of art in the West was assisted by the Church, Feudalism and the rise of the middle class (industrialism) to name three.

I don't believe all art is equal. I believe some art is better than other but that is a separate and very problematic issue.


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

Petwhac said:


> It depends on what you mean by _ultimate_ purpose. But if by it you mean a purpose that is part of some 'grand design' or some, as yet not fully understood function of evolution, I don't know and frankly I don't really care. There are some things we don't know and maybe we never will know.
> The things I know are:
> Humans make art. Humans take pleasure in making art and in experiencing other human's art. The more humans that are released from the necessities of survival, the more art is produced.
> The development of art in the West was assisted by the Church, Feudalism and the rise of the middle class (industrialism) to name three.
> ...


What makes some art better than others? Earlier you mentioned that 'it makes life worth living' or something to that effect; is that really much more illuminating than saying great art is ennobling or edifying? Naturally the word or phrase which qualifies of great art must be somewhat indistinct, since the forms of greatness are many and it must encompass all of them.

If I favored the latter term, it would be only because that which is ennobling and edifying is necessarily good, whereas that which makes life worth living might simply be food to a glutton, or money to a greedy man.


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

As I am a fan of Beethoven, among others, I would say that Beethoven's fans are the most annoying. If you don't believe me, ask the supporters of avant-garde music.


----------



## Guest (Nov 11, 2012)

Hey, that's true! Beethoven's fans ARE the most annoying!!

Renaissance has said a true word, there.


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

The living proof :lol:


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Renaissance said:


> As I am a fan of Beethoven, among others, I would say that Beethoven's fans are the most annoying. If you don't believe me, ask the supporters of avant-garde music.


I don't find you nor the Beethoven-fans annoying. Louis is in my personal "Tier One" group of top five personal favourites.


----------



## Guest (Nov 11, 2012)

I prefer music without tiers.

As it were....


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Logos said:


> What makes some art better than others?


I think we apply our own criteria. Mine may be different to yours.



Logos said:


> Earlier you mentioned that 'it makes life worth living' or something to that effect; is that really much more illuminating than saying great art is ennobling or edifying?


But you'll notice I said 'to me'. I'm not sure that all great art _needs_ to edify or ennoble. Perhaps it is enough that it resonates with something in us. What that thing is, is .....?



Logos said:


> If I favored the latter term, it would be only because that which is ennobling and edifying is necessarily good, whereas that which makes life worth living might simply be food to a glutton, or money to a greedy man.


I think we may be talking about different things. I find much music of Erroll Garner and some drum solos by Dave Weckl contribute to me being glad I'm alive. Would you consider them ennobling or edifying?

Anyway, that which makes life worth living may also be ennoblement to a nobility seeker and edification to an edification seeker.

What exactly is _wrong _with being a pleasure seeker or an aesthete? Who are you trying to impress?


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I don't find you nor the Beethoven-fans annoying. Louis is in my personal "Tier One" group of top five personal favourites.


Thank you.  But some may have different opinions on that. :lol:


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

Petwhac said:


> I think we apply our own criteria. Mine may be different to yours. But you'll notice I said 'to me'. I'm not sure that all great art _needs_ to edify or ennoble. Perhaps it is enough that it resonates with something in us. What that thing is, is .....?
> 
> I think we may be talking about different things. I find much music of Erroll Garner and some drum solos by Dave Weckl contribute to me being glad I'm alive. Would you consider them ennobling or edifying? Anyway, that which makes life worth living may also be ennoblement to a nobility seeker and edification to an edification seeker. What exactly is _wrong _with being a pleasure seeker or an aesthete? Who are you trying to impress?


Pleasure seeking is just the pleasant way of saying pure hedonism, which has been derided by practically every thinker in the history of western thought, including even Epicurus (to say nothing of eastern thought) as the most base and ridiculous way to conduct a human life because it gives one the same motivations as beasts--namely, gratification of the senses and animal desires.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Renaissance said:


> As I am a fan of Beethoven, among others, I would say that Beethoven's fans are the most annoying. If you don't believe me, ask the supporters of avant-garde music.


I am a supporter of avant-garde music, and Beethoven is one of my musical heroes X3


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

Baroque in general. There are decent folks listening to all eras, but Baroque has the most "music died in the 1800s" types.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Logos said:


> Pleasure seeking is just the pleasant way of saying pure hedonism, which has been derided by practically every thinker in the history of western thought, including even Epicurus (to say nothing of eastern thought) as the most base and ridiculous way to conduct a human life because it gives one the same motivations as beasts--namely, gratification of the senses and animal desires.


Humans get pleasure from things of the mind too. Art, humour. Also sport. I think you are way too dogmatic. Those things separate us from other animals although animals are what we are too.

