# What makes Classical music superior?



## shangoyal

What do you think makes classical music better? From a material point of view, is it because CM is more complex technically, or there are deeper and more well-formed ideas in it as compared to other music. Is it less based on the feelings of the moment and more like a long term meditation on nature and creation? Ideas, technique, complexity, anything. Let's hear all your opinions! :tiphat:


----------



## MoonlightSonata

Largely the fact that it is not manufactured as much pop music is, or simply composed for a lot of money. Also, it is being constantly refined: today's composers still use ideas from centuries ago, with the worst features being abandoned and the best assimilated into a new style.
Edit: I suppose one could say the same about other genres, but none have such a long tradition.


----------



## KenOC

MoonlightSonata said:


> Largely the fact that it is not manufactured as much pop music is, or simply composed for a lot of money.


(Clears throat) Beethoven made about US$100 thousand from his Missa Solemnis, current equivalent. His biggest payday. But I suppose moolah was the farthest thing from his noble mind... :lol:


----------



## MoonlightSonata

KenOC said:


> (Clears throat) Beethoven made about US$100 thousand from his Missa Solemnis, current equivalent. His biggest payday. But I suppose moolah was the farthest thing from his noble mind... :lol:


In contrast, thought, there was Ives (for example), who got another job so he didn't "starve on his dissonances". 
I think they sort of cancel each other out. And I was speaking generally.


----------



## KenOC

MoonlightSonata said:


> In contrast, thought, there was Ives (for example), who got another job so he didn't "starve on his dissonances".
> I think they sort of cancel each other out. And I was speaking generally.


Charles Ives didn't exactly "get another job". He co-founded Ives & Co. (later Ives & Myrick) and became a pioneer in estate planning -- based, naturally, on life insurance. He became quite wealthy. His contributions are recognized as basic to estate planning to this day, among those that have the means to take advantage of his strategies.

A better example is Berwald, who found music a path to starvation. He wrote that "music makes a thin soup" and worked as the manager of a glass factory and then of a company making prosthetic limbs. In the latter, he seems to have been quite successful.


----------



## Nereffid

Classical music is superior to all other forms of music in the same way that one's spouse and children are superior to all other spouses and children.


----------



## Guest

shangoyal said:


> What do you think makes classical music better? From a material point of view, is it because CM is more complex technically, or there are deeper and more well-formed ideas in it as compared to other music. Is it less based on the feelings of the moment and more like a long term meditation on nature and creation? Ideas, technique, complexity, anything. Let's hear all your opinions! :tiphat:


I'd question your premise that it is _better_. You don't say what it is better than - are we to assume you mean better than any other form of music?

If so, I would argue that whilst you can say it can be more complex than other forms, this is not universally the case, and this alone would not qualify it as 'better'.

Music, of all types, is what it is. It is neither better nor worse (though it's admittedly inferior as a can opener). It serves the purposes that its writers, performers and listeners put it to, but that should not lead any of them to make claims that are only subjectively verifiable.


----------



## MoonlightSonata

KenOC said:


> Charles Ives didn't exactly "get another job". He co-founded Ives & Co. (later Ives & Myrick) and became a pioneer in estate planning -- based, naturally, on life insurance. He became quite wealthy. His contributions are recognized as basic to estate planning to this day, among those that have the means to take advantage of his strategies.
> 
> A better example is Berwald, who found music a path to starvation. He wrote that "music makes a thin soup" and worked as the manager of a glass factory and then of a company making prosthetic limbs. In the latter, he seems to have been quite successful.


Never heard of Berwald; I'll ahve a listen to some of his music. Ives did indeed get another job, he just had to make it himself.


----------



## science

shangoyal said:


> What do you think makes classical music better? From a material point of view, is it because CM is more complex technically, or there are deeper and more well-formed ideas in it as compared to other music. Is it less based on the feelings of the moment and more like a long term meditation on nature and creation? Ideas, technique, complexity, anything. Let's hear all your opinions! :tiphat:


Its superiority is located within a specific cultural context; it may be superior within the values of certain cultures, but it isn't objectively superior.

For example, if you value a good beat for a jolly dance, the majority of our music is going to let you down; you'll find some here and there, but a lot of folk traditions are going to suit you better.

If you value an ambient setting for meditation, the majority of our music is going to let you down; you'll find some here and there, but a lot of "New Age" music is going to suit you better.

Or if you value feeling like a patriotic good ol' boy, the majority of our music is going to let you down; you'll find some here and there, but a lot of new country is going to suit you better.

Or if you value music that booms from your car speakers as you cruise downtown....

Or if you value music that puts infants to sleep....

Or if you value music that reminds you of the Civil Rights movement...

Or if you value experimentation with recording equipment...

Or if you value getting possessed by the Nat spirits of Burma...

On the other hand, if what you value is music with that rewards attention to its development, variation, counterpoint, and other complex compositional structures... or if you value music that relates to the history of western Europe... or if you value the sound of a string orchestra filling a concert hall... or if you value the traditional sacred music of Western Christianity... or if you're trying to act like a cultural super-know-it-all... or if you're trying to emulate the upper and upper-middle classes of the North Atlantic "Establishment" in the post-WWII period... well, for purposes like those, classical music is superior.


----------



## OlivierM

My deepest apologies, but what is classical music superior to ?
To each their own, I suppose.

When I ask around me, André Rieux is often quoted. Is that superior to anything ?

I'll keep my two barrels of regular washing powder, heh.


----------



## PetrB

^^^ exactly.

Superior to what? Other genres? 
Beethoven vs. Chuck Berry? 
Mahler vs. Fats Domino?
Chopin vs. Scott Joplin? (Hint: Joplin wrote the superior ragtime)
Bellini vs. Burt Bacharach?
Stravinsky vs. Miles Davis?
Brahms vs. Harold Arlen?

It is not so much superior, other than _it is thought superior to other musics by those who most prefer it._

I happen to very much prefer it, but I'm not going to limit my options!


----------



## Jobis

PetrB said:


> ^^^ exactly.
> 
> Superior to what? Other genres?
> Beethoven vs. Chuck Berry?
> Mahler vs. Fats Domino?
> Chopin vs. Scott Joplin? (Hint: Joplin wrote the superior ragtime)
> Bellini vs. Burt Bacharach?
> Stravinsky vs. Miles Davis?
> Brahms vs. Harold Arlen?
> 
> It is not so much superior, other than _it is thought superior to other musics by those who most prefer it._
> 
> I happen to very much prefer it, but I'm not going to limit my options!


But can one be knowledgeable about CM (as in appreciative with a degree of understanding) and still prefer say... Rihanna? I'm not sure.

On many levels its a matter of taste; some people like jazz the most, some people like traditional indian music; their quality is not in question, and nor is that of classical music. There are, however objectively bad musics; usually the kind that is manufactured to make money, rather than arising organically in a culture.


----------



## shangoyal

Yes, I mean as compared to other music. Like rock, jazz, gypsy, etc.

Stuff which we talk about in the Classical Music Discussion part VERSUS stuff we talk about elsewhere.


----------



## dgee

Bacharach is better than Bellini by any objective measure! 

But yes, the assumption of classical being better due to its superior complexity or richness is one of those funny arguments so often trotted out by the "fine music listener" and i always wonder how it compares to the goldilocks argument about how modernism is too complex. And then it gives me a chuckle about the pure of heart classical sweet spot where the music is more sophisticated than that awful pop rubbish but then also more appealing and accessible than that awful modern rubbish. Make your minds up folks!


----------



## dgee

Jobis said:


> But can one be knowledgeable about CM (as in appreciative with a degree of understanding) and still prefer say... Rihanna? I'm not sure.
> 
> On many levels its a matter of taste; some people like jazz the most, some people like traditional indian music; their quality is not in question, and nor is that of classical music. There are, however objectively bad musics; usually the kind that is manufactured to make money, rather than arising organically in a culture.


The reduction of non classical to the least interesting of pop is a common error. There is a lot in pop smarter than riri!


----------



## Blancrocher

shangoyal said:


> Yes, I mean as compared to other music. Like rock, jazz, gypsy, etc.
> 
> Stuff which we talk about in the Classical Music Discussion part VERSUS stuff we talk about elsewhere.


I'm rooting for you, shangoyal, but I confess I have doubts that you'll be able to convince a bunch of members of a classical music forum of the superiority of classical music.


----------



## norman bates

Considering western music and from a technical point of view, classical was superior to all other genres in terms of harmony (but I guess that at least from the sixties jazz was on the same level), and still is superior in terms of structure, even if paradoxically the avantgarde often is not focused on it.


----------



## Couac Addict

The babes.

..........


----------



## hpowders

OP:It's not. False premise.

Whatever kind of music makes you feel good is fine. Everybody's different. There is no "superior" music, although I'm sure there are classical music elitists who fool themselves into thinking so to help them feel "superior". I'm no psychiatrist, however.


----------



## Weston

It is not superior to non-mainstream non-classical. 

If you think of non-classical as Willie Nelson or Miley Cyrus, then I suppose it is superior. But complexity? Listen to Gentle Giant and come back and we can discuss complexity. Innovation? Listen to Univers Zero or just Gentle Giant again. Technical proficiency? Maybe, but music is not an athletic event. Development of themes? Listen to any early to mid 70s Yes. Well, how about using a full orchestra as opposed to just loud rock instruments? Listen to Renaissance (the rock group) or even The Moody Blues. But non-classical singing is sub-par you say. Really? I've heard plenty of classical style singers go flat even in studio recordings. 

No it is not necessarily superior except that it is more esoteric just as much non-classical is. And we like it.


----------



## science

Weston said:


> It is not superior to non-mainstream non-classical.
> 
> If you think of non-classical as Willie Nelson or Miley Cyrus, then I suppose it is superior. But complexity? Listen to Gentle Giant and come back and we can discuss complexity. Innovation? Listen to Univers Zero or just Gentle Giant again. Technical proficiency? Maybe, but music is not an athletic event. Development of themes? Listen to any early to mid 70s Yes. Well, how about using a full orchestra as opposed to just loud rock instruments? Listen to Renaissance (the rock group) or even The Moody Blues. But non-classical singing is sub-par you say. Really? I've heard plenty of classical style singers go flat even in studio recordings.
> 
> No it is not necessarily superior except that it is more esoteric just as much non-classical is. And we like it.


I can't agree that the obscure is necessarily better than the mainstream. Some stuff gets famous because it's good. _Red Headed Stranger_ is a darned good album. Of course if you can't get honky with your tonky it probably won't stir your drink. But that's the taste question again.

Even Billy Ray Cyrus. I used to live in that part of the world - his brother lived two houses away from me during the Achy-Breaky days. Used to play basketball with him (had a big ol' belly but he could shoot and pass well enough). My mother's older brother is a true honky tonk hero, and he's heard a lot of second-rate country music live. He'd been saying for several years that this kid Billy Ray Cyrus was the real deal and would make it big someday, and everyone was like, yeah, whatever, don't drive when you're thinking stuff like that. And we know what happened. But for every Billy Ray, there's fifty thousand other dudes out there trying to do the same thing with ("even"?) less talent.


----------



## Stavrogin

Blancrocher said:


> I'm rooting for you, shangoyal, but I confess I have doubts that you'll be able to convince a bunch of members of a classical music forum of the superiority of classical music.


+1

...........


----------



## nightscape

There are different genres, facets, nuances, etc, to music. Different types do different things at different times in my daily life. I don't necessarily need classical music 100% of the time. I generally prefer it, as I find it more intellectually stimulating and challenging. I get so much out of it, but it's not the only thing on which I draw inspiration and beauty.

I hesitate to call classical music superior to anything else. You can make the argument that composers who write music within that area are better trained, educated and put together works of art that are relatively unmatched in other genres; but superior? That's a slippery slope. Music, in my opinion, should never be ranked or compartmentalized. It forces music against itself in some type of gross competition.


----------



## Piwikiwi

norman bates said:


> Considering western music and from a technical point of view, classical was superior to all other genres in terms of harmony (but I guess that at least from the sixties jazz was on the same level), and still is superior in terms of structure, even if paradoxically the avantgarde often is not focused on it.


I think superior is the wrong term for that, more complex would be fairer.


----------



## shangoyal

dgee said:


> Bacharach is better than Bellini by any objective measure!
> 
> But yes, the assumption of classical being better due to its superior complexity or richness is one of those funny arguments so often trotted out by the "fine music listener" and i always wonder how it compares to the goldilocks argument about how modernism is too complex. And then it gives me a chuckle about the pure of heart classical sweet spot where the music is more sophisticated than that awful pop rubbish but then also more appealing and accessible than that awful modern rubbish. Make your minds up folks!


Yes, Eine Kleine Nachtmusik >> Let's Do It Tonight


----------



## Art Rock

To my taste, the best of pop/rock is not inferior to the best of classical music. And I will take my favourite pop/rock songs any day over a lot of classical music.


----------



## brotagonist

nightscape said:


> You can make the argument that composers who write music within that area [CM] are better trained, educated and put together works of art that are relatively unmatched in other genres....


I want to go with this, because it is what I always thought to be the case. Extensive education in music seems to be a major difference between composers/musicians involved in CM and those involved in popular musics. This is an uninformed and gross generalization, I realize, but likely more true than not. An illiterate can tell a great story, but I believe that literary training, knowledge and experience are almost certain to positively influence it's telling.

I am also attracted to the historical context: that the genre has developed and evolved over the course of centuries and has become an intricate blending of and reaction to what has come before, what is now and, perhaps, what might yet be.

I enjoy rock music, in particular, and have a number of favourite bands and styles that appeal to me very strongly, but classical music is my primary musical interest and pleasure. I turn to rock when I want to hear a song, or when I want to tap my feet and move my body, but when I am looking for a more synaptically engrossing musical experience, I turn to classical music.

What makes CM genuinely and irrefutably superior is that, of all the types of music I have courted, it is the one I have chosen to live with


----------



## senza sordino

1) Classical music does seem to have stood the test of time, whereas a lot of pop music hasn't. But this certainly isn't a reason for it's superiority, it's just a comment, and probably a flawed one. 

2) The process of making classical does seem to be different than making pop / rock / jazz music. A classical music composer writes music to be performed by others, but pop / rock / jazz is written by the same people who perform it, and record it once, and a cover version is invariably a pale rendition of the original. But here there are countless examples to the contrary. 

Therefore do these two comments make classical music superior, possibly. Classical music can be performed down through the ages by the next generation of gifted musicians each of whom create a legitimate and worthy performance of the original. I don't think we could say that of pop / rock / jazz.


----------



## Guest

senza sordino said:


> 1) Classical music does seem to have stood the test of time, whereas a lot of pop music hasn't.


Well, when we can get 200 years away from Lennon and McCartney, we may be able to compare.


----------



## norman bates

senza sordino said:


> 2) The process of making classical does seem to be different than making pop / rock / jazz music. A classical music composer writes music to be performed by others, but pop / rock / jazz is written by the same people who perform it, and record it once, and a cover version is invariably a pale rendition of the original.


The fact that in classical music the composer writes music to be performed by others it's because it's a form born when it wasn't possible to record in any way and it necessitated often a lot of musicians. So the composers have to delegate to others a part of the creation of their work. And I don't think that a composer see this as a positive aspect. 
It's the same difference that you can find between theatre and cinema, but I don't think that this is a good reason to claim that theatre is superior. 
Anyway when you say that "pop / rock / jazz is written by the same people who perform it, and record it once, and a cover version is invariably a pale rendition of the original": this is true if you consider pop and rock music, but it isn't true at all if you consider jazz or even the popular music of the great american songbook.


----------



## senza sordino

MacLeod said:


> Well, when we can get 200 years away from Lennon and McCartney, we may be able to compare.


A true statement, I did go on to say my argument is probably flawed.



norman bates said:


> The fact that in classical music the composer writes music to be performed by others it's because it's a form born when it wasn't possible to record in any way and it necessitated often a lot of musicians. So the composers have to delegate to others a part of the creation of their work. And I don't think that a composer see this as a positive aspect.
> It's the same difference that you can find between theatre and cinema, but I don't think that this is a good reason to claim that theatre is superior.
> Anyway when you say that "pop / rock / jazz is written by the same people who perform it, and record it once, and a cover version is invariably a pale rendition of the original": this is true if you consider pop and rock music, but it isn't true at all if you consider jazz or even the popular music of the great american songbook.


No argument from me.

I was trying, albeit unsuccessfully, to argue for the superiority of classical music. I don't think my argument would hold up in court. I like CM more than any other music, therefore it must be superior.  There are loads of examples of composers performing their own works. And who knows, maybe in the future we will be going to concerts where they perform songs from the Great American Song Book of Britney Spears.  Whoops I did it again on period instruments


----------



## brotagonist

Call us parochial, but we like it :devil:


----------



## GreenMamba

shangoyal said:


> Yes, Eine Kleine Nachtmusik >> Let's Do It Tonight


But Let's Stay Together >>> Eine Kleine Nachtmusik. You can always rig the game based on the pieces you choose.



Weston said:


> Listen to Gentle Giant and come back and we can discuss complexity. Innovation? Listen to Univers Zero or just Gentle Giant again.


Oh, pleeaase don't make me listen to Gentle Giant! Perfect evidence that complexity isn't everything.

Actually, this is what I like about Classical: it's a genre of music that does complexity well.


----------



## hpowders

senza sordino said:


> 1) Classical music does seem to have stood the test of time, whereas a lot of pop music hasn't. But this certainly isn't a reason for it's superiority, it's just a comment, and probably a flawed one.
> 
> 2) The process of making classical does seem to be different than making pop / rock / jazz music. A classical music composer writes music to be performed by others, but pop / rock / jazz is written by the same people who perform it, and record it once, and a cover version is invariably a pale rendition of the original. But here there are countless examples to the contrary.
> 
> Therefore do these two comments make classical music superior, possibly. Classical music can be performed down through the ages by the next generation of gifted musicians each of whom create a legitimate and worthy performance of the original. I don't think we could say that of pop / rock / jazz.


Yes it has stood the test of time. Hopefully our "ilk" will never dwindle down to zero!!


----------



## PetrB

dgee said:


> Bacharach is better than Bellini by any objective measure!
> 
> But yes, the assumption of classical being better due to its superior complexity or richness is one of those funny arguments so often trotted out by the "fine music listener" and i always wonder how it compares to the goldilocks argument about how modernism is too complex. And then it gives me a chuckle about the pure of heart classical sweet spot where the music is more sophisticated than that awful pop rubbish but then also more appealing and accessible than that awful modern rubbish. Make your minds up folks!


:lol: :lol: :tiphat:

*"There are two kinds of music. Good music, and the other kind"* 
~ Duke Ellington


----------



## Dave Whitmore

It's probably a bit extreme to say classical music is superior but from my experience it is more compelling and addictive. I've always liked a wide variety of music and I have a bunch of cds that I would listen to from time to time. I really got into classical music in January. Before that I would listen to music occasionally and to relax in the evenings I'd be more inclined to watch a movie or a tv show. Since January a day hasn't gone by where I haven't listened to at least an hour, usually much more, of classical music. At the moment it's the only form of music I want to listen to. I have a lot of stress in my life at the moment and classical is definitely helping to relax me. I probably watch less than half the amount of television that I used to. I just prefer to spend my down time listening to this amazing music.