You get your pleasure from your sense of being ennobled and edified.


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

Petwhac said:


> Humans get pleasure from things of the mind too. Art, humour. Also sport. I think you are way too dogmatic. Those things separate us from other animals although animals are what we are too.
> 
> You get your pleasure from your sense of being ennobled and edified.


The crucial distinction is that pleasure of the mind in lofty contemplation is an alloyed pleasure, not pleasure for its own sake and therefore not hedonism. That is equally true of the other distinguishing activities you mention.


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

regressivetransphobe said:


> Baroque in general. There are decent folks listening to all eras, but Baroque has the most "music died in the 1800s types" types.


And Romanticism has the most "music begins in the 1800's" types.


----------



## Guest (Nov 11, 2012)

Logos said:


> The crucial distinction is that pleasure of the mind in lofty contemplation is an alloyed pleasure, not pleasure for its own sake and therefore not hedonism. That is equally true of the other distinguishing activities you mention.


Heads Logos wins. Tails Petwhac loses.

Hmmm. This zero sum game you're indulging in doesn't seem very pleasant, to me. Or ennobling. Or particularly edifying.

We're skating very close to making the following two propositions, aren't we? "Contemporary music is bad because it's unpleasant." And. "Contemporary music is bad because it's too pleasant." Well, best of luck holding on to those two at the same time.


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

some guy said:


> We're skating very close to making the following two propositions, aren't we? "Contemporary music is bad because it's unpleasant." And. "Contemporary music is bad because it's too pleasant." Well, best of luck holding on to those two at the same time.


I said that seeking out the maximum quantity of pleasure is not an adequate approach to art. Nothing is bad because it is too pleasurable, if that pleasure is accompanied by effects of a higher sort, and I find that modern music does not offer those effects. In any case, I don't find it pleasurable myself, not that that was germane to the argument.

Of course, since modern music is largely lacking in higher aims, all that's left is pleasure, meagre as it is in the case of freakishness. Undoubtedly, one who had a permanent case of puerile rebelliousness and naughty-boyism would find more to delight in.


----------



## greenfox (Nov 11, 2012)

I've learned not to expect rationality and balanced argument from a fan(atic). I expect both wheat and chaff, that way I have the opportunity to learn something -- either a new (to me) insight about a composer and his work, or who to avoid like the plague should I have the misfortune of running into them again


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Logos said:


> The crucial distinction is that pleasure of the mind in lofty contemplation is an alloyed pleasure, not pleasure for its own sake and therefore not hedonism. That is equally true of the other distinguishing activities you mention.


I can find you many examples of humour that are neither lofty nor contemplative does that mean they are not funny?

When you listen to what you consider great music, although we've yet to mention any particular piece, do you know what it is you are loftily contemplating?

I seem to be in the same camp as some guy at the moment. What a strange world it is. I wasn't aware we were actually discussing contemporary music but he probably has a better read on you.:lol:

While I was typing this I seemed to have missed post 106 and 107. Too late.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Logos said:


> I said that seeking out the maximum quantity of pleasure is not an adequate approach to art. Nothing is bad because it is too pleasurable, if that pleasure is accompanied by effects of a higher sort, and I find that modern music does not offer those effects. In any case, I don't find it pleasurable myself, not that that was germane to the argument.
> 
> Of course, since modern music is largely lacking in higher aims, all that's left is pleasure, meagre as it is in the case of freakishness. Undoubtedly, one who had a permanent case of puerile rebelliousness and naughty-boyism would find more to delight in.


Now I get you!
You are wrong about the aims of modern music. The aims of composers have always been the same. To make the best music they can. The music that it _pleases_ them to make.

I'm guessing Bach is your man. Certainly not Mozart.


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

> I can find you many examples of humour that are neither lofty nor contemplative does that mean they are not funny?
> When you listen to what you consider great music, although we've yet to mention any particular piece, do you know what it is you are loftily contemplating?


I'm sure it's funny, but I would discourage it in favor of humour that is also enlightening. How can one not know what one is contemplating? If one doesn't 'know' a notion, one cannot contemplate it.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Logos said:


> I'm sure it's funny, but I would discourage it in favor of humour that is also enlightening. How can one not know what one is contemplating? If one doesn't 'know' a notion, one cannot contemplate it.


In what kind of world do you want to live? I think I would need very powerful sunglasses with all the enlightening going on.


----------



## Guest (Nov 11, 2012)

Logos said:


> Nothing is bad because it is too pleasurable, if that pleasure is accompanied by effects of a higher sort, and I find that modern music does not offer those effects.


And you're privileging your findings? What about people who find something else? Then you have to discredit them, right?

Much more intellectually (and morally) valid to alter your views to acknowledge that your perceptions are not the only perceptions in the world, certainly not the only valid ones.



Logos said:


> Of course, since modern music is largely lacking in higher aims, all that's left is pleasure, meagre as it is in the case of freakishness. Undoubtedly, one who had a permanent case of puerile rebelliousness and naughty-boyism would find more to delight in.


Yes. Discrediting your opponents. Just as I suspected. Modern music, word in your ear, largely consists of the highest aim possible for art, to offer you something that you don't yet understand, that you don't yet like.


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

Petwhac said:


> I think I would need very powerful sunglasses with all the enlightening going on.


Ha! I like that.


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

Petwhac said:


> Now I get you!
> You are wrong about the aims of modern music. The aims of composers have always been the same. To make the best music they can. The music that it _pleases_ them to make.
> 
> I'm guessing Bach is your man. Certainly not Mozart.


Mozart aimed at cultivating his listeners, not just pleasuring them, especially when he was composing something more than salon-music. He speaks of this often in his letters. One can't reduce Mozart's aesthetic aims merely to pleasing the listener.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

I think anti-atonalist fans are annoying.


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

Logos said:


> Mozart aimed at cultivating his listeners, not just pleasuring them, especially when he was composing something more than salon-music. He speaks of this often in his letters. One can't reduce Mozart's aesthetic aims merely to pleasing the listener.


Correct, but the point is that modern composers don't have such goals, I really don't see any atonalist/serialist composing music to please the crowds, like Tchaikovsky did, for example. (not that there is something bad with it, it's pretty admirable I guess ). They aim at fooling their audiences with pseudo-intellectual-snobbish ideologies. They need something, aren't they ? If the real value is impossible for them to reach, then they just change the philosophy behind their "art" hopping that new trends will be formed. All of those so-called composers have really weird ideas about music, especially about their music as being something for a higher consciousness :lol: Those guys take themselves too seriously.


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

violadude said:


> I think anti-atonalist fans are annoying.


No, they are just anti-atonalist fans


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

Renaissance said:


> Correct, but the point is that modern composers don't have such goals, I really don't see any atonalist/serialist composing music to please the crowds, like Tchaikovsky did, for example. (not that there is something bad with it, it's pretty admirable I guess ). They aim at fooling their audiences with pseudo-intellectual-snobbish ideologies. They need something, aren't they ? If the real value is impossible for them to reach, then they just change the philosophy behind their "art" hopping that new trends will be formed. All of those so-called composers have really weird ideas about music, especially about their music as being something for a higher consciousness :lol: Those guys take themselves too seriously.


Yes indeed. It's all a matter of trends, zeitgeists and wearing the proper bohemian clothes; and especially using all the right academic, postmodern catchwords that change every three weeks. Charlatanism, through and through.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Logos said:


> Mozart aimed at cultivating his listeners, not just pleasuring them, especially when he was composing something more than salon-music. He speaks of this often in his letters. One can't reduce Mozart's aesthetic aims merely to pleasing the listener.


Who the hell said anything about pleasing his audience. I mean pleasing himself.
Do you know Figaro, Cosi?

What is your opinion of Debussy and Stravinsky?


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

Like all great artists, Mozart had high ideals and when he attained them he was pleased. If one were simply to say "he composed to please himself", that would be leaving a gap in the process.

Most of what is good in the composers you mentioned, Wagner had already done. What was new in them, they probably shouldn't have done at all.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Logos said:


> Like all great artists, Mozart had high ideals and when he attained them he was pleased. If one were simply to say "he composed to please himself", that would be leaving a gap in the process.
> 
> Most of what is good in the composers you mentioned, Wagner had already done. What was new in them, they probably shouldn't have done at all.


What aspects of Stravinsky's Rite, Orpheus, Symphony of Psalms, Soldier's Tale, Concerto For Piano and Wind Instruments, Firebird and Petrushka (a few examples of very edifying works), do you think Wagner had already done?

You didn't say if you know Figaro or Cosi.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Mozart wrote to fulfil commissions, mostly. He wrote so well because he was inspired, as Neal Zaslaw says, but he wrote in the first place because they paid him too.

But there's an interesting point opening up here: that modern composers don't write for their audience - they write for thrmselves. I think there's an element of truth in this. Recently I went to the National Concert Hall in Dublin to hear a brand new work by an Irish composer. Just when the musicians had finished their almost interminable twiddling and tuning up, the audience burst into applause.

What's this? That was it! Obscure, anti-music, nasty clashing rhythms, 10-16 time noises of fires and fellows falling down stairs and back up again. Conceptual! This was music as imagery, music as philosophy, music as film - but not music as melody. The composer had written it for themselves and the rest of us would have to catch up. And maybe we will, in 100 years. 