----------



## hpowders

^^^It's more compelling and addictive because you are into it! 

The same applies for anybody into other forms of music.

No music is superior to any other music.

Jazz is great! Pop 100 countdown is great! Show music is great! Metal is great! Movie music is great! etc; as nauseum. They are all "addictive" to the folks who love it.


----------



## Guest

Dave Whitmore said:


> It's probably a bit extreme to say classical music is superior but from my experience it is more compelling and addictive.


Much as I love classical now, and much as it moves me now, and challenges me, I doubt I will ever feel quite the same passion and compulsion to listen to it as I once did rock pop/music. From around age 15 (1974) until around 6-7 years ago, pop/rock accompanied me everywhere. I treated it like my clothing, my food, my love, my family. I wallowed in it, danced and sobbed to it, fell in love to it and, of course, with it.

Now, it takes a back seat in my record collection, and classical is my companion - but without the sex.

They serve different purposes. Neither one is superior to the other.


----------



## KenOC

Really, the thread title is somewhat misstated. It's not classical music but classical music _listeners _that are superior. And how do we know this? Well, because they listen to classical music of course!


----------



## Jobis

dgee said:


> The reduction of non classical to the least interesting of pop is a common error. There is a lot in pop smarter than riri!


That's true, and there are occasional good bits in Rihanna, once in a while a fine melody! Unfortunately its often lack of imagination, and how pop producers handle the material that can make it bad, but good pop is great music.

I should have been a bit more specific; bad music really ought to be a title reserved for the Justin Beibers of this world, and even in his stuff there is merit to be found. The thing about music is that no matter how 'bad' or unsophisticated, you can't pervert or counter the beauty of sound itself; which is why apparently 'horrible noise' such as merzbow (perhaps not an inaccurate term) still brings joy to many, and has great worth of its own.

I think the appeal of CM is that it has depth. You can listen to a piece many times and continually find new, pleasing elements. Like a good book which always as something to offer on repeated readings. Great CM is often also defined by its subversion of expectations, most noticeably in innovation. That is what separates CM from all other musics; continual innovation and stretching of the limits of human expectation and perception. Isn't much great music full of surprises, after all; why else would Beethoven and Bach seek to stretch the limits of modulation, and Stravinsky to disorient us with his brilliant rhythms.


----------



## KenOC

MoonlightSonata said:


> Never heard of Berwald; I'll ahve a listen to some of his music.


One of Berwald's most popular works is his Symphony No. 3 'Singuliere'. It's on YouTube.


----------



## millionrainbows

Classical, including new & modern music done as part of that tradition, is at the forefront of musical thought. That's why I like it. It's concerned, in many cases, with expanding the possibilities of music as a syntactical language.


----------



## PetrB

hpowders said:


> ^^^It's more compelling and addictive because you are into it!
> 
> The same applies for anybody into other forms of music.
> 
> No music is superior to any other music.
> 
> Jazz is great! Pop 100 countdown is great! Show music is great! Metal is great! Movie music is great! etc; as nauseum. They are all "addictive" to the folks who love it.


"Different strokes for different folks."

That is very easy to forget or ignore when, like we are together on a site like this or together in reality, like an animal litter sleeps in a heap.

It's one musical sphere. I inhabit it pretty much to the near exclusion of other genres, but still 'visit other planets' once in a while. Certainly, it is one genre which takes its time to unfold, often has longer and more involved dialogue, and a greater multiplicity of characters, to push the analogy -- and all that, for me, pulls my interest and attention vs. other musics which don't come near as close to having a similar scale and scope.

_But that is all still relative to me_, what and how I choose and prefer to listen to, and why.


----------



## Crudblud

I don't think it is superior, I think it is different. Glib, I know, but what else is there to say about it? Object A contains a _fugue_ and Object B contains a _bass drop_, that's really all we can say: they're different, they contain different things. It's entirely preferential beyond that.


----------



## Ian Moore

> What makes classic music superior?


People's unenlightened attitudes.


----------



## Couac Addict

According to Bellbottom, there's two kinds of classical music. Falco and Byzantine Mozart.


----------



## Guest

norman bates said:


> superior in terms of structure, even if paradoxically the avantgarde often is not focused on it.


Not this one, again.

One of the more persistent criticisms of any new art is that the new stuff lacks form. That has been true for many centuries. That is, that the criticism exists is true. The criticism itself is not true, whether the critic is talking about Rameau or about Radulescu.

The avant-garde, in whichever age we're talking about, is not focussed on the structures of the past. That's one of the things that makes them avant. But to conclude from that, easy enough to do, apparently, that avant-garde artists are not interested in structure is to disregard what structure is and how a sense of it is integral to anyone making anything.


----------



## Guest

So anyway, let's use a term uncritically and match up the incredible variety of musics from several centuries _that that term has been made to cover_ with the much narrower bands of music that other terms identify: pop, rock, jazz and so forth. None these has been around as long as so-called "classical," so alluding to the spurious "test of time" is just silly. It's basically as useful as saying that my father is older than I am.

Otherwise, I have a question of my own: What will answering the OP get you? And I would venture to guess that an answer plus bus fare will get you a bus ride. I am well aware that others will say that an answer plus a couple of bucks will get you a cup of coffee. I don't really have an argument for that. I just prefer the bus ride is all.

No, wait. I'm wrong. I prefer coffee!!

No, wait, again. Time out.

Coffee is better for waking you up in the morning. A bus ride is better for getting you to work. There.


----------



## shangoyal

some guy, I am curious how you criticize a piece you don't like? Or do you never do such a thing? Do you never speak negative things about something you don't like? If you do, could you give me an example of the same? Just asking, because it has always appeared that you are quite a sport.


----------



## Guest

Hey shangoyal, I don't criticize pieces I don't like, it's true. My not liking means I'm disengaged. And disengaged is a poor place from whence to do any criticizing. Besides, the things I don't like are all of them things that somebody likes. Even Hubert Howe, about whom I once quipped that the question is not so much Howe as it is Why.

Then I met someone who really liked Howe's music, and I felt so embarrassed about my quip that I took a vow of positivity!


----------



## Fugue Meister

If I can just throw my two cents in I feel that there are between 6.5 to 7.5 billion people on this planet and some of them cling to pop and some of us fall in love with jazz and then there are those of us who just live for 80's music. Then lets see there's punk, and funk, and classic rock and motown, big-band and swing, rap, blues, heavy metal, death metal, solo artist that you just can't quite label, country, bluegrass, folk music, ect. ect. ect. Not to mention us absolute music lovers...

Anyway so all the individual sects of people, the minority who lives for punk, the minority that can't stop playing broadway musical soundtracks and shoving it down your throat that it's the original cast, the minority that pridefully play there celtic music as the constant background music of there lives, 

(oh and every group is in the minority no one group is bigger how would anyone be able to definitively say pop is the most popular form of music amongst every living being on the planet... it just can't be done, as much as I love and champion absolute I doubt it will ever be popular to the indigenous tribes of the amazon rain forest and how many of us can actually claim to love traditional siberian gypsy folk music which is a thing apparently.)

But like as I said we all in our individual sects of fandom take to the internet all on our individual forums; the talk classical forum the talk hip hop forum, the talk yodeling forum, ect... and we all proclaim the superiority of our own favorite things. Well most people...

Then there are imo, the truly superior people who love it and embraces it all. Who are genuinely interested in all forms of music (except country or rap... jk :devil: ). 

Having said that I think absolute music is the best music of all and will never be touched by any other genre, I mean why else is it called "absolute".


----------



## PetrB

dgee said:


> Bacharach is better than Bellini by any objective measure!


That is because Bellini never had the same opportunity that Bacharach had, i.e. Darius Milhaud as his teacher


----------



## PetrB

norman bates said:


> Considering western music and from a technical point of view, classical... still is superior in terms of structure, even if paradoxically the avantgarde often is not focused on it.


This sounds like something learned from books which hold that mid 18th - mid 19th century viewpoint of sonata-allegro and symphonic form and formats, and 'that formality' are somehow the absolute pinnacle of music and the height of human musical achievement. First: That excludes Bach and a lot of other composers also consider pinnacles; Second: That form held sway but for a relatively brief time in the entire time line of music history, and even later developments were eroding the form when it was still the more popular one.

Any piece of music that most (populist audience or professional critics and theorists) think works has some kind of completely valid 'form.' O.K. -- it may not be that cozy-to-many and really familiar standard floor layout of the building, or the layout of the typical split-ranch house, but a valid form nonetheless.

The near parrot-like reflex of the constant re-stating (_by both teachers and students_) of these once-believed ideas -- and at that, historically but briefly held -- is lethal to anyone keeping their ears open, and that thing believed taken as gospel, hook, line, and sinker, keeps people from being able to hear how other pieces also have form, work, are also 'valid.'

Of course maybe some actually believe that the only way to skin a cat is that sonata / symphonic form popular, really, for only about 100 some plus of the 1000 plus years of classical music, the last half of that era having composers 'busting it up,' as it were, starting, with some dramatic turns and change, with Schumann, while that precedent had been set earlier by Beethoven.

In that case, let those who would have it that way have it. Otherwise, keep it as a handy thing to know when listening to music from that 100 some plus year-long era, and ditch it for the rest.


----------



## violadude

Fugue Meister said:


> Having said that I think absolute music is the best music of all and will never be touched by any other genre, I mean why else is it called "absolute".


Well, it's actually called "absolute" because it doesn't refer to any specific extra-musical ideas.


----------



## MoonlightSonata

violadude said:


> Well, it's actually called "absolute" because it doesn't refer to any specific extra-musical ideas.


I'd never worked out why 'absolute' should mean that... and then suddenly I worked it out after reading your post. I'd heard explanation before...weird.


----------



## PetrB

violadude said:


> Well, it's actually called "absolute" because it doesn't refer to any specific extra-musical ideas.


Doesn't depend upon _any_ outside ideas, even... (absolute) music is about itself / can only express itself.


----------



## norman bates

PetrB said:


> This sounds like something learned from books which hold that mid 18th - mid 19th century viewpoint of sonata-allegro and symphonic form and formats, and 'that formality' are somehow the absolute pinnacle of music and the height of human musical achievement. First: That excludes Bach and a lot of other composers also consider pinnacles; Second: That form held sway but for a relatively brief time in the entire time line of music history, and even later developments were eroding the form when it was still the more popular one.
> 
> Any piece of music that most (populist audience or professional critics and theorists) think works has some kind of completely valid 'form.' O.K. -- it may not be that cozy-to-many and really familiar standard floor layout of the building, or the layout of the typical split-ranch house, but a valid form nonetheless.
> 
> The near parrot-like reflex of the constant re-stating (_by both teachers and students_) of these once-believed ideas -- and at that, historically but briefly held -- is lethal to anyone keeping their ears open, and that thing believed taken as gospel, hook, line, and sinker, keeps people from being able to hear how other pieces also have form, work, are also 'valid.'
> 
> Of course maybe some actually believe that the only way to skin a cat is that sonata / symphonic form popular, really, for only about 100 some plus of the 1000 plus years of classical music, the last half of that era having composers 'busting it up,' as it were, starting, with some dramatic turns and change, with Schumann, while that precedent had been set earlier by Beethoven.
> 
> In that case, let those who would have it that way have it. Otherwise, keep it as a handy thing to know when listening to music from that 100 some plus year-long era, and ditch it for the rest.


as Pikiwiki correctly has said, what I meant was "more complex" rather then superior, and I have little doubts that is more difficult to create interconnessions between many parts than just a miniature or a suite of independent pieces. But personally I don't even care too much for structure and frankly I don't have a good ear or a good understanding of it (I usually pay much more attention to harmony).


----------



## norman bates

some guy said:


> Not this one, again.
> 
> One of the more persistent criticisms of any new art is that the new stuff lacks form. That has been true for many centuries. That is, that the criticism exists is true. The criticism itself is not true, whether the critic is talking about Rameau or about Radulescu.
> 
> The avant-garde, in whichever age we're talking about, is not focussed on the structures of the past. That's one of the things that makes them avant. But to conclude from that, easy enough to do, apparently, that avant-garde artists are not interested in structure is to disregard what structure is and how a sense of it is integral to anyone making anything.


It should be clarified what structure is first of all. 
A lot of avantgarde I know is much more interested in sound, rather than in a development of themes and melodies.


----------



## Xaltotun

Concerning structure in relation to new and old stuff: Nietzsche wrote that there are two kinds of creative genius (genii?), the "male" and the "female". The former creates new stuff out of nothing, and the latter perfects the existing stuff. It seems that both kinds of composers exist in classical music, often simultaneously, and that arouses debate like the "War of the Romantics".


----------



## science

I suspect the complexity has some merit, since at pretty much any point from the "Notre Dame school" to the "Second Vienna school," classical music was approximately the most complex music of its time and place. I don't think that's necessarily true anymore; I can't see that Glass is more complex than Coltrane.

But the problem is that I don't see complexity as self-evidently and objectively more valuable than simplicity. I also don't see that innovation is self-evidently and objectively more valuable than preservation or continuation. That also must be a matter of pure personal taste, with which there is no arguing.


----------



## Guest

What the value is of things is highly personal.Classical music does not automatically improve the mind.Look to the sofisthicated nazis who listened to Mozart and Beethoven after their monstrous job was done for the day.Are you only try to escape from reality and use music as a kind of drug,or are you willing to open up and discover the deeper layers wich are not found by the Andre Rieus with their superficial amusement.


----------



## Guest

norman bates said:


> It should be clarified what structure is first of all.
> A lot of avantgarde I know is much more interested in sound, rather than in a development of themes and melodies.


And development of themes and melodies is only one way of structuring, even in _pre-_20th century music.

As for "being interested in sound," that is the thing that distinguishes musical artists from visual artists or plastic artists. In any age. (There is some overlap with literary artists.)


----------



## Mahlerian

norman bates said:


> It should be clarified what structure is first of all.
> A lot of avantgarde I know is much more interested in sound, rather than in a development of themes and melodies.


This would mean that a lot of classical music before the 20th century is lacking in structure as well. Development of a Hadyn/Mozart/Beethoven sort has only really been around since the classical era.


----------



## norman bates

some guy said:


> And development of themes and melodies is only one way of structuring, even in _pre-_20th century music.
> 
> As for "being interested in sound," that is the thing that distinguishes musical artists from visual artists or plastic artists. In any age. (There is some overlap with literary artists.)


With sound obviously I mean timbre. So it means all the investigation on the textures (and the effect on that caused by space and distance too), instead of melodies rhythm and harmonies.


----------



## norman bates

Mahlerian said:


> This would mean that a lot of classical music before the 20th century is lacking in structure as well. Development of a Hadyn/Mozart/Beethoven sort has only really been around since the classical era.


I guess it means that structurally it was less complex indeed (not that there's no structure at all). 
Usually I hear people talking of composers like Beethoven or Brahms like great masters of form, or that Schubert was not so good considering that, or that Ellington was not capable to compose in larger forms than miniatures. Is it all this without sense?


----------



## Guest

norman bates said:


> With sound obviously I mean timbre.


Obvious to you, maybe. If you meant timbre, then why didn't you say timbre, which is a fairly specific term, instead of sound, which is quite general?



norman bates said:


> So it means all the investigation on the textures (and the effect on that caused by space and distance too), instead of melodies rhythm and harmonies.


Ah. Maybe that's why. Because none of this has anything to do with timbre.

And none of this addresses the assertion that because avant-garde composers are not interested in developing motifs therefore they are not interested in structure.


----------



## norman bates

some guy said:


> Ah. Maybe that's why. Because none of this has anything to do with timbre.


Texture has anything to do with timbre? 



some guy said:


> And none of this addresses the assertion that because avant-garde composers are not interested in developing motifs therefore they are not interested in structure.


how it was that funny anecdote of Feldman you've reported recently?

_A student brought a new piece to Feldman, asking him what he thought about its structure. Feldman's response was to place each page on the floor of his office and walk on them, saying "Structure? Structure? Structure is for bridges. This is a piece of music."_


----------



## mtmailey

First most of the music sounds great ,very complexed music,there is much to be liked by many people.The music is very diverse more so than other music.Their also i better variety to choose from.


----------



## PetrB

norman bates said:


> It should be clarified what structure is first of all.
> A lot of avantgarde I know is much more interested in sound, rather than in a development of themes and melodies.


Throw that slacker Bach and all those great composers of several centuries before him into the bad music bin, then


----------



## Declined

I am not an elitist. I will not say that CM is superior to other music, simply because I prefer it over other music. However, the reasons I like it include: its complexity, the variety and number of instruments involved, the history involved, and I just like the way it sounds.


----------



## Esterhazy

I think the very few instances when you could be comparing music is probably within one composer's own oeuvre, and with a single piece of music during the compositional stages. The latter is most telling when you study the draft scores where you might be able to objectively say that Beethoven's early sketches of his Appassionata didn't get anyway but the final ones were more superior than earlier versions because of the development of the ideas. Other instances include say a Bach fugue where he deliberately started off with simple fugues and then branched off into more complicated fugues to show his mastery of the form. Here you could objective say Bach had an initial simple idea with minimal material and finished off with a more complicated one, if that in itself is a measure of superiority.


----------



## norman bates

PetrB said:


> Throw that slacker Bach and all those great composers of several centuries before him into the bad music bin, then


why should I do that? Bach is very important for his mastery of counterpoint and harmony.


----------



## Chordalrock

Considering most of it as superior is bias, possibly born out of deep-seated expectations due to a lifetime of biased listening.

Not only taste for the vulgar, but taste for the sophisticated can be bias if it makes you unable to see the originality and excellence in certain pop music pieces for example.

This said, there are a few things I can think of that tend to truly put Western classical music above other kinds of music generally speaking. The most important ones would be its ambitiousness and the fact that it has attracted ambitious and highly talented people for six hundred years - to become composers in the tradition. This combined with the practice of notating and preserving old compositions means that the standards for composers were very high - they had ambitous geniuses to compete against, many of them weren't just writing to please their patrons or the masses, they had to actually measure up against the standard set by people like Josquin, and later Palestrina, and later Monteverdi, Haydn, Beethoven, and so on.

So, ambition, draws talent, long tradition that preserves the masterpieces...

Pop music has only a short history behind it, but it's starting to have rather high standards as well from the perspective of those who aim for artistic excellence in the genre. It's the age of recordings. Recordings of songs like Stairway to Heaven are kept perpetually in print, people are aware of their existence. And it's not easy to write songs as good as such hits, let alone better. If it were, classical composers would be doing it during Mondays to become rich, composing classical music as a hobby during the rest of the week.

I'm personally interested in what happens in the game music genre. Games are sort of like opera libretti, in that they provide a background and an opportunity to compose the kinds of music that composers wouldn't ordinarily compose, such as this:





 - Mega Man X, Intro Stage

It's of course vulgar music but it's also very neat and its own kind of thing, a sort of gem. The point though is, you can't get away with music like this anywhere except video games. In another five hundred years, the game music genre could be an important tradition with dozens of composers standing out and having poured their genius into it in ways that you can't find in other genres.

It's not a stretch to say that, currently, Western classical music is the most important musical tradition in history by far, but as time goes by its importance may become less pronounced.