But Mozart composed for the audience and he mentions in a letter to his father how he achieves what his father had taught him: to bring the lay person and connoisseur together, with music that was simultaneously high and low art. Accessible and complicated at the same time.

I think composers began to compose for themselves around Beethoven's time, when they became more independent, and more independent minded. It works better with Beethoven that it did with the work I heard recently. But then, maybe the fault there lies with me: that work wasn't written for me, I was only in the audience. It was written for the composer, and maybe the audiences in future times will love it...


----------



## Schubussy (Nov 2, 2012)

Posted in the wrong thread! 

I'd put something that fits this thread instead but I don't speak to enough fans of classical music at all to know which ones annoy me... maybe when I've been here a bit longer some will. Probably Bernstein fans.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

Oddly enough, in real life and as real people I get on a lot better with fans of popular music than with those of contemporary classical music. These latter I find often have less of a sense of fun and/or humour than the former. I know few enough people who share my tastes - and they tend to be my good friends so it's hard to judge... Perhaps this is not a coincidence? :lol:

Please no one here get offended by this :lol: I am talking about a very limited number of people.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

Havergal Brian


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Renaissance said:


> Correct, but the point is that modern composers don't have such goals, I really don't see any atonalist/serialist composing music to please the crowds, like Tchaikovsky did, for example. (not that there is something bad with it, it's pretty admirable I guess ). They aim at fooling their audiences with pseudo-intellectual-snobbish ideologies. They need something, aren't they ? If the real value is impossible for them to reach, then they just change the philosophy behind their "art" hopping that new trends will be formed. All of those so-called composers have really weird ideas about music, especially about their music as being something for a higher consciousness :lol: Those guys take themselves too seriously.


So much wrong. All of the wrong. All of it. For one, I don't Tchaikovsky was all about simply pleasing the crowds. Artists need to try and please themselves, otherwise why even be an artist in the first place? Why explore it enough to get good enough to be a pro? Modern composers never have interest in fooling anybody. Whether it be the dissonant early modernism of Ives and Stravinsky, or the serialists, or the school of New York with John Cage and Morton Feldman, or the minimalists, or Schnittke and Gubairdulina, or whatever. The snobbish ideologies (which really was pretty much limited to the Darmstadt serialists like Boulez and his friends, and later the American serialists led by Babbitt, the many other schools of thought didn't engage in such stupidity, and its not very nice to condemn them for something they didn't do) were because they were arrogant about the superiority of that system, and they believed that if a composer utilized modes or tonality or anything more traditional, they must be doing it to pander to audiences, that they were being inauthentic artists (which is nonsense, but this sort of thought is far from limited to the serialists), and was mostly aimed at fellow composers, not possible audiences. Your accusations of composers adopting artistic outlooks simply to trick people into respecting them is laughable. You know, its hard to make a living as a composer, even when you write like Tchaikovsky, or Beethoven. Maybe their "weird ideas" are genuine, ever consider that? Maybe they profess a belief strongly and dedicate their efforts to using certain approaches because they love music, and this is what they feel allows them to make the music they want to make. You wouldn't ridicule Beethoven for thinking his music being something for a higher consciousness, or taking himself too seriously, so why ridicule Boulez or Cage for that? I don't care if you don't like the music, you don't just assume that an artist is a liar and a swindler for no good reason, simply because you disagree with their aesthetic. I'm not a big fan of Mozart, but you'll never see me questioning his integrity as an artist simply because I don't like the prissy classical aesthetic he favored.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Ramako said:


> Oddly enough, in real life and as real people I get on a lot better with fans of popular music than with those of contemporary classical music. These latter I find often have less of a sense of fun and/or humour than the former. I know few enough people who share my tastes - and they tend to be my good friends so it's hard to judge... Perhaps this is not a coincidence? :lol:
> 
> Please no one here get offended by this :lol: I am talking about a very limited number of people.


And what about those weirdos who like popular music and contemporary classical and the more traditional kinds of classical and other music too? :3


----------



## jani (Jun 15, 2012)

BurningDesire said:


> And what about those weirdos who like popular music and contemporary classical and the more traditional kinds of classical and other music too? :3


Huh? They are usually little too weird.

OK I KID, KID!

Also i know that the question was for Ramako but couldn't resist.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

BurningDesire said:


> Maybe their "weird ideas" are genuine, ever consider that? Maybe they profess a belief strongly and dedicate their efforts to using certain approaches because they love music, and this is what they feel allows them to make the music they want to make.