----------



## Bulldog

Chordalrock said:


> Considering most of it as superior is bias, possibly born out of deep-seated expectations due to a lifetime of biased listening.
> 
> Not only taste for the vulgar, but taste for the sophisticated can be bias if it makes you unable to see the originality and excellence in certain pop music pieces for example.
> 
> This said, there are a few things I can think of that tend to truly put Western classical music above other kinds of music generally speaking. The most important ones would be its ambitiousness and the fact that it has attracted ambitious and highly talented people for six hundred years - to become composers in the tradition. This combined with the practice of notating and preserving old compositions means that the standards for composers were very high - they had ambitous geniuses to compete against, many of them weren't just writing to please their patrons or the masses, they had to actually measure up against the standard set by people like Josquin, and later Palestrina, and later Monteverdi, Haydn, Beethoven, and so on.
> 
> So, ambition, draws talent, long tradition that preserves the masterpieces...
> 
> Pop music has only a short history behind it, but it's starting to have rather high standards as well from the perspective of those who aim for artistic excellence in the genre. It's the age of recordings. Recordings of songs like Stairway to Heaven are kept perpetually in print, people are aware of their existence. And it's not easy to write songs as good as such hits, let alone better. If it were, classical composers would be doing it during Mondays to become rich, composing classical music as a hobby during the rest of the week.
> 
> I'm personally interested in what happens in the game music genre. Games are sort of like opera libretti, in that they provide a background and an opportunity to compose the kinds of music that composers wouldn't ordinarily compose, such as this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Mega Man X, Intro Stage
> 
> It's of course vulgar music but it's also very neat and its own kind of thing, a sort of gem. The point though is, you can't get away with music like this anywhere except video games. In another five hundred years, the game music genre could be an important tradition with dozens of composers standing out and having poured their genius into it in ways that you can't find in other genres.


You lose me with that youtube entry. To me, it sounds like retrograde pop music that might be used on "The Wheel of Fortune". There's nothing original or interesting going on.


----------



## Chordalrock

Bulldog said:


> You lose me with that youtube entry. To me, it sounds like retrograde pop music that might be used on "The Wheel of Fortune". There's nothing original or interesting going on.


Well, I was reading one of the comments in this thread and it hit me I'm listening to music in a different way from the person who made that post. Your comment echoes his point, so I should point out that I don't listen to music in order to find something unexpected in it, I'm not looking for a new kind of modulation or rhythm or what have you. I'm not that sophisticated. What I'm mainly interested in is characterfulness - something more recognisable to me than an innovative way of delaying a cadence or structuring a phrase. I'm mainly interested in the piece being its own piece, that it doesn't sound like a dozen other pieces - or if it does, it should be significantly better done than those other pieces, its notes should belong more, it should have a sort of "I was here first" about it, even if the piece is the newest of the bunch. I focus on musical material and what I hear rather than motivic development or other rather abstract things that might provide uniqueness to a piece of music but which I don't hear or think about consciously.

To me, if it sounds different, it's different. If it doesn't and I'd need indepth analysis or a lot more listening experience, well, to me it's just not that different.

At this point I must request youtube links to pieces that sound like the piece I linked - I'm willing to change my opinion of it, after all it could be I just haven't been exposed to enough music of this sort so can't make an informed judgement yet.


----------



## tgtr0660

Well, I do think it is superior, FOR ME. I like a lot of rock and some pop and other genres here and there but I always end up preferring classical music, because, to put it in miserably simple terms, I can learn all there is to learn about a pop song in its run time and maybe in a couple of additional listens, but I have heard Bach's St Mathew Passion a million times and I'm still finding more and more to be amazed and, ultimately, made better by. 

It just stimulates my brain more, what can I say. 

And yes I even used to play drums in a rock band for quite a while. Classical music I have liked ever since I was a child.


----------



## shangoyal

Well, listening to Beethoven's 7th, it's clear what HE thought about the matter. He seems to be going - "LISTEN SHEEP! THIS IS THE MUSIC, NOW DON"T FORGET!!!!!"

Maybe von Weber was absolutely right in calling him ripe for the madhouse.


----------



## Mahlerian

Chordalrock said:


> Well, I was reading one of the comments in this thread and it hit me I'm listening to music in a different way from the person who made that post. Your comment echoes his point, so I should point out that I don't listen to music in order to find something unexpected in it, I'm not looking for a new kind of modulation or rhythm or what have you. I'm not that sophisticated. What I'm mainly interested in is characterfulness - something more recognisable to me than an innovative way of delaying a cadence or structuring a phrase. I'm mainly interested in the piece being its own piece, that it doesn't sound like a dozen other pieces - or if it does, it should be significantly better done than those other pieces, its notes should belong more, it should have a sort of "I was here first" about it, even if the piece is the newest of the bunch. *I focus on musical material and what I hear rather than motivic development* or other rather abstract things that might provide uniqueness to a piece of music but which I don't hear or think about consciously.


This is self-contradictory. Motivic development _is_ the musical material and the way it's used. It's not "abstract" at all. When we hear the rhythmic motif from Beethoven's Fifth used in all sorts of different ways, it's that process of going from one way to another, and hearing the connections between them, that constitutes motivic development.

All of the technical terms regarding music that are useful for the listener, lay or educated, refer to things that can be heard. You might not be aware that X is what you are hearing, but you are probably hearing it.


----------



## Varick

I'm not quite sure where this modern fear of calling something superior "superior" comes from. Is it fear that one may be considered egotistical, snobby, elitist because one likes that "superior" thing? Is it fear that they may be regarded as a "lesser" human being if they do not enjoy, like, or understand something that is "superior?"

This movement of "relativism" has unfortunately spread to almost all aspects of life in western culture, and we are worse off because of it. It appears the only thing people are comfortable making judgements on nowadays, are those who make judgements and those who do not agree with them (ironic eh?). Discrimination (to start using even more language that many are uncomfortable with) is part of human nature and it is essential to survival. Now, is there good discrimination and bad discrimination? Of course there is. Anyone who thinks there isn't is a moron, and anyone who thinks that one who accepts and embraces the idea of discrimination must engage in "bad" discrimination, is also a moron.

In my world, I have noticed a few things:

1. Something that takes longer to understand, longer to study, longer to become proficient at, sometimes even longer to appreciate is often superior than something in the same realm that doesn't take as long. Yes, it certainly means that it is more complex as well.

The engineering of the Space Shuttle is vastly superior to the engineering of an automobile. The skills and knowledge needed to fly the space shuttle are superior to the skills and knowledge needed to drive an automobile. It takes a lot longer to understand, study, and become proficient at engineering a space craft than it is to engineering an automobile.

It takes longer to become a proficient ballet dancer than it does to become a proficient Tango dancer or break dancer. Ballet dancing is superior to Tango and break dancing.

It takes longer to become a proficient writer of literature than it does to become a proficient blogger. Literature is superior to blogs.

2. If someone enjoys or does something superior, it does not make them a superior person.
3. If someone does not enjoy something or doing something superior, it does not make them an inferior person.
4. If someone likes something or doing something inferior, it does not make them an inferior person.

Points 2-4 are so self-evident, so common sense, it amazes me how few people actually believe it. They just hate words like "superior" or "better" because it means that everything isn't equal, and more and more people somehow think that everything should be equal when there is nothing remotely like that in life.

I LOVE Wendy's cheeseburgers. Overall, as cheeseburgers go, as quality meat goes, as quality ingredients go, and healthy meals go... it's tough to find something MORE "inferior." It does not make me any less of a human being because I enjoy them.

I really enjoyed a lot of Schwarzenegger movies (There, I said it). They are great "check-your-brain-at-the-door" fun movies. Are they inferior to movies like Shawshank Redemption? Godfather? Mystic River? Sophie's Choice? You betcha!!! Doesn't make me a bad guy at all.

Just like loving movies like Shawshank Redemption, The Sting, or Sophie's Choice doesn't makes me a better person either.

Does anyone believe that writing a script or a story like Shawshank that makes you laugh, cry, cringe, joyful, cheer, and sad, and stays on your mind days, weeks, months and years after you see it is just as easy as writing a script for one of the Fast & Furious movies? Why can so many people say that "Shawshank" is a superior movie than "Fast and Furious 5", but can't admit that Beethoven's 9th is a far superior work than Stairway To Heaven? 

I love classical music. Much of it is SUPERIOR (There, I said that too) to almost every other form of music out there. I don't enjoy all of it, and I certainly enjoy a lot of the inferior music out there (I LOVE R&R). Just because John enjoys classical more and hates Rap, but Bob loves Rap and hates classical doesn't make John a better or superior person in any way, shape, or form, nor does it make Bob an inferior person in any way shape or form. One just likes a "better" music than the other. Nothing wrong with that.

Again, I'm not sure where this fear of admitting something you like is superior to something else, or fear of admitting something you like is inferior to other things in the same category.

I'll bet that the vast majority of here who claim that classical is not superior to Pop or R&R, would say that Beethoven's 9th is a superior piece of music than "Stairway to Heaven" or "Like A Rolling Stone". Bach's Mass in B Minor is a superior piece of music than "Born To Run" or "Imagine." Verdi's Requiem is a superior piece of music than "Take Five" or Miles Davis' "So What." You can take 100's of classical pieces, put them up against 100's of great Rock or Metal, or Folk, or Country, or Jazz (maybe less so with Jazz - & I'm not a huge jazz fan), and anyone who knows anything about music is going to say that the classical pieces are usually superior. But the same people who would rate most of the classical in that comparison superior will turn around and say that classical isn't superior overall.

V


----------



## hpowders

Varick said:


> I'm not quite sure where this modern fear of calling something superior "superior" comes from. Is it fear that one may be considered egotistical, snobby, elitist because one likes that "superior" thing? Is it fear that they may be regarded as a "lesser" human being if they do not enjoy, like, or understand something that is "superior?"
> 
> This movement of "relativism" has unfortunately spread to almost all aspects of life in western culture, and we are worse off because of it. It appears the only thing people are comfortable making judgements on nowadays, are those who make judgements and those who do not agree with them (ironic eh?). Discrimination (to start using even more language that many are uncomfortable with) is part of human nature and it is essential to survival. Now, is there good discrimination and bad discrimination? Of course there is. Anyone who thinks there isn't is a moron, and anyone who thinks that one who accepts and embraces the idea of discrimination must engage in "bad" discrimination, is also a moron.
> 
> In my world, I have noticed a few things:
> 
> 1. Something that takes longer to understand, longer to study, longer to become proficient at, sometimes even longer to appreciate is often superior than something in the same realm that doesn't take as long. Yes, it certainly means that it is more complex as well.
> 
> The engineering of the Space Shuttle is vastly superior to the engineering of an automobile. The skills and knowledge needed to fly the space shuttle are superior to the skills and knowledge needed to drive an automobile. It takes a lot longer to understand, study, and become proficient at engineering a space craft than it is to engineering an automobile.
> 
> It takes longer to become a proficient ballet dancer than it does to become a proficient Tango dancer or break dancer. Ballet dancing is superior to Tango and break dancing.
> 
> It takes longer to become a proficient writer of literature than it does to become a proficient blogger. Literature is superior to blogs.
> 
> 2. If someone enjoys or does something superior, it does not make them a superior person.
> 3. If someone does not enjoy something or doing something superior, it does not make them an inferior person.
> 4. If someone likes something or doing something inferior, it does not make them an inferior person.
> 
> Points 2-4 are so self-evident, so common sense, it amazes me how few people actually believe it. They just hate words like "superior" or "better" because it means that everything isn't equal, and more and more people somehow think that everything should be equal when there is nothing remotely like that in life.
> 
> I LOVE Wendy's cheeseburgers. Overall, as cheeseburgers go, as quality meat goes, as quality ingredients go, and healthy meals go... it's tough to find something MORE "inferior." It does not make me any less of a human being because I enjoy them.
> 
> I really enjoyed a lot of Schwarzenegger movies (There, I said it). They are great "check-your-brain-at-the-door" fun movies. Are they inferior to movies like Shawshank Redemption? Godfather? Mystic River? Sophie's Choice? You betcha!!! Doesn't make me a bad guy at all.
> 
> Just like loving movies like Shawshank Redemption, The Sting, or Sophie's Choice doesn't makes me a better person either.
> 
> Does anyone believe that writing a script or a story like Shawshank that makes you laugh, cry, cringe, joyful, cheer, and sad, and stays on your mind days, weeks, months and years after you see it is just as easy as writing a script for one of the Fast & Furious movies? Why can so many people say that "Shawshank" is a superior movie than "Fast and Furious 5", but can't admit that Beethoven's 9th is a far superior work than Stairway To Heaven?
> 
> I love classical music. Much of it is SUPERIOR (There, I said that too) to almost every other form of music out there. I don't enjoy all of it, and I certainly enjoy a lot of the inferior music out there (I LOVE R&R). Just because John enjoys classical more and hates Rap, but Bob loves Rap and hates classical doesn't make John a better or superior person in any way, shape, or form, nor does it make Bob an inferior person in any way shape or form. One just likes a "better" music than the other. Nothing wrong with that.
> 
> Again, I'm not sure where this fear of admitting something you like is superior to something else, or fear of admitting something you like is inferior to other things in the same category.
> 
> I'll bet that the vast majority of here who claim that classical is not superior to Pop or R&R, would say that Beethoven's 9th is a superior piece of music than "Stairway to Heaven" or "Like A Rolling Stone". Bach's Mass in B Minor is a superior piece of music than "Born To Run" or "Imagine." Verdi's Requiem is a superior piece of music than "Take Five" or Miles Davis' "So What." You can take 100's of classical pieces, put them up against 100's of great Rock or Metal, or Folk, or Country, or Jazz (maybe less so with Jazz - & I'm not a huge jazz fan), and anyone who knows anything about music is going to say that the classical pieces are usually superior. But the same people who would rate most of the classical in that comparison superior will turn around and say that classical isn't superior overall.
> 
> V


Not "fear". Simply mislabeling. Plenty of highly sophisticated musical languages out there. Classical is simply one of many.


----------



## Varick

hpowders said:


> Not "fear". Simply mislabeling. Plenty of highly sophisticated musical languages out there. Classical is simply one of many.


I agree. There are plenty. But some more than others.

But I do think for many, it's fear. Whether they realize it or admit it, or not.

I just can't believe that you Hpowders, read such a lengthy post!

V


----------



## Guest

Varick said:


> I'm not quite sure where this modern fear of calling something superior "superior" comes from. Is it fear that one may be considered egotistical, snobby, elitist because one likes that "superior" thing? Is it fear that they may be regarded as a "lesser" human being if they do not enjoy, like, or understand something that is "superior?"
> 
> This movement of "relativism" has unfortunately spread to almost all aspects of life in western culture, and we are worse off because of it. It appears the only thing people are comfortable making judgements on nowadays, are those who make judgements and those who do not agree with them (ironic eh?). Discrimination (to start using even more language that many are uncomfortable with) is part of human nature and it is essential to survival. Now, is there good discrimination and bad discrimination? Of course there is. Anyone who thinks there isn't is a moron, and anyone who thinks that one who accepts and embraces the idea of discrimination must engage in "bad" discrimination, is also a moron.
> 
> In my world, I have noticed a few things:
> 
> 1. Something that takes longer to understand, longer to study, longer to become proficient at, sometimes even longer to appreciate is often superior than something in the same realm that doesn't take as long. Yes, it certainly means that it is more complex as well.
> 
> The engineering of the Space Shuttle is vastly superior to the engineering of an automobile. The skills and knowledge needed to fly the space shuttle are superior to the skills and knowledge needed to drive an automobile. It takes a lot longer to understand, study, and become proficient at engineering a space craft than it is to engineering an automobile.
> 
> It takes longer to become a proficient ballet dancer than it does to become a proficient Tango dancer or break dancer. Ballet dancing is superior to Tango and break dancing.
> 
> It takes longer to become a proficient writer of literature than it does to become a proficient blogger. Literature is superior to blogs.
> 
> 2. If someone enjoys or does something superior, it does not make them a superior person.
> 3. If someone does not enjoy something or doing something superior, it does not make them an inferior person.
> 4. If someone likes something or doing something inferior, it does not make them an inferior person.
> 
> Points 2-4 are so self-evident, so common sense, it amazes me how few people actually believe it. They just hate words like "superior" or "better" because it means that everything isn't equal, and more and more people somehow think that everything should be equal when there is nothing remotely like that in life.
> 
> I LOVE Wendy's cheeseburgers. Overall, as cheeseburgers go, as quality meat goes, as quality ingredients go, and healthy meals go... it's tough to find something MORE "inferior." It does not make me any less of a human being because I enjoy them.
> 
> I really enjoyed a lot of Schwarzenegger movies (There, I said it). They are great "check-your-brain-at-the-door" fun movies. Are they inferior to movies like Shawshank Redemption? Godfather? Mystic River? Sophie's Choice? You betcha!!! Doesn't make me a bad guy at all.
> 
> Just like loving movies like Shawshank Redemption, The Sting, or Sophie's Choice doesn't makes me a better person either.
> 
> Does anyone believe that writing a script or a story like Shawshank that makes you laugh, cry, cringe, joyful, cheer, and sad, and stays on your mind days, weeks, months and years after you see it is just as easy as writing a script for one of the Fast & Furious movies? Why can so many people say that "Shawshank" is a superior movie than "Fast and Furious 5", but can't admit that Beethoven's 9th is a far superior work than Stairway To Heaven?
> 
> I love classical music. Much of it is SUPERIOR (There, I said that too) to almost every other form of music out there. I don't enjoy all of it, and I certainly enjoy a lot of the inferior music out there (I LOVE R&R). Just because John enjoys classical more and hates Rap, but Bob loves Rap and hates classical doesn't make John a better or superior person in any way, shape, or form, nor does it make Bob an inferior person in any way shape or form. One just likes a "better" music than the other. Nothing wrong with that.
> 
> Again, I'm not sure where this fear of admitting something you like is superior to something else, or fear of admitting something you like is inferior to other things in the same category.
> 
> I'll bet that the vast majority of here who claim that classical is not superior to Pop or R&R, would say that Beethoven's 9th is a superior piece of music than "Stairway to Heaven" or "Like A Rolling Stone". Bach's Mass in B Minor is a superior piece of music than "Born To Run" or "Imagine." Verdi's Requiem is a superior piece of music than "Take Five" or Miles Davis' "So What." You can take 100's of classical pieces, put them up against 100's of great Rock or Metal, or Folk, or Country, or Jazz (maybe less so with Jazz - & I'm not a huge jazz fan), and anyone who knows anything about music is going to say that the classical pieces are usually superior. But the same people who would rate most of the classical in that comparison superior will turn around and say that classical isn't superior overall.
> 
> V


Start with a false premise (that many people 'fear' to call something superior) and speed down from there (the infection of 'relativism').

Presumably, the reverse is true as well: that those who say it _is _superior fear, if they don't, being identified as an undiscerning listener, incapable of spotting that which makes classical superior?



> I'll bet that the vast majority of here who claim that classical is not superior to Pop or R&R, would say that Beethoven's 9th is a superior piece of music than "Stairway to Heaven" or "Like A Rolling Stone".


I can't speak for the rest of the world, but _I _wouldn't. Whatever else I might say when comparing these pieces, it wouldn't involve the term 'superior'.


----------



## Chordalrock

Mahlerian said:


> This is self-contradictory. Motivic development _is_ the musical material and the way it's used.