I believe this is true in most cases. But people generally don't accuse composers of being charlatans (with maybe one exception). If anything, they criticize the results the composers achieved. And a composer's pure heart is no guarantee that the results will, in fact, be any good.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

KenOC said:


> I believe this is true in most cases. But people generally don't accuse composers of being charlatans (with maybe one exception). If anything, they criticize the results the composers achieved. And a composer's pure heart is no guarantee that the results will, in fact, be any good.


Thats not what I see (I know Cage gets this ** more often, but I see it aimed at pretty much all the big modernists, including Ligeti and Xenakis and Stockhausen, and Carter). There is criticism of the music itself too, but even still most people don't say they don't like the aesthetics or the style, they say that its just bad, like in an objective way. Like somebody like me is in the wrong for enjoying Xenakis and Cage and Boulez, and thats not very nice. I'm either a blind, sheepish follower of trends or I'm some elitist snob, even though I'm about as far from an elitist as you could get, and I really have no interests in trends for trends' sake. Its never that I simply enjoy this kind of music (in addition to many other kinds).

edit: also, really TC staff? We need to turn B S into **? Its already a censorship of something. Next you'll be adding extra *'s to it so you can't guess through context what the word that was being censored originally was... Censorship is stupid btw, and especially silly on a forum discussing matters of very personal expression.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Kieran said:


> ...
> 
> But there's an interesting point opening up here: that modern composers don't write for their audience - they write for thrmselves. I think there's an element of truth in this...


I think its ok if they write for themselves, or for posterity (audiences of the future). Some of my favourite things where written with that type of thing in mind. It can be said about Beethoven's late quartets (I remember reading a quote by him & he said he was writing these works for future generations). & Elliott Carter, who just died last week, said that he did not believe that his first string quartet (1951) would be performed. He wrote it anyway, and it was quickly not only performed but won a string quartet competition in Belgium. Similar with Schoenberg, who thought_ Moses und Aron _would never be performed. It was not performed in his lifetime, but it was performed some years after. Less than a decade after, and since then its been a staple in the modern opera repertoire.

So sometimes composers will not go exactly with what the audience wants, their current audience. Carter was lucky in that he got some degree of recognition before he died, but of course he died at 103, so it was a lot more time other composers got. Even so, by the end of his life Debussy was seen by many as France's greatest living composer, which was no mean feat for someone who in his younger years was branded by some of his professors to be a dangerous radical.

But I'm not saying that composers should not pitch at their audiences 'now.' They can reach posterity by doing that. Kurt Weill did not aim for posterity, but he got it. & do you remember the quote about Mozart's having 'too many notes?' He got criticism from some quarters too, it seems. You can't please everybody, and often if you try to do that, you end up pleasing nobody (not the least, yourself).



> ...Recently I went to the National Concert Hall in Dublin to hear a brand new work by an Irish composer. Just when the musicians had finished their almost interminable twiddling and tuning up, the audience burst into applause.
> 
> ...


Sounds like its been done before, ages before. If it sounded like an orchestra tuning up. Maybe it was a rehash of Edgard Varese's _Tuning Up _(1940's). I quite like that piece for its whimsy - amidst all the cacophony, he quotes Beethoven and something that sounds like _Yankee Doodle Dandy_.



BurningDesire said:


> ... I'm either a blind, sheepish follower of trends or I'm some elitist snob, even though I'm about as far from an elitist as you could get, and I really have no interests in trends for trends' sake. Its never that I simply enjoy this kind of music (in addition to many other kinds)...


You hit the spot there. Yeah, this is all about people putting others in boxes. Once they conveniently put you in a box, they can use the usual old tactics to dispatch you. Like a parcel you mail, they label and despatch you. Sorry guys, I ain't no label on a box. I ain't no box. You got to engage with my ideas, talk to me and not at me. But forget it. Most of the times on this forum, its as if I'm talking to myself. I may as well be doing that most of the times in these atonal debates, honestly. So I rarely get into them, they're a waste of time for me.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

KenOC said:


> Shostakovich did OK and lived a lifetyle appropriate to a major artist in the Soviet Union, given the times. He had the occasional major payout, as in 1940 when he won the Stalin Prize for his quintet, accompanied by the modest sum of 100,000 rubles. I believe this still stands as the most money ever earned by a chamber work. But he donated it all to "the poor people of Moscow," which may have been the politic thing to do.


Well I see it as having more minuses than pluses. You got the fiasco involving Lady Macbeth of Mzensk (the subsequent attacks in Pravda newspaper, apparently by Stalin himself under a pseudonym), you got the 1948 Zhdanov Decree, you got Shosty writing numerous works 'in the drawer,' knowing they'd never be performed while Stalin lived (which was true, the 4th symphony was performed over 20 years after being written, and other major works like the Violin Concerto #1 and also SQ#4 where put in the drawer - the latter censored - and the Piano Trio #2 allowed to be premiered but then quickly censored by the authorities). I can go on. Little known is how Shostakovich was blackmailed. He did travel abroad but was warned that if he defected, his family/relatives who stayed in the USSR would come to harm (I'm not sure if explicitly or implicitly). This I find disgusting, the Nazis used similar tactics.