Read the rest of the sentence. I said I don't notice it, think about it, or focus on it consciously. Now, I do sometimes focus on motivic development while listening to a piece of music - it's rare but sometimes I do for whatever reason - and I notice motivic use that I haven't noticed before. Obviously, even without trying to think about it, I sometimes pick up similarities of motives in different passages, but the fact that I don't notice them all suggests that my normal mode of listening is different as I pointed out, and - perhaps more to the point - I don't try to derive any pleasure from following motivic development. To me, such pleasure would alienate me from the true nature of the music, would make it more like solving a puzzle and less like appreciating beauty.

Also, it's incorrect to imply that all classical music is about motives and their development. It's more correct to say that most classical music of the common practice period is about themes, which may or may not contain significant amounts of motivic unity. Take Liszt's song, Die Loreley, for example. The first minute and a half that I just analysed contains so little in terms of motivic development that it could only be a side effect of Liszt's melodic creation rather than something that he consciously added. So, properly called, it's not motivic development at all.


----------



## Blancrocher

Varick said:


> Beethoven's 9th is a far superior work than Stairway To Heaven


As a curious aside, I don't believe either work has ever been played as an encore. It's maddening when bands refuse to play their best stuff.


----------



## Chordalrock

Varick said:


> but can't admit that Beethoven's 9th is a far superior work than Stairway To Heaven?


I suspect you could have used a better example. Beethoven wrote a lot of music comparable to the quality of his 9th symphony, while Led Zeppelin, even according to their own words, have never written anything else remotely as good as Stairway to Heaven. Pop pieces like that don't grow on trees, while the classic composers crank out their masterpieces one after another.


----------



## norman bates

Chordalrock said:


> Led Zeppelin, even according to their own words, have never written anything else remotely as good as Stairway to Heaven.


Stairway to heaven is a good song, but I would not call it a great composition even for the standards of a pop song (and in my opinion they wrote a lot of other songs of the same level).


----------



## Chordalrock

norman bates said:


> Stairway to heaven is a good song, but I would not call it a great composition even for the standards of a pop song (and in my opinion they wrote a lot of other songs of the same level).


Well, you'd be in a small minority with that opinion.

I think the evaluation of a composition is such a complex psychological process that, even though I have a rather good grasp of that process, I don't feel like taking a crack at it. But here goes:

Expectations derived from what you've listened to - I mentioned this earlier as well. These are basically mental models, I guess they're like Piaget's schemas.

In addition, the ability to perceive musical information: hear all the voices, structure rhythm and phrases mentally.

In addition, associations - both emotional and mental. These have the least to do with the evaluation of objective quality in music and may easily bias evaluation and even make it completely subjective.

So, expectations, associations, and raw capacity to process music.

I'm not sure which of these would be the domain that makes you evaluate this song so differently from the majority, who consider it a rare classic and barely care about the other songs Led Zeppelin wrote (I belong to this group). I suppose it's not a stretch to assume that your mental models are very different due to a different background in listening to music. You may have listened to so much music in your critical years (childhood) that you hear most solidly done music as somehow special and have lost the ability to recognise what makes certain compositions special to less experienced listeners.

Any thoughts?


----------



## tdc

~IMO~

Norman is wrong in thinking that Zeppelin's music was merely "good". 

Chordalrock is wrong in thinking none of Zeppelin's other work matches Stairway. 

Zeppelin's music is timeless and classic. (but yes of course some of their songs are better than others and yes they ripped some stuff off).

end of discussion.


----------



## Art Rock

Re: whether Beethoven's 9th is superior over Stairway to heaven.... define superior. 

Superior from a musical complexity point of view: you are probably right.
Superior from the point of view of being preferred to listen to by the majority: you are probably wrong.


----------



## Animato

I think the problem with classical music – being considered as „superior“ – are the various predjudices against classical music or against their listeners: listeners of classical music are snobbish, classical music is elite, you have to be intelligent in order to „understand“ classical music, only old people hear classical music. I don’t like these predjudices – and they are not true neither. When you buy a smart phone, you want the best one, when you buy a washing mashine you want the best one, when you buy a car you want the newest one. But why do so few people listen to classical music? It is the most developed music I know, there is dramatic development, change of harmony, rhythm etc.

By the way: During Beethoven’s time, there did not exist such thing as “popular music”. There was a lot of “Folk-music”, namely songs, dances for festivities. And there was no animosity among the styles. Beethoven used a lot of folk-music in his works, best example: Sixth symphony. 

So why do a lot of people avoid classical music nowadays? Why do we distinguish between “classical” and “pop” music at all? Beethoven is quite popular for me


----------



## Woodduck

Some of the arguments for and against the superiority of classical music cite its "complexity." But what does this signify?

Complexity for its own sake is not valuable. On the contrary, a discriminating artist strives for economy, defined as the state of being no more complex (but also no simpler) than necessary. If I love complex music, it isn't because it has a lot of notes, but because it _needs_ those notes - because its composer has found just the right notes to accomplish his aim, and no more. Beethoven struggled to pare his ideas down to their essentials; Mozart did it more easily; Schubert did it brilliantly when he wrote a song, but maybe, sometimes, miscalculated a little when he built a symphony. But whether the work in question is fifty bars long or five thousand, there is an internal logic of form and significance that leads a good composer to find just the right notes, whether many or few.

This principle applies to most kinds of music, classical among them (I say most, allowing that music may sometimes perform functions - e.g. meditation or dancing - to which form is less or not at all relevant). But some forms of music have evolved more complex structures than others, none more so than what we call classical music. Classical music is not superior to other musics by virtue of complexity as such; a complex symphony may in fact be inferior to a simple song, in that it may fail to make syntactical and expressive sense, while the song may, in a few carefully crafted bars, go straight to the heart. There is bad - uninspired and poorly composed - classical music and great - inspired and well-written - popular music. But given that, there is something to be said for music that _needs_ to be complex - needs all of its hundreds or thousands of notes and their interrelationships in order to say what it has to say - and for the creative power of composers able to produce such music. And it does happen that such music and its composers tend largely to fall under the category we call "classical" (and not only in Western culture: India, for example, has its classical musical too, music capable of great complexity, and creators/performers of extraordinary imagination and skill).

Well-composed music which is complex because it needs to be is simultaneously a delight to the mind and a nourishment to the spirit of one able to hear, comprehend, and appreciate it. In such music, physical complexity may embody complexity of meaning: it has richness, subtlety, breadth, depth. If these qualities, and the ability to express and appreciate them, are virtues and things to be esteemed and desired, I would not hesitate to call superior the music in which we find them.


----------



## norman bates

tdc said:


> ~IMO~
> 
> Norman is wrong in thinking that Zeppelin's music was merely "good".


Considering only the composition, not the performance or the arrangement (it was one of the first songs I learned on guitar). 
By the way Achilles last stand is one of my favorite hard rock songs but in general hard rock to me is not exactly the first genre I would consider for brilliant songwriting.


----------



## Skilmarilion

Art Rock said:


> Re: whether Beethoven's 9th is superior over Stairway to heaven.... define superior.
> 
> Superior from a musical complexity point of view: you are probably right.
> *Superior from the point of view of being preferred to listen to by the majority: you are probably wrong*.


The 'majority' would also prefer to listen to Gangnam Style.


----------



## Art Rock

Yes, they would. What's your point?


----------



## norman bates

Chordalrock said:


> Well, you'd be in a small minority with that opinion.
> 
> I think the evaluation of a composition is such a complex psychological process that, even though I have a rather good grasp of that process, I don't feel like taking a crack at it. But here goes:
> 
> Expectations derived from what you've listened to - I mentioned this earlier as well. These are basically mental models, I guess they're like Piaget's schemas.
> 
> In addition, the ability to perceive musical information: hear all the voices, structure rhythm and phrases mentally.
> 
> In addition, associations - both emotional and mental. These have the least to do with the evaluation of objective quality in music and may easily bias evaluation and even make it completely subjective.
> 
> So, expectations, associations, and raw capacity to process music.
> 
> I'm not sure which of these would be the domain that makes you evaluate this song so differently from the majority, who consider it a rare classic and barely care about the other songs Led Zeppelin wrote (I belong to this group). I suppose it's not a stretch to assume that your mental models are very different due to a different background in listening to music. You may have listened to so much music in your critical years (childhood) that you hear most solidly done music as somehow special and have lost the ability to recognise what makes certain compositions special to less experienced listeners.
> 
> Any thoughts?


As I've said, I'm not talking of the song as a whole (interpretation, arrangement, solo, vocals) but just considering the musical composition. Besides that, the fact that a song is considered a classic doesn't necessarily have to do with a superior quality (if I remember well, Stairway was considered boring by many fans at first), sometimes a song of a band is more famous so a lot of new casual listeners will listen only to that song.


----------



## Skilmarilion

Art Rock said:


> Yes, they would. What's your point?


I just didn't understand the connection you made between 'superiority' and the listening preferences of the 'majority'.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

Skilmarilion said:


> I just didn't understand the connection you made between 'superiority' and the listening preferences of the 'majority'.


I don't want to speak for Art Rock, but I think he may have been emphasizing the lack of a clear definition for "Superior" in this context. Does superior mean greater complexity? Does it mean more people listen to it? Does it mean a very large number of experts agree on a certain work being superior? Etc etc. Furthermore, superior at what, precisely? Making people feel good, evoking certain emotions, creating atmosphere, etc?

An all-encompassing "Superiority" is difficult if not impossible to pin down.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

Skilmarilion said:


> The 'majority' would also prefer to listen to Gangnam Style.


I think that video is hilarious.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

I think classical music basically takes the most skill, talent and hard work to compose out of probably all music forms. That's probably why it enjoys the status of being 'superior' - but music can also be viewed pragmatically - for pure dancing, I guess techno is better suited than classical. Each musical form is better than the others at the thing it specializes in. Classical tends to specialize in compositional craft and instrumental colour, I would say.


----------



## Art Rock

DiesIraeVIX said:


> I don't want to speak for Art Rock, but I think he may have been emphasizing the lack of a clear definition for "Superior" in this context. Does superior mean greater complexity? Does it mean more people listen to it? Does it mean a very large number of experts agree on a certain work being superior? Etc etc. Furthermore, superior at what, precisely? Making people feel good, evoking certain emotions, creating atmosphere, etc?
> 
> An all-encompassing "Superiority" is difficult if not impossible to pin down.


Bingo.

It is quite common in these discussions that terms are undefined and yet discussed. At least Art Music usually stated so in his posts (this can mean whatever you decided it means) - not that it makes for a better discussion.

I see no reason why "superior" should be taken to mean "musically more complex".


----------



## Mahlerian

Chordalrock said:


> Read the rest of the sentence. I said I don't notice it, think about it, or focus on it consciously. Now, I do sometimes focus on motivic development while listening to a piece of music - it's rare but sometimes I do for whatever reason - and I notice motivic use that I haven't noticed before. Obviously, even without trying to think about it, I sometimes pick up similarities of motives in different passages, but the fact that I don't notice them all suggests that my normal mode of listening is different as I pointed out, and - perhaps more to the point - I don't try to derive any pleasure from following motivic development. To me, such pleasure would alienate me from the true nature of the music, would make it more like solving a puzzle and less like appreciating beauty.
> 
> Also, it's incorrect to imply that all classical music is about motives and their development. It's more correct to say that most classical music of the common practice period is about themes, which may or may not contain significant amounts of motivic unity. Take Liszt's song, Die Loreley, for example. The first minute and a half that I just analysed contains so little in terms of motivic development that it could only be a side effect of Liszt's melodic creation rather than something that he consciously added. So, properly called, it's not motivic development at all.


The point is not that motivic development is something present in all music (although one could argue it's a basic characteristic of most common practice music), but that it's not something "abstract" and that if you're listening to the "musical material", you _are_ paying attention to it. Whether or not it's done consciously is of absolutely no consequence either way. Theoretical terms do not exist in order to clarify the composer's process, but the composer's final product, whatever the process involved may have been.



> such pleasure would alienate me from the true nature of the music


How? What is the "true nature" of music, and how would recognizing a particular aspect (without, of course, failing to recognize other aspects) alienate you from it?


----------



## Chordalrock

If I don't pay attention to motives consciously, I will (typically) neither realise that motives are used, nor be able to derive pleasure from noticing how they are used. It's pretty simple.

Re "true nature of the music", I mean the impression that the music leaves without being analysed, without the skeleton, such as the skeleton of how melodies were constructed from motivic units, being exposed behind the flesh and skin. To pay attention to how a composition has been composed, is to analyse it. Marvelling at the skill and ingenuity of how something was constructed can distract you from what the music actually sounds like (i.e. its true nature).


----------



## hpowders

OP: The mistaken perception of the labeler.


----------



## Mahlerian

Chordalrock said:


> If I don't pay attention to motives consciously, I will (typically) neither realise that motives are used, nor be able to derive pleasure from noticing how they are used. It's pretty simple.
> 
> Re "true nature of the music", I mean the impression that the music leaves without being analysed, without the skeleton, such as the skeleton of how melodies were constructed from motivic units, being exposed behind the flesh and skin. To pay attention to how a composition has been composed, is to analyse it. Marvelling at the skill and ingenuity of how something was constructed can distract you from what the music actually sounds like (i.e. its true nature).


But the structure cannot help but influence your perception of how it sounds. You are trying to separate things which cannot be separated. Regardless of whether or not the experience is conscious, it does affect what you are hearing.

Once more, to pay attention to the structure of something is only to listen to it. One does not have to engage in analysis in order to follow a piece of music. Do you analyze a pop song when you hear "this is the verse, this is the chorus, this is the second verse"? Of course not. It no more counts as analysis to recognize "this is the motif that I just heard, in a new form/register/orchestration" in the midst of a piece than it does to recognize the basic elements of a song.

I also think it's bizarre to believe that the surface is more representative of the "true nature" of music than the elements which create the surface. Why are you so convinced that one is unable to perceive both at the same time?


----------



## Varick

Art Rock said:


> Re: whether Beethoven's 9th is superior over Stairway to heaven.... define superior.
> 
> Superior from a musical complexity point of view: you are probably right.
> Superior from the point of view of being preferred to listen to by the majority: you are probably wrong.


If you read my entire post, I defined superior with many many examples. But in case you missed my long winded post, _HaydnBearstheClock_ eloquently restated my case.



HaydnBearstheClock said:


> I think *classical music basically takes the most skill, talent and hard work to compose out of probably all music forms.* That's probably why it enjoys the status of being 'superior' - but music can also be viewed pragmatically - for pure dancing, I guess techno is better suited than classical. Each musical form is better than the others at the thing it specializes in. Classical tends to specialize in compositional craft and instrumental colour, I would say.


And not *just* to compose, but to perform proficiently as well. It takes a lot more time, skill, and talent to be able to play Liszts Transcendental Etudes or even most of Mozart's Piano Sonatas well, than it does to perform the guitar parts, drummer parts or bass parts to Stairway to Heaven well. As is the case to play much more classical music well as opposed to other genres of music well. I'd even say it's harder to play most of Mendelssohn's "Songs Without Words" well than it is to play most pop/rock songs well.

And no, I am not saying that *just because* a piece of music is difficult to perform, it automatically makes it superior. Those examples would be the exceptions to the rule. And exceptions (of which there are always to every rule) do not negate rules, even though that seems to be another modern trend: Negate the rule by citing the exceptions.

V


----------



## Harrytjuh

I think Pink Floyd's music is so great, I would almost call it classical music with electric guitars.


----------



## neoshredder

Superior? Music is an acquired taste. Nothing is superior in music. It can be more popular or difficult to play. But the beauty part is in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## violadude

neoshredder said:


> Superior? Music is an acquired taste. Nothing is superior in music. It can be more popular or difficult to play. But the beauty part is in the eye of the beholder.


I half way agree with this. At the same time though, some beholders have keener ears than others.


----------



## Art Rock

@Varick, re: "classical music basically takes the most skill, talent and hard work to compose out of probably all music forms". "And not just to compose, but to perform proficiently as well."

I agree of course. What I do not agree with is that this makes it superior. Different, sure. But why insist on calling it superior (and therefore all other music inferior) based on this?


----------



## trazom

Art Rock said:


> @Varick, re: "classical music basically takes the most skill, talent and hard work to compose out of probably all music forms". "And not just to compose, but to perform proficiently as well."
> 
> I agree of course. What I do not agree with is that this makes it superior. Different, sure. But why insist on calling it superior (and therefore all other music inferior) based on this?


Indeed, we need to define what we mean by 'superior' first. Okay, YES, at first glance, we may think that say Beethoven was a superior musician to Britney Spears; but we haven't agreed on what superior means. I mean, let's consider the aspects of pop music and performance that have the advantage. First of all, Beethoven never sang in any of his compositions and he didn't write lyrics about hooking up with people so he obviously has no relevance or meaning to today's youth. Secondly, Beethoven didn't make as much money as Britney and money is very important as well as having millions of fans who follow you on twitter, so there's THAT. In terms of performance, Britney really knew how to shake her *** better than Beethoven and since Beethoven has never aroused that sort of titillation so prevalent in pop music, he obviously could never compete with her on that level. Finally, we can't use Beethoven for that nostalgic factor which makes pop music better by remembering how much better music was "in the old days" since everyone from his time is already dead. Then there's having your music video performed on mtv, and making a sex tape, and influencing your fans with your outfit and dance moves. None of the old composers did any of that. Oh, and dying of natural causes is so lame. If he really wanted to prove how great a musician he was, he would've OD'd on something like laudanum when he was 27.

On a more serious note, sometimes when listening to Jim Morrison, I think he was the rock and roll Jesus.


----------



## stevens

"What makes Classical music superior?"

-Because superior people loves it


----------



## violadude

stevens said:


> "What makes Classical music superior?"
> 
> -Because superior people loves it


Ya, but so did Hitler.


----------



## Sid James

shangoyal said:


> What do you think makes classical music better? From a material point of view, is it because CM is more complex technically, or there are deeper and more well-formed ideas in it as compared to other music. Is it less based on the feelings of the moment and more like a long term meditation on nature and creation? Ideas, technique, complexity, anything. Let's hear all your opinions! :tiphat:


I think classical music can be very complex, there is no denying it. I really value classical music for its sheer variety as well as its history, which I find just as interesting. However each type of music has its own purpose, and as long as it satisfies that purpose, it succeeds in its own right. This is why I see it less as a case of one type of music being superior to another and more a case of what makes each type of music unique, and therefore enjoyable based on its own merits.

I have been listening again to my non classical collection, in particular jazz, and as in classical the shortest pieces can have so much creativity and imagination in them, they are just as amazing to hear as say a very long and complex classical piece. The same can be said of other genres which I am enjoying now more and more, such as country.

This speaks to the differences within classical, and again the different aims and restrictions within which composers work in. There is no use in saying whether a short piano piece by Chopin is superior to an over hour long Bruckner symphony. Both are great on their own merits, there is no need to set up some argument (or dichotomy?) about superiority to say they are great.

I suppose ultimately Western classical music is in some ways weighed down by its long history,and a tendency to form cliques around various ideologies. Fashions come and go too, as in anything. I am well aware of the downsides of classical as well as its good points, but I wouldn't be without it nonetheless. To me classical isn't about what is and isn't superior (or more or less so), but its something that involves making choices, and that applies to musicians and listeners in various ways too.


----------



## stevens

violadude said:


> Ya, but so did Hitler.


 You know, there were no rocknroll 1933


----------



## Varick

Art Rock said:


> @Varick, re: "classical music basically takes the most skill, talent and hard work to compose out of probably all music forms". "And not just to compose, but to perform proficiently as well."
> 
> I agree of course. What I do not agree with is that this makes it superior. Different, sure. But why insist on calling it superior (and therefore all other music inferior) based on this?


I insist calling it superior because that's the plain and simple truth of it. Again, I don't know where this groundswell of resistance against the word comes from. It's the same reason why I will call professional major league baseball playing superior to high school baseball playing.

Same reason why I will call the engineering of a space craft superior to the engineering of an automobile.

Same reason I will call the writing of Moby Dick superior than anything that Danielle Steele has ever written.

Same reason I will call the Mona Lisa superior to graffiti (so-called) art.

Same reason I will call Michelangelo's David superior to the giant Dog peeing on the side of the Orange County Art museum (If that isn't a perfect metaphor of what a lot of modern art has become - or at least what it's good for, I don't know what is).

Same reason I will call Emerson Lake & Palmer's Karn evil #9 superior to anything AC/DC ever wrote (And I like a lot of AC/DC).

Same reason why I will call Steely Dan's music superior to Billy Idol's (And I much rather listen to Billy Idol than Steely Dan - even though they have one of the greatest band names in the history of R&R, I just don't enjoy Steely Dan's music).

Same reason why I will call a steak from Smith & Wollensky's Steak House superior to a steak from The Outback Steakhouse

To me, it's so obvious, it's so easy to "get," but for some reason that evades me, people are so deathly reluctant to call ANYTHING superior to anything else these days.



Sid James said:


> I think classical music can be very complex, there is no denying it. I really value classical music for its sheer variety as well as its history, which I find just as interesting. *However each type of music has its own purpose, and as long as it satisfies that purpose, it succeeds in its own right. This is why I see it less as a case of one type of music being superior to another and more a case of what makes each type of music unique, and therefore enjoyable based on its own merits. *
> 
> I have been listening again to my non classical collection, in particular jazz, and as in classical the shortest pieces can have so much creativity and imagination in them, *they are just as amazing to hear as say a very long and complex classical piece. The same can be said of other genres which I am enjoying now more and more, such as country.*


No one is arguing (or at least I'm not) against anything that I embolded. I would never insist, nor even suggest that one genre of music is more moving, enjoyable, likeable, perfect for a certain mood, etc than any other genre. These are human and emotional connections to music that are truly impossible to quantify. Why heavy metal makes some want to crank the volume up and dance, jump, and thrash around yet it makes others want to bury their heads so they can't hear another note is a completely individual taste and emotional issue.

V


----------



## Chordalrock

Varick said:


> I insist calling it superior because that's the plain and simple truth of it. Again, I don't know where this groundswell of resistance against the word comes from. It's the same reason why I will call professional major league baseball playing superior to high school baseball playing.
> 
> Same reason why I will call the engineering of a space craft superior to the engineering of an automobile.


It still hasn't been established that writing a classical music masterpiece is harder than writing a popular music masterpiece. I also wonder how some of you could even begin to evaluate such things when you can't even agree with popular taste on what is an eminent example of a popular music masterpiece ("Stairway to Heaven is good but nothing very special").

Basically, you don't even know a popular music masterpiece when you hear it, so how could you even begin to compose one? It wouldn't just be difficult for you to compose one - regardless of how masterful you were in the genre of classical composition - but impossible to you except as an accident.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Varick said:


> I insist calling it superior because that's the plain and simple truth of it. Again, I don't know where this groundswell of resistance against the word comes from. It's the same reason why I will call professional major league baseball playing superior to high school baseball playing.
> 
> Same reason why I will call the engineering of a space craft superior to the engineering of an automobile.
> 
> Same reason I will call the writing of Moby Dick superior than anything that Danielle Steele has ever written.
> 
> Same reason I will call the Mona Lisa superior to graffiti (so-called) art.
> Same reason I will call Michelangelo's David superior to the giant Dog peeing on the side of the Orange County Art museum (If that isn't a perfect metaphor of what a lot of modern art has become - or at least what it's good for, I don't know what is).
> 
> Same reason I will call Emerson Lake & Palmer's Karn evil #9 superior to anything AC/DC ever wrote (And I like a lot of AC/DC).
> 
> Same reason why I will call Steely Dan's music superior to Billy Idol's (And I much rather listen to Billy Idol than Steely Dan - even though they have one of the greatest band names in the history of R&R, I just don't enjoy Steely Dan's music).
> 
> Same reason why I will call a steak from Smith & Wollensky's Steak House superior to a steak from The Outback Steakhouse
> 
> To me, it's so obvious, it's so easy to "get," but for some reason that evades me, people are so deathly reluctant to call ANYTHING superior to anything else these days.
> 
> No one is arguing (or at least I'm not) against anything that I embolded. I would never insist, nor even suggest that one genre of music is more moving, enjoyable, likeable, perfect for a certain mood, etc than any other genre. These are human and emotional connections to music that are truly impossible to quantify. Why heavy metal makes some want to crank the volume up and dance, jump, and thrash around yet it makes others want to bury their heads so they can't hear another note is a completely individual taste and emotional issue.
> 
> V


Its not _injustice_ that stings with a lot of people. Its _justice_--- seeing things for what they truly _are_.

A hierarchy of aptitude and ability is here to stay. . . in_ any _human endeavor, and not just with classical music.

Neither hopes, nor feelings, nor even government force itself can change this.

Take it away, Henry!

_"All government, in its essence, is a conspiracy against the superior man: its one permanent object is to oppress him and cripple him. If it be aristocratic in organization, then it seeks to protect the man who is superior only in law against the man who is superior in fact; if it be democratic, then it seeks to protect the man who is inferior in every way against both. One of its primary functions is to regiment men by force, to make them as much alike as possible and as dependent upon one another as possible, to search out and combat originality among them. All it can see in an original idea is potential change, and hence an invasion of its prerogatives. The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos."_

― H.L. Mencken


----------



## Varick

Chordalrock said:


> It still hasn't been established that writing a classical music masterpiece is harder than writing a popular music masterpiece. I also wonder how some of you could even begin to evaluate such things when you can't even agree with popular taste on what is an eminent example of a popular music masterpiece ("Stairway to Heaven is good but nothing very special").
> 
> Basically, you don't even know a popular music masterpiece when you hear it, so how could you even begin to compose one? It wouldn't just be difficult for you to compose one - regardless of how masterful you were in the genre of classical composition - but impossible to you except as an accident.


First of all, you have now made designations within a genre. You use "Masterpiece." I am talking about the classical genre as a whole vs other genre's as a whole.

Secondly, you talk about ONLY composing. I spoke of both composing and performing as well. There has been a largely agreed upon canon of classical masterpieces, and even somewhat for pop music. Whether or not one or two or five individuals agree that "Stairway To Heaven" is a pop masterpiece is beside the point. The grand consensus is, that it is a pop masterpiece. As is the Stone's "Satisfaction."

Whether or not a classical composer could write such a piece is also immaterial. I would argue however, that in most cases it would still be a lot easier to perform that pop masterpiece than it would the classical masterpiece. The biggest exception I could think of would probably be singing. I don't think classical/operatic style of singing lends itself well to pop style. I love hearing the Star Spangled Banner sung well, but I must admit, I tense up a bit when I hear that an opera singer is going to sing it. I don't think it the song lends itself well to the operatic style of singing. It doesn't mean they aren't a superior singer to a pop artist who nails it.

Thirdly, using the term masterpiece and then talking about consciously creating one always brings up the question of whether or not any artist, regardless of genre, regardless of medium, consciously tries to create a masterpiece when doing so. I'm sure some have, but I would argue (and I may be wrong) that most do not. They are just creating "another" piece or song or painting, or sculpture or novel.

V


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

trazom said:


> Indeed, we need to define what we mean by 'superior' first. Okay, YES, at first glance, we may think that say Beethoven was a superior musician to Britney Spears; but we haven't agreed on what superior means. I mean, let's consider the aspects of pop music and performance that have the advantage. First of all, Beethoven never sang in any of his compositions and he didn't write lyrics about hooking up with people so he obviously has no relevance or meaning to today's youth. Secondly, Beethoven didn't make as much money as Britney and money is very important as well as having millions of fans who follow you on twitter, so there's THAT. In terms of performance, Britney really knew how to shake her *** better than Beethoven and since Beethoven has never aroused that sort of titillation so prevalent in pop music, he obviously could never compete with her on that level. Finally, we can't use Beethoven for that nostalgic factor which makes pop music better by remembering how much better music was "in the old days" since everyone from his time is already dead. Then there's having your music video performed on mtv, and making a sex tape, and influencing your fans with your outfit and dance moves. None of the old composers did any of that. Oh, and dying of natural causes is so lame. If he really wanted to prove how great a musician he was, he would've OD'd on something like laudanum when he was 27.
> 
> On a more serious note, sometimes when listening to Jim Morrison, I think he was the rock and roll Jesus.


hehe, good one trazom .


----------



## Chordalrock

Varick said:


> First of all, you have now made designations within a genre. You use "Masterpiece." I am talking about the classical genre as a whole vs other genre's as a whole.


I didn't know you're the one who gets to frame the discussion in an arbitrary manner that suits his argument. What sense does it make to compare genres as a whole instead of the best of the genres? But if that's what you want to do, there's tons of forgotten "classical music" that doesn't rise above the level of "competent". There's nothing particularly difficult about composing such music. Any classical music student can do it. You're kind of taking the best of classical, then pretending it's all there is and thereby making your argument that it's very skillful hard stuff, and then accusing me of selective picking when I'd like to similarly focus on the best of popular music. Funny.



Varick said:


> Secondly, you talk about ONLY composing.


It's the topic I'm interested in and have something to say on.



Varick said:


> Whether or not a classical composer could write such a piece is also immaterial.


How so? If popular music is such a lowly genre populated by hacks who accidentally write a great song once in their lifetime (which it kind of is), then shouldn't masterful classical composers fare a lot better in that field?

Perhaps they would, but that they're not doing it on a big scale and making millions while still dedicating most of their time to other matters kinda indicates that it's hard, really hard.

You have written a long message, but you haven't explained how it's significantly easier than writing a classical music masterpiece. I'd even hazard a guess it's actually harder, because it seems that the amount of possible pieces that could be counted as classical masterpieces is greater than the amount of possible pop/rock pieces that could be counted as popular masterpieces. Composing a classical music masterpiece could be compared to creating a beautiful building - any building, while composing a popular pop/rock masterpiece could be compared to creating a beautiful apartment building - the expectations of the audience are stricter and in a way more demanding.



Varick said:


> Thirdly, using the term masterpiece and then talking about consciously creating one always brings up the question of whether or not any artist, regardless of genre, regardless of medium, consciously tries to create a masterpiece when doing so.


The only reason they wouldn't is if it's too hard. Pop/rock albums often have one or two good songs and the rest are obvious filler. Obviously I'm not going to claim the artists tried to create a masterpiece with every song. They were mostly just trying to fill space on CD. On the other hand, the pop/rock artists of great talent surely had the intention to create one or two songs as popular and good as they could when they started their careers - obviously after they've been established they can relax a bit and crank out mediocre stuff and it will still be bought, or this used to be the case at any rate I think.

In classical music, it depends on what era and composer you examine. Bach was surely trying to create music as good as he could when he had the time. Beethoven composed a lot of music to fulfill commissions but seems to have tried his best nearly every time. Brahms had set very high standards for himself as he felt he had to compete with Beethoven's legacy. Josquin composed only when he wanted to, perhaps waiting for inspiration and with the intent to compose only the best possible music - his ouvre is of such high standard that this was probably the case.

In any case, if you want to believe that masterpieces are primarily the result of chance, then we should compare the probabilities of creating pop/rock masterpieces with the probability of creating classical music masterpieces. I'm not sure how that should be done, but even in this comparison I have the feeling classical music would lose out in this competition by being easier to excel at (partly because a classical music masterpiece doesn't have to be popular to qualify as a masterpiece so again there's more room for varied creation, which always makes things easier).


----------



## papsrus

I tend to agree with an earlier poster who quoted Ellington (paraphrasing): "There are two kinds of music -- good music and bad music."

Classical music, broadly speaking, requires a high level of dedication by all sides (the composer, performer and listener) and its rewards are bountiful. But it's difficult to call it superior in an all-encompasing way because it clearly is not superior in ways where other musics excel.

Improvisation is an important part of jazz, for instance. Improvisation is not typically of primary importance in classical music. So, if improvisation is important to the listener, classical music will (broadly speaking) not measure up. It will be deemed inferior, in this regard. It may still qualify as more complex, more dedicated to the development of motifs, more emotionally engaging, perhaps. But as a vehicle for improvisation (again, broadly speaking) classical music has to be judged inferior to jazz, maybe even some rock 'n' roll (think Grateful Dead).

As an aside, I would be interested if anyone can point me to classical music pieces where improvisation does play an important role. Perhaps worthy of a separate thread, as I don't wish to sidetrack this one.


----------



## stevens

I would like to repeat what "Neoshredder" said: 

"Music is an acquired taste. Nothing is superior in music. It can be more popular or difficult to play. But the beauty part is in the eye of the beholder."


----------



## Garybeac

*Spiritus Cheese anyone?*

Invidiousness against or for certain music types suggests cathexis. There was a radio show in Boston in the '60's and '70's called Spiritus Cheese. They played a sometimes staggering variety of excellent music, all of it cathartic in some way, and with never a non-ironic hint of bathos. Considering their largely young-adult audience, it was a tribute to the DJ(s) that they attracted a relatively large number of advertisers and had the cojones to turn down aesthetically jarring ads. Baby boomer eclecticism; turtles all the way down. I pity the fool who dislikes all rap and/or opera.


----------



## Woodduck

violadude said:


> I half way agree with this. At the same time though, some beholders have keener ears than others.


And some composers know how to write music that satisfies those keener ears.


----------



## Woodduck

stevens said:


> I would like to repeat what "Neoshredder" said:
> 
> "Music is an acquired taste. Nothing is superior in music. It can be more popular or difficult to play. *But the beauty part is in the eye of the beholder.*"


It's too easy to reiterate this cliche as if it explained everything - or anything at all.

I think it more accurate to say that a work of art may be beautiful in various respects, that the perception of beauty is not equally well-developed in everyone, and that not all beautiful things are universally appreciated or liked.

If there were no objective basis for beauty there could be no such thing as artistic excellence, and this would surprise no one more than artists themselves.

It is inconceivable that beauty would be in any beholder's eye if there were nothing in external reality to give rise to the concept of the beautiful.


----------



## Sid James

Varick said:


> No one is arguing (or at least I'm not) against anything that I embolded. I would never insist, nor even suggest that one genre of music is more moving, enjoyable, likeable, perfect for a certain mood, etc than any other genre. These are human and emotional connections to music that are truly impossible to quantify. Why heavy metal makes some want to crank the volume up and dance, jump, and thrash around yet it makes others want to bury their heads so they can't hear another note is a completely individual taste and emotional issue.
> 
> V


I am saying that yes, classical is complex, however when making a comparison between different types of music, I think it has to be a comparison that's worth making in the first place. If it is just to serve some agenda, in other words to elevate one type of music and correspondingly degrade another, I am dubious of the utility of such comparisons.

Having said that, there are many commonalities between different genres, not to speak of within the same genre. Maybe you have to look a bit harder to see connections between different genres of music, but they are there. In terms of between folk/world and jazz going into classical, there's quite a few examples I can think of, and I talk about them on TC often when I listen to music and hear such connections. I didn't mention metal, however there are connections between metal and classical too. Of course, influence goes the other way as well, from classical into the other genres.

In any case I see all music as music, I am not that worried about what genre it is in, and if classical had not absorbed - and kept absorbing - ideas from other types of music, it would have ossified long ago. It would be dead.

I accept that you have a different opinion to mine, but I think that ultimately you and I will just have to agree to disagree. I don't have a problem with that, even though I have my own strong opinions. I don't want to go on discussing this here, I just came to do that one post which summarized my opinions on the questions originally posed by shangoyal.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

KenOC said:


> (Clears throat) Beethoven made about US$100 thousand from his Missa Solemnis, current equivalent. His biggest payday. But I suppose moolah was the farthest thing from his noble mind... :lol:


Missa Solemnis is worth every cent of those US$100 000 though, and Beethoven getting paid so much for it is only just and appropriate, whereas the real worth of most pop music is, as the saying goes, a dime a dozen and the reason pop musicians earn so much is not the worth of their talent, but the hype their producers/managers create. There is also the reason that a lot of people do not know anything better than pop music and do not look for anything better.


----------



## Nereffid

Woodduck said:


> If there were *no objective basis for beauty* there could be no such thing as artistic excellence, and this would surprise no one more than artists themselves.


How about a _widely shared_ but _subjective_ basis for beauty?


----------



## tgtr0660

As others have said and better than me, classical music is superior in some aspects and probably in all those aspects we (or at least I) care about. Yes, other types of music are better to dance to, exercise to, etc. Other genres have higher improvisational elements and others might express raw brutal energy in a more immediate way. Classical music demands a much larger intellectual compromise from both parts (composer: it might take days/years to compose, unlike pop/rock songs usually written in a moment; listener: pay actual attention to the musical "story" being told or you won't capture the essence of classical music) and for me that makes it superior. For others, it might make it boring. 
I unabashedly consider it superior. I don't consider those who _listen to it superior _(there are plenty of idiots listening to classical music too) but the music itself, yes.


----------



## Woodduck

Nereffid said:


> How about a _widely shared_ but _subjective_ basis for beauty?


I'll go as far with you as "a widely shared taste in beautiful things."  As a practicing artist, though, I know when I've got the curve at the edge of a shape I'm drawing right, and how hard it is to make it so. The demands of beauty transcend styles, tastes, and public polls. Of course people may and do use the word "beautiful" to describe anything they happen to like. But the more they train their perceptions, the less liberally they will apply it.


----------



## Chordalrock

Woodduck said:


> Of course people may and do use the word "beautiful" to describe anything they happen to like. But the more they train their perceptions, the less liberally they will apply it.


I've mainly noticed the opposite happening with respect to music appreciation.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Woodduck said:


> I'll go as far with you as "a widely shared taste in beautiful things."  As a practicing artist, though, I know when I've got the curve at the edge of a shape I'm drawing right, and how hard it is to make it so. The demands of beauty transcend styles, tastes, and public polls. Of course people may and do use the word "beautiful" to describe anything they happen to like. But the more they train their perceptions, the less liberally they will apply it.


So Burkean.

I love it.

If the patron saint of all true-Whig liberals, Edmund Burke, was asked why he thought so-and-so about this or that political or historical view of his-- he could reply that he didn't need to adduce reasons, because he had the much better guide of 'prejudice.'

Of course, he was being cheeky. What he meant was that he had the wisdom of experience and the attendant intelligence, taste, and judgement which comes with it. . . _Mutatis mutandis_, for musical tastes.

I think Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. put it more pithily when he wrote in his _Common Law_ that, "The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience."