However, under Khrushchev, Shosty found a more relaxed attitude to his music, but there where still controversial works (eg. the Sym.#13 'Babi Yar,' whose text had to be watered down). Ultimately I think musical expression is about freedom. If you don't have that, even if you are a millionare, you may as well have nothing.

But getting back to the point of this thread, there is one mega groupie/hard core fan type group which has put my nose out of joint on numerous ocassions. That's those who idolise J.S. Bach and Wagner (both of them, I mean as a 'pair'). I don't mind that, its just that the hubris of some of these people is just as tall as a skyscraper. & so what if you listen to the most profound (blah blah blah) music on the planet. So did Stalin and Hitler, and funny how some of these people's extreme attitudes and tactics match that of real tyrants like those down to a tee. I'll say no more.

Fans of no other music or composer (incl. Shosty) have insulted me to make me bitter as much as the B & W combo. & I hate their ideology, I despise it.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Sid James said:


> ...there is one mega groupie/hard core fan type group which has put my nose out of joint on numerous ocassions. That's those who idolise J.S. Bach and Wagner.


Well, don't know about Wagner. But unless you fall on your knees before Sebastian Bach, then whenever you leave home you should (under law) be preceded by a person ringing a bell and crying "Unclean!" 

BTW the changes required in DSCH's 13th Symphony were in Yevtushenko's texts, not the music. If you want to see somebody who *really* suffered in and after 1948, check out Prokofiev. Shostakovich just hunkered down, smiled, and was fine by comparison.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

KenOC said:


> ...BTW the changes required in DSCH's 13th Symphony were in Yevtushenko's texts, not the music. If you want to see somebody who *really* suffered in and after 1948, check out Prokofiev. Shostakovich just hunkered down, smiled, and was fine by comparison.


That's what I said, the text (but I misspelt it as 'test,' now its corrected). Are you changing the goal posts now to 1948? Before you where speaking of 1940.

I really don't like people trivialising life under dictatorships. Have you lived under one? I have known people who did, on an intimate level. I have studied the history in depth of Nazism, Stalinism, Maoism, Apartheid, etc.

But to get the the point, Shosty was not fine at all. In 1960, he joined the Communist Party. But he felt it to be a moral death, he was extremely depressed. In his 8th string quartet, which he said would be the equivalent of his suicide note in music, he makes his feelings clear. Again, he had to cover it with a (phony?) dedication 'to the victims of militarism and Fascism.' In any case, I see it as a smokescreen. The Jewish tune he uses in this and other pieces (notably the 2nd piano trio) also shows what he saw as the similar fate of the Jews under Hitler as that to the Russians under Stalin, and ultimately Communism. Shostakovich's family where supporters of social democracy, before the Bolsheviks took power in 1917.

& within the USSR, in his lifetime, his most popular and successful work was the operetta _Moscow Cheryomushki_. & as I said, his bread and butter was from film scores (some of them admittedly very fine, but some people on this forum don't even accept film music as being 'real' classical, but forget it).

But anyway, I'm through with this. You believe what you want. Its a free world (for us, but not those who lived under totalitarian regimes, but who cares?).


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

The most annoying people are non-fans of composers you like, obviously.


----------



## Guest (Nov 12, 2012)

Anyone who has contributed to this thread is an annoying git.

(Oh! Oopsie!!)


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

some guy said:


> Anyone who has contributed to this thread is an annoying git.
> 
> (Oh! Oopsie!!)


Hoist by your own custard! Wait, that doesn't sound right.


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

BurningDesire said:


> Your accusations of composers adopting artistic outlooks simply to trick people into respecting them is laughable. You know, its hard to make a living as a composer, even when you write like Tchaikovsky, or Beethoven. Maybe their "weird ideas" are genuine, ever consider that? Maybe they profess a belief strongly and dedicate their efforts to using certain approaches because they love music, and this is what they feel allows them to make the music they want to make. You wouldn't ridicule Beethoven for thinking his music being something for a higher consciousness, or taking himself too seriously, so why ridicule Boulez or Cage for that? I don't care if you don't like the music, you don't just assume that an artist is a liar and a swindler for no good reason, simply because you disagree with their aesthetic. I'm not a big fan of Mozart, but you'll never see me questioning his integrity as an artist simply because I don't like the prissy classical aesthetic he favored.