-- The same can be said about music. Just substitute the word "music" for the word "law."

Mozart's and Beethoven's music couldn't logically predict Debussy's and Wagner's.


----------



## Vaneyes

*What makes Classical Music superior?*

"Because I'm an elitist and I deem it so."


----------



## Rhythm

^ Join the crowd :tiphat:


----------



## norman bates

it's time to make similar threads like:
what makes jazz superior?
what makes folk superior?
what makes pop superior?


----------



## Woodduck

Chordalrock said:


> I've mainly noticed the opposite happening with respect to music appreciation.


Thanks for that observation! I should more accurately have said "the less carelessly" or "the less profligately."


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> If there were no objective basis for beauty there could be no such thing as artistic excellence,


I don't see how this follows at all...?


----------



## millionrainbows

I think that what makes classical music superior, or what makes any art or music superior, is that it must be "sacred" in its intent and effect; it must nurture and reinforce our sense of self.

Other kinds of music produce other effects; some is designed for dance, or is centered around "raves" or social phenomena, or expresses a social identity, as in rap music. Hardcore punk allows adolescent males to "act out" in the mosh pit. Disco allowed people to "hook up," have sex, and do cocaine. Classic rock expressed the hippie ethic, and allowed a sub-culture to flourish, and all that went with it.

If this is what people have to "go through" to get to their true being, so be it; but much of it is destructive "acting out" of a separation from true being. Ascribe this to the endless wheel of karma, which turns, regardless. More meat for the machine. Nobody can stop it; we can only act for ourselves, and go for the center.

Classical music can express the upper class sense of entitlement and a sense of superiority; but this is not its best quality. Western music started as sacred music. The Church became power, and this was a deviation. But the root of music is there: music is ideally a sacred act.


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod said:


> I don't see how this follows at all...?


By "objective basis for beauty" I mean the actual existence in the objects of perception of certain qualities and relationships which, together with powers of perception common to all normally functioning brains which enable us to grasp these qualities and relationships, necessitate the very existence of the distinct concept of "beauty." The sense of beauty is not merely a pleasure response to sensory input; if it were, "beauty" would be a redundant and useless concept, useless particularly in the evaluation of artistic quality, which would then be nothing more than a matter of "what I like." Some opinions hold that this is all beauty is - that it is entirely "in the eye of the beholder." If we render the concept of beauty impotent by conceding complete subjectivity, we also render aesthetic judgments moot. This prospect would evidently be a great relief to a lot of people, especially incompetent artists.

As an artist myself, who has spent many strenuous hours of his life in pursuit of just the right line or color, I can tell you that searching for it is at every moment of the creative act a discipline of the mind and not a hedonistic wallow or an ego trip, and the self-transcending joy of finding it is the greatest artistic satisfaction.


----------



## PetrB

Nereffid said:


> How about a _widely shared_ but _subjective_ basis for beauty?


If you look at what most of the world deems to be the beautiful / handsome men's / women's faces, it is a high degree of symmetry (the more completely symmetrical the better) which is valued. That is kinda the opposite of 'Baroque.' LOL.


----------



## senza sordino

When I hear music I don't like, pop, rock etc, I say "How can you listen to that white noise?" I do hear a certain superiority in my classical music, whether it's there or not. Or when I hear people listening to the same old music for thirty plus years, I say "how can you still keep listening to that? Haven't your musical tastes moved on or expanded?" I do have a certain sense of superiority in my music taste, whether it's actually there or not.

I'm a snob when it's come to music, I admit.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> The sense of beauty is not merely a pleasure response to sensory input; if it were, "beauty" would be a redundant and useless concept, useless particularly in the evaluation of artistic quality, which would then be nothing more than a matter of "what I like." Some opinions hold that this is all beauty is - that it is entirely "in the eye of the beholder." If we render the concept of beauty impotent by conceding complete subjectivity, we also render aesthetic judgments moot.


Beauty _is _a redundant and useless concept if you are trying to insist that it absolute and objectively so.

You're asserting that something must be so, simply because something else of equally doubtful validity depends on it being so. I'm sure there's a technical term for such an argument - something to do with posteriori/priori, isn't it? (After all, the ancient philosophers have been round this one a few times, so it must be a Latin term.)

"Aesthetic judgements" may have been refined over thousands of years and be dependent on common and 'accepted' experience (the grecian urn that Keats wrote about for example, and the poem by Keats itself) but that does not necessarily imply that such an ideal of 'beauty' is objectively established, nor the aesthetic judgements connected to it.

In any case, I thought we were talking about comparatives, not absolutes? If the OP is about 'superiority' (as opposed to descriptives like 'complexity' and its annoying twin 'simplicity') your argument doesn't matter.


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod said:


> Beauty _is _a redundant and useless concept if you are trying to insist that it absolute and objectively so.
> 
> You're asserting that something must be so, simply because something else of equally doubtful validity depends on it being so. I'm sure there's a technical term for such an argument - something to do with posteriori/priori, isn't it? (After all, the ancient philosophers have been round this one a few times, so it must be a Latin term.)
> 
> "Aesthetic judgements" may have been refined over thousands of years and be dependent on common and 'accepted' experience (the grecian urn that Keats wrote about for example, and the poem by Keats itself) but that does not necessarily imply that such an ideal of 'beauty' is objectively established, nor the aesthetic judgements connected to it.
> 
> In any case, I thought we were talking about comparatives, not absolutes? If the OP is about 'superiority' (as opposed to descriptives like 'complexity' and its annoying twin 'simplicity') your argument doesn't matter.


There are things which cannot be shown by any argument, but only by pointing to them and saying, "This." We perceive them or we don't; we identify what we are perceiving, or we don't. There are irreducible elements of experience, which we can talk about but not explain, or "explain" only by using synonyms or resorting to metaphor. I don't think Keats' "beauty is truth" is just a poetic fancy. Truth too is irreducible: we either grasp something as true, or we don't - and of course mathematicians and scientists feelingly use the term "beautiful" to describe a balanced equation or a convincing proof. Truth - getting it right - is beautiful, whether what we get right is a syllogism or the curve of a cheekbone in a painting of the birth of Venus.

I really wasn't trying to "prove" that beauty exists, or that we must all agree in every particular about how beautiful something is, merely to insist that the concept actually refers to something and that people in general, and artists in particular, know it when they see it. You're free to be a total relativist if you wish and think that the substantial human agreements on who and what is beautiful are entirely culturally determined and ultimately accidental and arbitrary. I happen to disagree.

As for comparatives and absolutes - well, it makes no sense to compare anything without a standard of value. If classical music is superior in any way, it must be superior based on some quality of excellence. It's the denial that such qualities exist that results in an argument that doesn't matter. Absolute relativism takes us nowhere, and we all may as well just go home. When I get home, I'll have a painting to finish, and I'll know how - whether or not I succeed - to make it Beautiful.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> If classical music is superior in any way, it must be superior based on some quality


This is the key bit, isn't it? A set of criteria for comparison would need to be established, and that hasn't happened, beyond crude ideas like 'complexity' which have been shown to be unhelpful.

I'm not sure I'm advancing the idea of 'absolute relativism', but I do want to counter the idea of absolutism. And it's not about seeing or not seeing, grasping or not grasping, it's about agreeing or not agreeing and the extent to which agreement can be taken as a proxy for something else. As has been more-than-often argued, Mozart, Bach and Beethoven are cited as the best classical composers, but the fact that so many see, grasp and agree on this does not render the statement objectively true. However, the extent of the agreement might be taken as a reasonable proxy for such objectivity. It doesn't invalidate the fact that someone might say Wagner, Mahler and Stravinsky, that many others might agree, and there is another proxy.

To reject absolutism does not mean a rejection of all values as equally worthless or invalid. What becomes interesting is to ask the question, "What is it that leads so many people to agree that x and y are superior? What are the criteria?"

Simply accepting without showing or arguing is (not like you, Woodduck) and not defensible.


----------



## KenOC

MacLeod said:


> This is the key bit, isn't it? A set of criteria for comparison would need to be established, and that hasn't happened, beyond crude ideas like 'complexity' which have been shown to be unhelpful.


To misquote a famous man: We don't need no steenkin' criteria.


----------



## Guest

"Classical music is like all smart and stuff."


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> To misquote a famous man: We don't need no steenkin' criteria.


Hmmm...both sides in that debate ended up dead!


----------



## muzik

In my opinion classical music makes transcendence accessible to humanity.


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod said:


> This is the key bit, isn't it? A set of criteria for comparison would need to be established, and that hasn't happened, beyond crude ideas like 'complexity' which have been shown to be unhelpful.
> 
> *I'm not sure I'm advancing the idea of 'absolute relativism', but I do want to counter the idea of absolutism.* *And it's not about seeing or not seeing, grasping or not grasping, it's about agreeing or not agreeing *and the extent to which agreement can be taken as a proxy for something else. As has been more-than-often argued, *Mozart, Bach and Beethoven are cited as the best classical composers, but the fact that so many see, grasp and agree on this does not render the statement objectively true. However, the extent of the agreement might be taken as a reasonable proxy for such objectivity.* It doesn't invalidate the fact that someone might say Wagner, Mahler and Stravinsky, that many others might agree, and there is another proxy.
> 
> *To reject absolutism does not mean a rejection of all values as equally worthless or invalid. What becomes interesting is to ask the question, "What is it that leads so many people to agree that x and y are superior? What are the criteria?"*
> 
> *Simply accepting without showing or arguing is* (not like you, Woodduck) and *not defensible*.


I don't know what you mean by "the idea of absolutism" as something you want to "counter," and I don't see how this idea relates to my contention that the concept of beauty arises from the perception of some actual qualities in things and is not a mere fantasy based purely on subjective feelings. That _is_ all I'm saying, I hope you realize. I haven't said that the _experience_ of beauty must be identical for everyone, or that my personal experience of it is the only "valid" experience. I've said only that there are actual qualities - sensual, perceptual, mathematical - inherent in the objects of perception that give rise to the kind of experience that engenders the notion of beauty, and that those qualities are perceptible as "given" to the human mind. The qualities are there; the experience of them will be different for different perceivers. We may very reasonably disagree about _how_ beautiful this or that thing is, according to the intensity with which its various qualities strike us; this is the subjective, relative aspect of the experience of beauty. Arguments on this ground can be fun; they decide nothing, but as they are scarcely real arguments they need decide nothing. What remains beneath all disagreement is the existence of certain qualities in things, for the identification of which the concept of "beauty" arose in the human mind, and which make that concept important and necessary. To deny that such qualities exist outside the mind is indeed to be an "absolute relativist"; it is also - and this is where the rubber hits the road for me as an artist - to deny perceptions that the artist's "eye" and "ear" cannot deny. A painting's rhythms of line and form balance or they don't; a melody is well-shaped and memorable or it isn't. And we perceive these qualities or we don't; we do not have to "prove" that they exist. These (among others) are things the competent artist tries to create and the perceptive audience appreciates. They are things of beauty, just as precarious, self-undermining, clumsy, illogical forms are not.

If you or anyone else wants to argue that the concept of beauty does not, need not, or should not apply to such things, you're welcome to your own lexicon.


----------



## KenOC

MacLeod said:


> Hmmm...both sides in that debate ended up dead!


Good point. Perhaps this needs re-thinking.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> my contention that the concept of beauty arises from the perception of some actual qualities in things and is not a mere fantasy based purely on subjective feelings. That _is_ all I'm saying, I hope you realize.


That _is _what I'm countering; that there are actual qualities _in _things.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Woodduck said:


> I don't know what you mean by "the idea of absolutism" as something you want to "counter," and I don't see how this idea relates to my contention that the concept of beauty arises from the perception of some actual qualities in things and is not a mere fantasy based purely on subjective feelings. That _is_ all I'm saying, I hope you realize. I haven't said that the _experience_ of beauty must be identical for everyone, or that my personal experience of it is the only "valid" experience. I've said only that there are actual qualities - sensual, perceptual, mathematical - inherent in the objects of perception that give rise to the kind of experience that engenders the notion of beauty, and that those qualities are perceptible as "given" to the human mind. The qualities are there; the experience of them will be different for different perceivers. We may very reasonably disagree about _how_ beautiful this or that thing is, according to the intensity with which its various qualities strike us; this is the subjective, relative aspect of the experience of beauty. Arguments on this ground can be fun; they decide nothing, but as they are scarcely real arguments they need decide nothing. What remains beneath all disagreement is the existence of certain qualities in things, for the identification of which the concept of "beauty" arose in the human mind, and which make that concept important and necessary. To deny that such qualities exist outside the mind is indeed to be an "absolute relativist"; it is also - and this is where the rubber hits the road for me as an artist - to deny perceptions that the artist's "eye" and "ear" cannot deny. A painting's rhythms of line and form balance or they don't; a melody is well-shaped and memorable or it isn't. And we perceive these qualities or we don't; we do not have to "prove" that they exist. These (among others) are things the competent artist tries to create and the perceptive audience appreciates. They are things of beauty, just as precarious, self-undermining, clumsy, illogical forms are not.If you or anyone else wants to argue that the concept of beauty does not, need not, or should not apply to such things, you're welcome to your own lexicon.












We assume the validity of an external world everytime we talk with someone, every time we look both ways when we cross the street, and every time we marshal evidence and employ analytical rigor in proving our point.

There _are_ qualities in things. Entities _do_ have identity; or as Francis Bacon put it a little more saucily: "Nature to be commanded must be obeyed."

That's why skyscrapers are erected with concrete and re-inforced steel and not dixie cups.


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod said:


> That _is _what I'm countering; that there are actual qualities _in _things.


A modest proposal:

"I love you, but not for any qualities you possess, as you have none. Will you marry me?"


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> A modest proposal:
> 
> "I love you, but not for any qualities you possess, as you have none. Will you marry me?"


"I love you for the qualities I see in you."


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod said:


> "I love you for the qualities I see in you."


"But why would you believe what you see?"


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> "But why would you believe what you see?"


"Because of the strength of my conviction..what else do I need?"


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod said:


> "Because of the strength of my conviction..what else do I need?"


"Many were strongly convinced that the earth was flat. They believed what they saw. But it was discovered that the earth has the _quality_ of roundness, and then they saw it differently. Their strong convictions were useless. The 'else' which they needed was knowledge."


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> "Many were strongly convinced that the earth was flat. They believed what they saw. But it was discovered that the earth has the _quality_ of roundness, and then they saw it differently. Their strong convictions were useless. The 'else' which they needed was knowledge."


I think my wife might be rather insulted to be advised that the 'quality' of the flatness of the earth is equivalent to the 'quality' of her beauty. She may wish to be universally and objectively 'beautiful' and for all the world to have the knowledge of that 'fact', but more important to her is, I suspect, my conviction that I find her so.

How else can those whom you and I might deem less than beautiful find partners who think differently?

"My dear, never mind your conviction that you're not ugly. The whole world knows that you are. It's a fact."

But more to the point, we seem to have slipped from the ear of the beholder to the eye. There are listeners here who would, I'm sure, join with me in asserting that if there is an aural equivalent to the golden mean, it hasn't been fully located or established yet, and even when it is, many find an alternative to the conventional beauty of the aural equivalent of Venus, Helen, Claudia Schiffer, Sandra Bullock, Marisa Tomei - (pick your own favourite).


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod said:


> I think my wife might be rather insulted to be advised that the 'quality' of the flatness of the earth is equivalent to the 'quality' of her beauty. She may wish to be universally and objectively 'beautiful' and for all the world to have the knowledge of that 'fact', but more important to her is, I suspect, my conviction that I find her so.
> 
> How else can those whom you and I might deem less than beautiful find partners who think differently?
> 
> "My dear, never mind your conviction that you're not ugly. The whole world knows that you are. It's a fact."
> 
> But more to the point, we seem to have slipped from the ear of the beholder to the eye. There are listeners here who would, I'm sure, join with me in asserting that if there is an aural equivalent to the golden mean, it hasn't been fully located or established yet, and even when it is, many find an alternative to the conventional beauty of the aural equivalent of Venus, Helen, Claudia Schiffer, Sandra Bullock, Marisa Tomei - (pick your own favourite).


Whether or not a person feels beautiful, or wants to be thought beautiful by someone, has no bearing on the question of whether beauty, or any quality, has reality outside the mind of the perceiver. It is at most a comment on the selectivity or alteration of perception induced by emotions whose origins may lie elsewhere. When you say you are "countering" the idea that there are actual qualities _in_ things, you are taking a radical metaphysical and epistemological position. My whimsical "modest proposal" was a _reductio ad __absurdum,_ though not an inaccurate extrapolation. But you are right; your position always reduces to "the strength of my convictions...what else do I need?"

Well, nothing - until you bump into America while sailing to China.

As for the ear versus the eye, aesthetic principles in music and in visual art are related on a deep conceptual level. Music happens in time, visual art in space; but melody, harmony, and rhythm have their visual parallels which can be, and are, described in closely analogous and often identical terms. Why, you yourself speak of the "aural equivalent" of Sandra Bullock et al. I wonder what aesthetic principles are embodied in that comparison (and what music you think might be Bullockian - but not because of any intrinsic qualities, of course)!


----------



## ClassicalListener

Marschallin Blair said:


> We assume the validity of an external world everytime we talk with someone, every time we look both ways when we cross the street, and every time we marshal evidence and employ analytical rigor in proving our point.
> 
> There _are_ qualities in things. Entities _do_ have identity; or as Francis Bacon put it a little more saucily: "Nature to be commanded must be obeyed."
> 
> That's why skyscrapers are erected with concrete and re-inforced steel and not dixie cups.


See, reality is a formally irresolvable braiding of the subjective and the objective. Neither of the two can be held either on its own, in combination with the other, or not at all. That doesn't make though the search for meaning any less thrilling. On the contrary!


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> Whether or not a person feels beautiful, or wants to be thought beautiful by someone, has no bearing on the question of whether beauty, or any quality, has reality outside the mind of the perceiver.


It was you who introduced two different types of 'fact': the 'fact' of the flatness/roundness of the world - which I'm presuming we agree for the moment is independently verifiable and not dependent on opinion or conviction (of you, me or my wife); and the 'fact' of beauty, which may be subject to independent opinion and conviction, but is not objectively verifiable in the same way. I simply yoked the two together to illustrate the difference between the two types. You are right to observe that my wife's opinion on the matter of her beauty is irrelevant to the argument about whether she is, except that, IMO, it is illustrative of the difference between the two types of fact we are discussing.



Woodduck said:


> When you say you are "countering" the idea that there are actual qualities _in_ things, you are taking a radical metaphysical and epistemological position.


I am? Ok. I am. So? You've not brought forth any evidence to support the notion that beauty is intrinsic and independently verifiable (unless I overlooked a post in earlier exchanges with another TCer). Your own position is just as 'radical' in a debate where you are asserting something (the superiority of classical music) without evidence.

Let me offer some. A short article on the golden mean/ratio which suggests that too much has been made of the idea that beauty can be reduced to maths...

http://plus.maths.org/content/os/issue22/features/golden/index . The author says,
_I should note that the literature is bursting with false claims and misconceptions about the appearance of the Golden Ratio in the arts (e.g. in the works of Giotto, Seurat, Mondrian). The history of art has nevertheless shown that artists who have produced works of truly lasting value are precisely those who have departed from any formal canon for aesthetics. In spite of the Golden Ratio's truly amazing mathematical properties, and its propensity to pop up where least expected in natural phenomena, I believe that we should abandon its application as some sort of universal standard for "beauty," either in the human face or in the arts._​


Woodduck said:


> As for the ear versus the eye, aesthetic principles in music and in visual art are related on a deep conceptual level.


I'm sure some philosophers through history have claimed so, but I'm not sure they are. Can you give me an example of the 'deep conceptual level'?



Woodduck said:


> Why, you yourself speak of the "aural equivalent" of Sandra Bullock et al. I wonder what aesthetic principles are embodied in that comparison (and what music you think might be Bullockian - but not because of any intrinsic qualities, of course)!


There aren't any. I was arguing that *even if there are* aural rules equivalent to the golden mean, you would still have the same argument about music that fits those rules as you might have arguing about which of the women I named - or anyone cares to name - is beautiful. You would still return to the point that beauty is in the ear of the beholder.

I would also suggest that even if you could argue that intrinsic beauty exists in this human face and not that, and that this is a matter of natural selection - we need to be able to see beauty in order to find a productive mate - it would be difficult to establish a similar correspondence to what we hear beyond beauty in a human voice (I'm sure I'd rather, in evolutionary terms, mate with Ella Fitzgerald than Ethel Merman). I don't see how you can argue that this applies to artificially created music (classical or otherwise).

Lastly, we are still missing any criteria for superiority. 'Beauty' is clearly hopelessly unfit for the purpose.


----------



## Guest

Marschallin Blair said:


> We assume the validity of an external world everytime we talk with someone, every time we look both ways when we cross the street, and every time we marshal evidence and employ analytical rigor in proving our point.
> 
> There _are_ qualities in things. Entities _do_ have identity; or as Francis Bacon put it a little more saucily: "Nature to be commanded must be obeyed."
> 
> That's why skyscrapers are erected with concrete and re-inforced steel and not dixie cups.


Assuming the validity of an external world is not the same as asserting that we can externally validate the superiority of classical music.


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod: You have said "That is what I am countering: that there are actual qualities in things." 

If you accept that things can exist but have no qualities - i.e. that a thing can be without any characteristics that make it anything in particular - what argument could convince you that the various qualities people consider beautiful could actually exist in things? Where do you think humankind ever got the idea of beauty? Was it attached to an asteroid that fell into the Garden of Eden and hit Adam on the head? Or does it arise from the observation of things and the qualities that make those things what they are? And if it does, isn't it logical to ask "which of the qualities we observe in things affect us in ways that lead us to call them beautiful?"

If we are so far apart on the basic metaphysical question of whether existence entails identity, I see no way that further discussion will get us anywhere. Do you?

Let me conclude this by pointing out a few assumptions or assertions you've erroneously attributed to me. 1.) I haven't said anywhere that "Classical music is superior." I didn't say that in my initial post of October 9, or in any post thereafter. "Classical music" is a category, not a thing, and a fairly indistinct category at that, which we use for convenience. 2.) I have not asserted general criteria for "superiority," much less claimed beauty as the main criterion. 3.) I have not argued for the objectivity of aesthetic judgments, merely for the existence and importance of qualities which provide a basis for such judgments. Having to point out so much that I haven't said makes me feel that you've been arguing with someone who isn't here.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

ClassicalListener said:


> See, reality is a formally irresolvable braiding of the subjective and the objective. Neither of the two can be held either on its own, in combination with the other, or not at all. That doesn't make though the search for meaning any less thrilling. On the contrary!


I'd say that one perceives reality in a human _context_, but that humans don't solipsismally _create_ their own reality. If one doubts the primacy of existence outside of a mind to grasp it, step into a speeding bus and try to falsify that thesis.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

MacLeod said:


> Assuming the validity of an external world is not the same as asserting that we can externally validate the superiority of classical music.


Well, you're mixing philosophic categories, as one is epistemic and one is evaluational.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Woodduck said:


> MacLeod: You have said "That is what I am countering: that there are actual qualities in things."
> 
> If you accept that things can exist but have no qualities - i.e. that a thing can be without any characteristics that make it anything in particular - what argument could convince you that the various qualities people consider beautiful could actually exist in things? Where do you think humankind ever got the idea of beauty? Was it attached to an asteroid that fell into the Garden of Eden and hit Adam on the head? Or does it arise from the observation of things and the qualities that make those things what they are? And if it does, isn't it logical to ask "which of the qualities we observe in things affect us in ways that lead us to call them beautiful?"
> 
> If we are so far apart on the basic metaphysical question of whether existence entails identity, I see no way that further discussion will get us anywhere. Do you?
> 
> Let me conclude this by pointing out a few assumptions or assertions you've erroneously attributed to me. 1.) I haven't said anywhere that "Classical music is superior." I didn't say that in my initial post of October 9, or in any post thereafter. "Classical music" is a category, not a thing, and a fairly indistinct category at that, which we use for convenience. 2.) I have not asserted general criteria for "superiority," much less claimed beauty as the main criterion. 3.) I have not argued for the objectivity of aesthetic judgments, merely for the existence and importance of qualities which provide a basis for such judgments. Having to point out so much that I haven't said makes me feel that you've been arguing with someone who isn't here.


That's _exactly _what was said. Anyone can scroll back on the thread to see what Macleod wrote at post number 151.

If one loses the argument, just pull the Knave of Spades card and change the argument completely in order to save face.

Good show.

_Jolly_ good show. . . for Woodduck that is.

_Bravo._


----------



## Marschallin Blair

MacLeod said:


> "Because of the strength of my conviction..what else do I need?"


Reason and reality.


----------



## Guest

Marschallin Blair said:


> Well, you're mixing philosophic categories, as one is epistemic and one is evaluational.


Me? It was you who did the mixing, or rather, the switching. I'm the one pointing out the difference. You're just giving it a posh label.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> MacLeod: You have said "That is what I am countering: that there are actual qualities in things."
> 
> If you accept that things can exist but have no qualities - i.e. that a thing can be without any characteristics that make it anything in particular - what argument could convince you that the various qualities people consider beautiful could actually exist in things? Where do you think humankind ever got the idea of beauty? Was it attached to an asteroid that fell into the Garden of Eden and hit Adam on the head? Or does it arise from the observation of things and the qualities that make those things what they are? And if it does, isn't it logical to ask "which of the qualities we observe in things affect us in ways that lead us to call them beautiful?"
> 
> If we are so far apart on the basic metaphysical question of whether existence entails identity, I see no way that further discussion will get us anywhere. Do you?
> 
> Let me conclude this by pointing out a few assumptions or assertions you've erroneously attributed to me. 1.) I haven't said anywhere that "Classical music is superior." I didn't say that in my initial post of October 9, or in any post thereafter. "Classical music" is a category, not a thing, and a fairly indistinct category at that, which we use for convenience. 2.) I have not asserted general criteria for "superiority," much less claimed beauty as the main criterion. 3.) I have not argued for the objectivity of aesthetic judgments, merely for the existence and importance of qualities which provide a basis for such judgments. Having to point out so much that I haven't said makes me feel that you've been arguing with someone who isn't here.


My bad. I thought we were talking, by analogy, about the OP - the alleged superiority of classical music. If we're not, it's a mistake on both our parts for drifting off-topic.

It's also my bad if I've lost thread of my posts - such as appearing to say that there are no qualities (of any kind) in _anything at all_. Doubtless your cheerleader (nice pom-poms btw) will gleefully point to further evasion and raise your gloved fist in victory, when I say that that isn't what I meant. Anyone can scroll back to your post #125 and see where you made the subtle switch from music to art and was the basis for my, apparently, false assumption. Going further back, to #91, we find you saying...



> Well-composed music which is complex because it needs to be is simultaneously a delight to the mind and a nourishment to the spirit of one able to hear, comprehend, and appreciate it. In such music, physical complexity may embody complexity of meaning: it has richness, subtlety, breadth, depth. If these qualities, and the ability to express and appreciate them, are virtues and things to be esteemed and desired, I would not hesitate to call superior the music in which we find them.


So, not in so many words, but pretty [email protected] close, I'd say.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

MacLeod said:


> Me? It was you who did the mixing, or rather, the switching. I'm the one pointing out the difference. You're just giving it a posh label.


Your post at #151 says, and I quote verbatim: "That is what I am countering: that there are actual qualities in things."

That was _your_ original contention.

Later you try to change that to what you wrote at post #162, where you say: "Assuming the validity of an external world is not the same as asserting that we can externally validate the superiority of classical music." (emphasis mine).

Who said that these two qualitatively disparate philosophic modes of inquiry were synonymous? _I_ certainly didn't.

You _impute_ that to me, but as the backlog will amply show, the Clothes don't even have an Emperor.

-- No matter _how hard_ one tilts at windmills.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

> MacLeod: Doubtless your cheerleader (nice pom-poms btw) will gleefully point to further evasion and raise your gloved fist in victory, when I say that that isn't what I meant.


An oldie but a goodie. _;D_

Old as peanut butter and jealous.


----------



## Guest

Marschallin Blair said:


> Your post at #151 says, and I quote verbatim: "That is what I am countering: that there are actual qualities in things."
> 
> That was _your_ original contention.


That's right. And in the context of what I thought Woodduck and I were discussing, following on from the post I was citing (#149), I stand by that statement.

As I said, if I misunderstood what Woodduck was saying, that's my error. What more can I say?


----------



## Marschallin Blair

MacLeod said:


> That's right. And in the context of what I thought Woodduck and I were discussing, following on from the post I was citing (#149), I stand by that statement.
> 
> As I said, if I misunderstood what Woodduck was saying, that's my error. What more can I say?


Well, I'm to blonde-blame too. . . I didn't scroll that far back, now that I think of it. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha.


----------



## KenOC

Just to be a troublemaker, I'll hold that "greatness" and "quality" and other such attributes are not inherent to any music. Within classical music, it's more or less what the majority feels at any point in time, and quite subject to change as we can see from history as things go in and out of fashion.

I won't extend the argument to classical music versus other genres because that's too depressing.


----------



## Guest

Marschallin Blair said:


> Well, I'm to *blonde*-blame too


An oldie but a goodie. _;D

Old as peanut butter etc_


----------



## Marschallin Blair

KenOC said:


> Just to be a troublemaker, I'll hold that "greatness" and "quality" and other such attributes are not inherent to any music. Within classical music, it's more or less what the majority feels at any point in time, and quite subject to change as we can see from history as things go in and out of fashion.
> 
> I won't extend the argument to classical music versus other genres because that's too depressing.


So if a group of howling-blockhead savages doesn't see the ingenuity of form, harmony, and melody in Mozart-- then it _ipso facto_ doesn't exist by a mere show of hands?

Does this fallacy of _consensus gentium_ apply to a medieval majority who believed in the flat earth as well?


----------



## KenOC

Marschallin Blair said:


> So if a group of howling-blockhead savages doesn't see the ingenuity of form, harmony, and melody in Mozart-- then it _ipso facto_ doesn't exist by a mere show of hands?
> 
> Does this fallacy of _consensus gentium_ apply to a medieval majority who believed in the flat earth as well?


Does music have a group of "scientists" like those who knew very well the earth was round when most people thought it flat? Looking at the record of music's "scientists" through the past couple of hundred years, I suspect not.

I recommend Slonimsky's _Dictionary of Musical Invective _to see the considered opinions of the bulging braincase set through past years.


----------



## Guest

Marschallin Blair said:


> Does this fallacy of _consensus gentium_ apply to a medieval majority who believed in the flat earth as well?


Is this a tag match? I didn't see you and Woodduck touch!

I thought you already established that you can't mix...what did you call it...the epistemic and the evaluational?

(Sorry Ken, didn't touch before entering the ring either!)


----------



## KenOC

MacLeod said:


> (Sorry Ken, didn't touch before entering the ring either!)


All are welcome! I'll keep the referee distracted by throwing money around.


----------



## dgee

Marschallin Blair said:


> So if a group of howling-blockhead savages doesn't see the ingenuity of form, harmony, and melody in Mozart-- then it _ipso facto_ doesn't exist by a mere show of hands?
> 
> Does this fallacy of _consensus gentium_ apply to a medieval majority who believed in the flat earth as well?


It often seems to apply when people have the temerity to admit they can't see the genius in, say, Tchaikovsky or Verdi or Puccini or Shostakovich. Or Maria Callas

And what if a group of blockheaded savages don't see the genius of Schoenberg or Boulez? They're just courageously pointing out the emperor's new clothes, right? :devil:

But seriously, I'm not terribly interested in the phenomenological aspect of music - it's just waves bashing on my ear drum - but I'd probably roughly sympathise with MacLeod and Ken here


----------



## Guest

Marschallin Blair said:


> So if a group of howling-blockhead savages doesn't see the ingenuity of form, harmony, and melody in Mozart-- then it _ipso facto_ doesn't exist by a mere show of hands?
> 
> Does this fallacy of _consensus gentium_ apply to a medieval majority who believed in the flat earth as well?


But if a group of sensitive and highly intellectualised group of TCers see the the ingenuity of form, harmony, and melody in Mozart-- then it ipso facto _does _exist by a mere show of hands?


----------



## Marschallin Blair

MacLeod said:


> But if a group of sensitive and highly intellectualised group of TCers see the the ingenuity of form, harmony, and melody in Mozart-- then it ipso facto _does _exist by a mere show of hands?


I'd say these qualities are 'exogenous to' and 'independent of' anyone's mere attitude, feelings, or belief about them; not unlike those of the Sistine Chapel or St. Paul's Cathedral.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

MacLeod said:


> Is this a tag match? I didn't see you and Woodduck touch!
> 
> I thought you already established that you can't mix...what did you call it...the epistemic and the evaluational?
> 
> (Sorry Ken, didn't touch before entering the ring either!)


What does an epistemic fallacy (_consensus gentium_) have to do with aesthetic truth?-- That's _my_ question. . .

You may now kiss your blushing tag-team bride.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

dgee said:


> It often seems to apply when people have the temerity to admit they can't see the genius in, say, Tchaikovsky or Verdi or Puccini or Shostakovich. Or Maria Callas
> 
> And what if a group of blockheaded savages don't see the genius of Schoenberg or Boulez? They're just courageously pointing out the emperor's new clothes, right? :devil:
> 
> But seriously, I'm not terribly interested in the phenomenological aspect of music - it's just waves bashing on my ear drum - but I'd probably roughly sympathise with MacLeod and Ken here


I think Schoenberg's an artistic genius, though I'm not so sure about Boulez (not that I aesthetically-incline to too terribly much to either's _oeuvre_.)

I can recognize the subtlety and the musical technique in what's being done, but at the same time say, "I don't like it."

Complexity and ingenuity doesn't automatically translate to grace and beauty.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

KenOC said:


> Does music have a group of "scientists" like those who knew very well the earth was round when most people thought it flat? Looking at the record of music's "scientists" through the past couple of hundred years, I suspect not.
> 
> I recommend Slonimsky's _Dictionary of Musical Invective _to see the considered opinions of the bulging braincase set through past years.


Whether or not someone_ likes_ a piece of music or the fact that the earth is round is a separate issue from whether music can be_ identified _as having qualities (like form, melody, harmony, counterpoint, etc.) or whether the earth has sphereicity.

'Liking' something and 'identifying what exists' are two separate things.


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit

After years of painstaking research, my findings have shown conclusively what makes classical music superior - the existence of pedantic, pretentious 'intellectuals' who have nothing better to do than assert the superiority their own personal whim and preference.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

Gaspard de la Nuit said:


> After years of painstaking research, my findings have shown conclusively what makes classical music superior - the existence of pedantic, pretentious 'intellectuals' who have nothing better to do than assert the superiority their own personal whim and preference.


None of these people, on both sides of the argument, have claimed to be intellectuals (which would undermine your "pretentious" accusation). Are they not merely having a discussion in which they are voicing their opinions that their respective life-experiences has led them to hold? Is that not the very aim of this forum?

I'm sorry, but this type of cliched statement is one of my pet peeves. You get a cheap, easy "laugh" because they're "pretentious" and you're "not". They're "pretentious" and you're the "Everyman". Right. Who's really the haughtily superior one in this situation, those who voice their opinions on a PUBLIC FORUM (I repeat, a public forum) or the one who calls them pretentious for doing so? Your statement boils down to "You're not *actual *intellectuals, so you're pretentious for opining on the subject".

There is an *ironic* confusion of roles at play.

If this was infraction worthy, so be it. Lay it on me.


----------



## aleazk

I always found funny the idea that just because you are some guy on the internet talking about philosophy or related topics then you are automatically a dilettante. Of course, sometimes that's indeed the case. But, today, almost everybody in the west has a computer with an internet connection and some free time. So, don't be surprised if sometimes you find yourself _actually_ talking with an intellectual, a philosopher, or, in my case, a qualified scientist (like some others members of this forum). In fact, there's a lot of people here which are actually very knowledgeable about music, music history, philosophy of music, etc. I would think twice before calling any of them 'dilettantes'. And I say this even when sometimes I strongly disagree with their opinions.


----------



## Polyphemus

Quite simply there are a lot of people who in rock-n-roll parlance get their rocks off feeling superior to other people. Unfortunately Classical Music has a disproportionate share of same. Jazz has a large amount as well. This form of snobbery is pathetic and sad. There are libraries stuffed with manuscripts of 'bad' Classical Music. We all have on our shelves discs of pieces that were sold on the crest of a huge publicity wave as the next 'new' thing which lasted a couple of plays and were exposed being not very good after all.
Most of the champions of this odious form of snobbery use reams of adjectives ad nauseam to support their position.
mercifully the majority of contributors in here just like the music and have some fun discussing it. Most of this takes place in a light hearted and friendly manner between people of different musical ability and knowledge. When the odd bust up does occur it is rarely of a serious nature. 
In truth I think the snobs of this world ought to form a religious order (enclosed) and they could meditate on their superiority endlessly.


----------



## Varick

DiesIraeVIX said:


> None of these people, on both sides of the argument, have claimed to be intellectuals (which would undermine your "pretentious" accusation). Are they not merely having a discussion in which they are voicing their opinions that their respective life-experiences has led them to hold? Is that not the very aim of this forum?
> 
> I'm sorry, but this type of cliched statement is one of my pet peeves. You get a cheap, easy "laugh" because they're "pretentious" and you're "not". They're "pretentious" and you're the "Everyman". Right. Who's really the haughtily superior one in this situation, the one who bashes others for voicing their opinions on a PUBLIC FORUM (I repeat, a public forum) or the one who calls them pretentious for doing so? Your statement boils down to "You're not *actual *intellectuals, so you're pretentious". There may be an *ironic* confusion of roles at play.
> 
> If this was infraction worthy, so be it. Lay it on me.


You beat me to it and I'm glad you did because you are much more eloquent than I would have been! Bravo!

I still say skill, knowledge, practice/study, complexity (to a point), and ability both to create and understand vs something within the same realm (music, art, engineering, etc) that doesn't take as much as the aforementioned qualities to create or understand it, deems it "superior."