Of course is much truth in what you say here, but I don't think that intention matters so much. I may want to compose music for higher purposes but I don't have the talent nor intelligence for that, so I accept my destiny as a mediocrity. But certainly I can't make some noise and fool people about how spiritual it is and how Buddha I am. It's non-sense and very bad such an attitude because it ruins any artistic quality, and makes impossible any separation between art and trash. This is the inconvenient of democracy, and even ancient Greek philosophers have realized that. Without any true objective criterion, art will be ruined, all the beauty lost. I certainly can understand that they may love their "music", that they are people too and need to be appreciated, but you can't compromise the entirely artistic integrity of the entire world and era just because some unrealistic guy wants to be worshiped as a real composer ! It's not fair. I can understand them, but this is not an healthy way for our future. Why don't they compose music as independent musicians/composers and leave the classical music's label alone to be used by real artists ? I have nothing to say about noise musicians/bands as they don't consider themselves academicians and illuminated human beings.

I am the only one that really think these guys are a bit mentally-ill ? Look at this guy, he throws with non-sense/New Agey ideologies not far from those of religion, and his lack of coherence really intrigues me. If I have said such things in a video, I would be considered crazy for real. Is this normal ?


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Renaissance said:


> Of course is much truth in what you say here, but I don't think that intention matters so much. I may want to compose music for higher purposes but I don't have the talent nor intelligence for that, so I accept my destiny as a mediocrity. But certainly I can't make some noise and fool people about how spiritual it is and how Buddha I am. It's non-sense and very bad such an attitude because it ruins any artistic quality, and makes impossible any separation between art and trash. This is the inconvenient of democracy, and even ancient Greek philosophers have realized that. Without any true objective criterion, art will be ruined, all the beauty lost. I certainly can understand that they may love their "music", that they are people too and need to be appreciated, but you can't compromise the entirely artistic integrity of the entire world and era just because some unrealistic guy wants to be worshiped as a real composer ! It's not fair. I can understand them, but this is not an healthy way for our future. Why don't they compose music as independent musicians/composers and leave the classical music's label alone to be used by real artists ? I have nothing to say about noise musicians/bands as they don't consider themselves academicians and illuminated human beings.
> 
> I am the only one that really think these guys are a bit mentally-ill ? Look at this guy, he throws with non-sense/New Agey ideologies not far from those of religion, and his lack of coherence really intrigues me. If I have said such things in a video, I would be considered crazy for real. Is this normal ?


See what you've done now. You've got me defending Stockhausen, _me_. So silly are your views.

The guy just writes what it occurs to him to write. The fact that many people (not the entire world as you claim) like what he writes and the fact that he has exerted influence over many composers is a fact of life you will have to live with.


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

Trends are made for the whole world, not only for fans. I am forced to consider Stockhausen a classical music composer even if I strongly disagree with it. I want to be considered a classical music composer too !


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

BurningDesire said:


> And what about those weirdos who like popular music and contemporary classical and the more traditional kinds of classical and other music too? :3






:lol:



jani said:


> Huh? They are usually little too weird.
> 
> OK I KID, KID!


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Renaissance said:


> Trends are made for the whole world, not only for fans. I am forced to consider Stockhausen a classical music composer even if I strongly disagree with it. I want to be considered a classical music composer too !


Trends aren't made, they just happen.
You are not forced to consider anything. You may if you wish, make a case for not considering Stockhausen a classical music composer and put it to the world. But you haven't made a case. You have only said you disagree with the idea. You must say why.
There are composers from the opposite end of the spectrum that are considered by some people to be classical composers and you may find you disagree with that too. Lloyd-Webber (Requiem), Einaudi, Karl Jenkins etc.


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

Petwhac said:


> Trends aren't made, they just happen.
> 
> There are composers from the opposite end of the spectrum that are considered by some people to be classical composers and you may find you disagree with that too. Lloyd-Webber (Requiem), Einaudi, Karl Jenkins etc.


When some of these guys deliberately tell us how illuminated they are and how "sub-human" are we (like apes), ignorant people who don't like their "music" (see the movie I posted, beginning in special) you certainly know that trends and ideologies are not just happening, but they are planned and made on purpose. What's next ? Schizophrenia will be considered a necessary condition in order to be an artist ?

I am not bothered by Jenkins and Einaudi they don't take themselves too seriously.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Renaissance said:


> When some of these guys deliberately tell us how illuminated they are and how "sub-human" are we (like apes), ignorant people who don't like their "music" (see the movie I posted, beginning in special) you certainly know that trends and ideologies are not just happening, but they are planned and made on purpose. What's next ? Schizophrenia will be considered a necessary condition in order to be an artist ?
> 
> I am not bothered by Jenkins and Einaudi they don't take themselves too seriously.


'Some of these guys' is one guy, Stockhausen. He may be a raving loon for all I know or care. Separate the art from the artist.
What would it have been like if youtube had been around for us to listen to Wagner spouting some of his views. Take the music alone and form an opinion on it.

How do you know Jenkins and Einaudi don't take themselves seriously. And if they don't, surely that makes a mockery of the whole thing.


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

I can separate art from the artist only when his art makes sense alone. If you didn't know anything about Stockhausen and all these modern trends, I certainly don't think you would have considered him a serious composer. I can separate Wagner from his music, because his music doesn't need his ideas to be called music. It's music anyway. 
_____

And I would like to change the subject. Modern classical music can do whatever it wants, not my problem. I told what I needed to tell.


----------



## Guest (Nov 12, 2012)

Renaissance said:


> I can separate art from the artist only when his art makes sense alone.


And who gets to decide in each case if this is so? I'm guessing it's you. You're the one who gets to decide. No, I think this one's a non-starter. How can you even tell? How can you even tell if the art makes sense alone or not if you keep interposing your ideas about art and sanity between your ears and the sounds you're obviously not hearing?



Renaissance said:


> If you didn't know anything about Stockhausen and all these modern trends, I certainly don't think you would have considered him a serious composer.


When I first heard Stockhausen's music, I didn't know anything about Stockhausen and all these modern trends. I just listened to music. (I had given up reading program notes long before I started listening to twentieth century music.)



Renaissance said:


> I can separate Wagner from his music, because his music doesn't need his ideas to be called music. It's music anyway.


This is an excellent example...of history and perspective. Wagner's music is old. It's been around a long time. It's familiar and taken for granted.

Now.

When Wagner was composing, however, the situation was quite other. Wagner and Liszt were tireless in writing manifestos of "The Music of the Future" and their avant garde music was viewed with much suspicion. Wagner spent at least a decade writing about and lecturing about "The Music of the Future" before he had so much as written even one note of it. (He'd written a bunch of operas already, none of them "Music of the Future" ones is all.) His lectures were very well attended and he whipped up incredible enthusiasm for (as well as incredible antagonism towards) this new music long before there was any of the new music to actually listen to.

So much for separating the ideas and the music. The music, when it finally was written, relied utterly on the way having been prepared for it.

That it now well over a century after the fact no longer needs the ideas is neither here nor there.
_____



Renaissance said:


> And I would like to change the subject. Modern classical music can do whatever it wants, not my problem. I told what I needed to tell.


Of course you do. Question I'd like to hear answered, though, is why you needed to tell what you told?


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Petwhac said:


> 'Some of these guys' is one guy, Stockhausen. He may be a raving loon for all I know or care. Separate the art from the artist.
> What would it have been like if youtube had been around for us to listen to Wagner spouting some of his views. Take the music alone and form an opinion on it.
> 
> How do you know Jenkins and Einaudi don't take themselves seriously. And if they don't, surely that makes a mockery of the whole thing.


Have you heard their lousy music,nobody sould take it seriously---could they?And i don't have to make a case,it's my opinion.


----------



## IBMchicago (May 16, 2012)

I'm going with Mozart and Beethoven fans in a Mozart vs. Beethoven fight. And I'm a fan of both.


----------



## Ondine (Aug 24, 2012)

2 cents,

I think that the annoyance in the annoying fan is part of the fan itself. It is about of what he has built as _his_ personality. Not about the composer.

It is not a surprise that the most popular composers, because of their popularity, have a visible proportion of annoying fans while those not very popular possibly have a proportion of annoying fans a lot more smaller that that of the very popular. So they are not very visible; who knows that Teleman maybe has a small circle of annoying fans somewhere?

I think that the hook for a nuisance audience, could be, justly, that personality -the legend- that has been build around a composer. That about 'the struggle against adversity' for Beethoven or 'der wunder kid' for Mozart are the fuel that feed the annoyance of the nuisance fan. But if there is no annoyance trait in a given listener, she or he will never develop an annoying attitude even if the size of the legend around his favourite composer is that of the huge ones.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*I never met a fan I didn't like.*

Very rarely have I ever met a fan that I found annoying.

What I do find annoying are many of the "haters".


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Down with filk*

I just thought of one type of fan that is very irritating to me.

Although it is not a form of classical music, I find the fans of 'Filk Music' TO BE VERY ANNOYING!

You have to be a real SF fan to know what 'filk' is. The fans of 'filk' are insufferable. They carry on as if 'filk' is the greatest music since the invention of the thirteen note scale. Of course at times they sound like they are singing in a fourteen note scale.

I have had too many run-ins with these enthusiast at various World Science Fiction Conventions, including the one genius who denounced Beethoven after discovering 'filk'.


----------