Going back to the wonderful debate between MacLeod and Wooduck, I will say that when it comes to beauty, what has been passed down generation after generation in the canon of a particular medium as beautiful is quite often so. And I'll be incredibly bold to go so far as to say "objectively" so. Just because every single person doesn't deem it beautiful, just because there are "exceptions," doesn't disqualify the appropriate adjective assigned to such a work. I personally see nothing "beautiful" in the face is the Mona Lisa. I think she is rather drab looking and I always have. But Just because I (who is so completely insignificant in the cosmic scheme of human existence) don't deem it beautiful and a superior work of art, doesn't mean it isn't.

I have a theory: Many of the people who started the practice of applying relativism to almost all things and bring it to an extreme (I'm not saying that nothing is relative or that relativism doesn't have its valid place in certain things) are the true snobs. Are the true egotistical megalomaniacs. Are the ones who really assert their own superiority.

They are the ones who thought so highly of their own opinion, that because they didn't like something that the Canon established or liked something that the Canon didn't establish, they used relativism to give their own opinions and ideas equal value. They used/use this "relativist" philosophy to make them feel better about themselves.

Now, those last two paragraphs are a bit tongue-in-cheek, I know relativism has been a long and established philosophical idea, but damn it... I'm on to something here!

V


----------



## ClassicalListener

Marschallin Blair said:


> I'd say that one perceives reality in a human _context_, but that humans don't solipsismally _create_ their own reality. If one doubts the primacy of existence outside of a mind to grasp it, step into a speeding bus and try to falsify that thesis.


If it weren't for your ability to construct reality according to the rules of the subjective you wouldn't be able to identify an object as a bus and give a name to it. The only place were we can positively say something called "bus" exists is in our minds.


----------



## ClassicalListener

About the subject of the thread, I do regard classical European music to be a high summit of art. Some popular music is enjoyable and has artistic merit and quality, but it doesn't approach what the great works of the classical repertoire represent in spiritual terms.

If someone cannot see this, it is _their_ ability to see that would come into question.


----------



## Woodduck

Varick said:


> Going back to the wonderful debate between MacLeod and Wooduck, I will say that when it comes to beauty, what has been passed down generation after generation in the canon of a particular medium as beautiful is quite often so. And I'll be incredibly bold to go so far as to say "objectively" so. Just because every single person doesn't deem it beautiful, just because there are "exceptions," doesn't disqualify the appropriate adjective assigned to such a work. I personally see nothing "beautiful" in the face is the Mona Lisa. I think she is rather drab looking and I always have. But Just because I (who is so completely insignificant in the cosmic scheme of human existence) don't deem it beautiful and a superior work of art, doesn't mean it isn't.
> 
> *I have a theory: Many of the people who started the practice of applying relativism to almost all things and bring it to an extreme (I'm not saying that nothing is relative or that relativism doesn't have its valid place in certain things) are the true snobs. Are the true egotistical megalomaniacs. Are the ones who really assert their own superiority.
> 
> They are the ones who thought so highly of their own opinion, that because they didn't like something that the Canon established or liked something that the Canon didn't establish, they used relativism to give their own opinions and ideas equal value. They used/use this "relativist" philosophy to make them feel better about themselves.
> 
> Now, those last two paragraphs are a bit tongue-in-cheek, I know relativism has been a long and established philosophical idea, but damn it... I'm on to something here!*
> 
> V


You aren't the first to be on to that particular something. :tiphat:

As for Mona Lisa, consider the possibility that although we might find the lady herself plain if we saw her in life, the painting is so harmonious, so exquisitely balanced and executed, that as a painted image she is beautiful. And just look at those hands! Magnifico!

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...sch&ei=qypFVOKOIq-9iQLy_4GwBQ&ved=0CAQQsCUoAA

Art is a lover, the world is his beloved, and in his arms she is beautiful.


----------



## Polyphemus

ClassicalListener said:


> About the subject of the thread, I do regard classical European music to be a high summit of art. Some popular music is enjoyable and has artistic merit and quality, but it doesn't approach what the great works of the classical repertoire represent in spiritual terms.
> 
> If someone cannot see this, it is _their_ ability to see that would come into question.


One of course could say the same of a Raga from India.


----------



## ClassicalListener

Polyphemus said:


> One of course could say the same of a Raga from India.


Sadly I am not well acquainted with the classical musics of other civilizations, but from what I have been able to listen, I would say, no. That is, not that they are without merit of course, but that there is something truly unique about the European musical tradition.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Polyphemus said:


> One of course could say the same of a Raga from India.


But I'm always willing to learn.

Is there a _Raga Ring Cycle_ I'm unaware of?


----------



## Polyphemus

Marschallin Blair said:


> Oh, is there a _Raga Ring Cycle_ I'm unaware of?


Didn't your mother tell you.


----------



## Art Rock

[deleted] - not worth it.


----------



## Polyphemus

Simply trying to point out that the 'snob' side of this rather silly debate is of the opinion that western classical music is the pinnacle of mans musical achievement. It isn't. I mentioned the Indian raga as it is one of the most complex and interesting musical forms. As you mention the Chinese had their own form of opera and the Japanese also had their own high art. And the arts were flourishing in the near east while the west was in the throes of the dark ages.


----------



## ClassicalListener

Polyphemus said:


> Simply trying to point out that the 'snob' side of this rather silly debate is of the opinion that western classical music is the pinnacle of mans musical achievement. It isn't. I mentioned the Indian raga as it is one of the most complex and interesting musical forms. As you mention the Chinese had their own form of opera and the Japanese also had their own high art. And the arts were flourishing in the near east while the west was in the throes of the dark ages.


Miley Cyrus is also flourishing while orchestras and classical radio stations shut down everywhere.

Aesthetic and artistic appraisal is possible, and simply judging it "snobbish" is a declaration of inability to conduct it. Like I said, the high culture of Eastern civilizations is both beautiful and worthwhile. However there is something unique about European classical music. Unlike most other music traditions for instance, it is not improvised, like ragas are.

Read Weber's essay on the rationality of Western music.


----------



## GreenMamba

ClassicalListener said:


> Miley Cyrus is also flourishing while orchestras and classical radio stations shut down everywhere.
> 
> Aesthetic and artistic appraisal is possible, and simply judging it "snobbish" is a declaration of inability to conduct it. Like I said, the high culture of Eastern civilizations is both beautiful and worthwhile. However there is something unique about European classical music. Unlike most other music traditions for instance, it is not improvised, like ragas are.
> 
> Read Weber's essay on the rationality of Western music.


There is something unique about Indian ragas as well. Unique doesn't mean superior.

And why would the lack of improvisation necessarily be _better_?


----------



## Varick

There is nothing in and of itself "snobbish" about calling one thing superior to another. That's not to say that some who "claim" something is superior may be snobbish. You could call anyone who would claim that Indian Raga is superior to anything else a snob, but that may be the furthest thing from the truth. Is it true?

What matters is not about the person making the claim, it's about whether or not the claim is truthful and/ or has validity. It shouldn't matter WHO makes the claim.

And if Indian Raga was superior to Western classical music, I think the genre would be a bit more popular world wide than it is. I don't here about many Indian Raga classes when pursuing a Masters or a Doctorate in music in Universities around the world.

V


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Polyphemus said:


> Didn't your mother tell you.


No, but then she wasn't exactly known for her unimaginatively comatose, hackneyed one-liner comebacks, either.


----------



## Mahlerian

Varick said:


> And if Indian Raga was superior to Western classical music, I think the genre would be a bit more popular world wide than it is. I don't here about many Indian Raga classes when pursuing a Masters or a Doctorate in music in Universities around the world.


On the other hand, we _do_ have plenty of graduate-level education in the cultural effects of Rock and Pop music, which are certainly popular worldwide. So I suppose these are also superior to Indian classical music?


----------



## GreenMamba

Varick said:


> And if Indian Raga was superior to Western classical music, I think the genre would be a bit more popular world wide than it is. I don't here about many Indian Raga classes when pursuing a Masters or a Doctorate in music in Universities around the world.
> 
> V


So now worldwide popularity is the measure of superiority? It's hard not to imagine where that will lead us.


----------



## Varick

Mahlerian said:


> On the other hand, we _do_ have plenty of graduate-level education *in the cultural effects of Rock and Pop music*, which are certainly popular worldwide. So I suppose these are also superior to Indian classical music?


Operative words there: "Cultural effects" And when discussing those effects, Rock and Pop is an incredibly important and worthy subject. Then it becomes more of a study in cultural anthropology much more than music itself. However, you will not find the study of Rock and Pop music paramount in composition or performance of such degrees.



GreenMamba said:


> So now worldwide popularity is the measure of superiority? It's hard not to imagine where that will lead us.


See above response to Mahlerian

V


----------



## Polyphemus

Cadenzas in concerti are often improvised. The sad reality of the loss of radio stations and orchestras is simply due to the lack of support both public and state. Education budgets are slashed and music appreciation classes no longer exist. Radio stations are commercial enterprises who pump out the most awful pap 24/7. The recording industry is most culpable, the most obvious example I can offer is the Bruckner cycle cut by Philips half way through featuring the VPO under Haitink because unit sales did not meet the bean counter's expectations. The ones that were issued 3, 4, 5 & 8 were superb. Classical issues are by their nature a long term investment. Klemperer, Karajan, Bernstein, Solti, Barbiroli et al still sell as indeed does Maestro Haitink.
While large portions of the Raga do indeed promote improvisation it is the ability of the players to remain within the form and bring the music to a conclusion in a meaningful way.
One more sad point the subscription series at my local concert hall is mostly oldies like myself, how I would love to see the seats filled with teens and twenties even if they clapped at the wrong time.


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit

DiesIraeVIX said:


> None of these people, on both sides of the argument, have claimed to be intellectuals (which would undermine your "pretentious" accusation). Are they not merely having a discussion in which they are voicing their opinions that their respective life-experiences has led them to hold? Is that not the very aim of this forum?
> 
> I'm sorry, but this type of cliched statement is one of my pet peeves. You get a cheap, easy "laugh" because they're "pretentious" and you're "not". They're "pretentious" and you're the "Everyman". Right. Who's really the haughtily superior one in this situation, those who voice their opinions on a PUBLIC FORUM (I repeat, a public forum) or the one who calls them pretentious for doing so? Your statement boils down to "You're not *actual *intellectuals, so you're pretentious for opining on the subject".
> 
> There is an *ironic* confusion of roles at play.
> 
> If this was infraction worthy, so be it. Lay it on me.


They're not being stated as opinions, they're talking about their opinion as though it were something that's objectively quantifiable.....which of course, they are welcome to do on a public forum. But I think even the attempt to do that is just a form of indirect ego-waxing......The value of the merits by which their taste is superior is itself subjective - there isn't any real foundation for an argument that says "X music is superior" beyond personal preference.

I'm not masquerading as an 'every man'....I'm the furthest thing from it. But one of my "pet peeves" is the intellectualization and objectification of something that is fundamentally personal, subjective, and visceral.....what's more, the high priests of artistic merit have a tendency to turn their own musings into a collective dogma. This being why works by certain Austro-German pre-20th century composers are considered completely sacred and infallible, in spite of how frequently dry and understimulating they might be.

They should just admit that they like X music better because it's their taste and they think of themselves as inherently superior individuals who are the only ones qualified enough to evaluate art.


----------



## Mahlerian

Varick said:


> Operative words there: "Cultural effects" And when discussing those effects, Rock and Pop is an incredibly important and worthy subject. Then it becomes more of a study in cultural anthropology much more than music itself. However, you will not find the study of Rock and Pop music paramount in composition or performance of such degrees.


How is this much different from a course in musical history? Why are composition and performance necessarily more important to one's determination of what is or is not great music than cultural impact?

Your assumptions about what defines great music (composition, performance tradition) are inherently biased towards a precisely notated tradition such as the western classical one. If you want to make an argument, you must first argue for these specific elements, and why you believe that they are paramount.


----------



## aleazk

If some meaningful set of parameters is established, then it can be argued that classical music is superior and that doesn't make you a snob. It's simply discussing music at a technical level and it is done just for a genuine interest in the concepts involved. Composers and musicians do it all the time.

For example, I would defend the notion that classical music is superior in terms of polyphonic richness, the scope and the level of maturity the concept reached. Some other cultures have interesting notions of polyphony (like gamelan or the aka pygmies), and they even influenced classical music, but it simply does not compare with the rather rich history the concept has in classical music.

As for "superior in terms of 'spiritual', 'emotional', etc.", I wouldn't touch those vague and volatile notions even with a stick...

And this has nothing to do with relativism, but it's about reaching a point in which a thing cannot be discussed in objective terms anymore. In art, those notions mark the limit for me.


----------



## Polyphemus

Varick said:


> There is nothing in and of itself "snobbish" about calling one thing superior to another. That's not to say that some who "claim" something is superior may be snobbish. You could call anyone who would claim that Indian Raga is superior to anything else a snob, but that may be the furthest thing from the truth. Is it true?
> 
> What matters is not about the person making the claim, it's about whether or not the claim is truthful and/ or has validity. It shouldn't matter WHO makes the claim.
> 
> And if Indian Raga was superior to Western classical music, I think the genre would be a bit more popular world wide than it is. I don't here about many Indian Raga classes when pursuing a Masters or a Doctorate in music in Universities around the world.
> 
> V


There were no claims made that the Indian raga was superior to anything one should learn to read what's on the bandwagon before jumping on. The Doctorates you speak of usually concern Rock music which have $ signs all over them.


----------



## Polyphemus

Marschallin Blair said:


> No, but then she wasn't exactly known for her unimaginatively comatose, hackneyed one-liner comebacks, either.


Should I laugh or worry about the rest of the rain forest.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Polyphemus said:


> Should I laugh or worry about the rest of the rain forest.


I imagine one could laugh at trying to cover up the expanding ozone hole on the top of one's balding head_ first_. . . and then worry about the rain forest later.


----------



## Woodduck

I notice some stuff being batted around here about Indian music. Let's put down the tennis racquets for a moment. 

The classical musicians of India, most particularly those in the northern Indian tradition of improvisation on ragas using such stringed instruments as the sitar, sarod, and surbahar, accompanied by tabla (drums), have, as far as I know, created the most complex and subtle music to be found anywhere outside the West. No one should make careless comparisons between Western classical music and this music which differs greatly from it in nearly every respect, but has in common with it a great expressive power and a technical difficulty which requires long years of study to master. 

I know little about this music beyond the basic information enclosed with recordings, but have been truly astonished by the improvised creations of some of the masters of the style, and would offer in all humility the tentative opinion that these are some of the greatest musicians in the world giving us music which, lacking the resources of polyphony fundamental to Western music's textural richness and expressive range, has carried the possibilities of melody and rhythm to levels of subtlety and complexity that no Western music of my acquaintance can match. Any number of musicians from the West (perhaps most famously Yehudi Menuhin) have been inspired to travel to India and learn more about its music, indeed even to study it, as well as perform it, with its leading practitioners. I suspect that the impediments to greater popular interest in it worldwide have less to do with the artistic rewards it can offer than with cultural factors, as well as the complexity and difficulty, conceptually and technically, of the music itself. As an improvised art possessing a detailed theoretical basis, it cannot be practiced, and perhaps even comprehended, by just anyone. It is not, in other words, the popular music of India, Ravi Shankar's friendship with the Beatles notwithstanding.

I wish I could say more about this extraordinary art form. If anyone else can, please do. But I would suggest to anyone determined to establish the "superiority" of any particular kind of music that a closer acquaintance with the classical music of India just might alter the shape of your project a bit.


----------



## Polyphemus

Marschallin Blair said:


> I imagine one could laugh at trying to cover up the expanding ozone hole on the top of one's balding head_ first_. . . and then worry about the rain forest later.


Sorry to hear of your hair problem but I think there are enough potions and brews available to at least disguise the problem.


----------



## Polyphemus

Woodduck said:


> I notice some stuff being batted around here about Indian music. Let's put down the tennis racquets for a moment.
> 
> I wish I could say more about this extraordinary art form. If anyone else can, please do. But I would suggest to anyone determined to establish the "superiority" of any particular kind of music that a closer acquaintance with the classical music of India just might alter the shape of your project a bit.


Thank you Woodduck well put. It encapsulates my point that to claim that western classical music is the pinnacle of mans musical achievement is simply a fallacy. It undoubtedly has that status in the west and the Americas. There are a huge number of opera fans on TC, me, I can't stand opera, but a mass or a requiem, yes please. There seems to be a desire in society to appear to be 'superior' or elitist. I have always found this attitude to be both reprehensible and laughable. Having money entitles me to buy my favourite seat in the Concert Hall not decide who sits beside me.
Ravi Shankar wrote 3 concerti for Sitar and Orchestra none of which were a huge success musically because I do not think the two forms combine well, I stress that this is my opinion only. 
I only ask that people be a little more open minded and not so dogmatic.


----------



## Varick

Polyphemus said:


> There were no claims made that the Indian raga was superior to anything one should learn to read what's on the bandwagon before jumping on. The Doctorates you speak of usually concern Rock music which have $ signs all over them.





Gaspard de la Nuit said:


> They're not being stated as opinions, they're talking about their opinion as though it were something that's objectively quantifiable.....which of course, they are welcome to do on a public forum. But I think even the attempt to do that is just a form of indirect ego-waxing......The value of the merits by which their taste is superior is itself subjective - there isn't any real foundation for an argument that says "X music is superior" beyond personal preference.
> 
> I'm not masquerading as an 'every man'....I'm the furthest thing from it. But one of my "pet peeves" is the intellectualization and objectification of something that is fundamentally personal, subjective, and visceral.....what's more, the high priests of artistic merit have a tendency to turn their own musings into a collective dogma. This being why works by certain Austro-German pre-20th century composers are considered completely sacred and infallible, in spite of how frequently dry and understimulating they might be.
> 
> They should just admit that they like X music better because it's their taste and they think of themselves as inherently superior individuals who are the only ones qualified enough to evaluate art.


I don't believe you have read this entire thread. If you did, you would see that everyone who claims (like myself) that classical music is superior isn't talking about their personal taste and that there is objective reasoning behind such a claim. You're constant referrals to one's self-image, ego, or snobbery indicates that you either have not read everyone's posts on this thread or that you completely missed the myriad examples stating that this has nothing to do with personal taste.



Polyphemus said:


> There were no claims made that the Indian raga was superior to anything one should learn to read what's on the bandwagon before jumping on. The Doctorates you speak of usually concern Rock music which have $ signs all over them.


I know no one claimed superiority of India Raga, nor have I claimed that anyone claimed it. It was used as an example, so I continued using that example. I have read everything on this bandwagon and accurately so. Have you?

Doctorates in Rock Music? I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but I am thoroughly unfamiliar with any. I am only familiar with doctorates in "music" and those programs are heavily steeped in Western classical music studies. And what the heck does $ have to do with whether or not birds fly upside down?

And here's a another question: Why do people assume that when you say X is better than Y, that you are saying that Y is bad, or sucks, or isn't good?? When often, nothing can be further from the truth. Talk about pet peeves...

V


----------



## Polyphemus

Varick said:


> And here's a another question: Why do people assume that when you say X is better than Y, that you are saying that Y is bad, or sucks, or isn't good?? When often, nothing can be further from the truth. Talk about pet peeves...
> 
> V


Your last quote shows the weakness of your argument. You claim classical music is superior (meaning better I presume). I happen to prefer classical music too, but, it does not make me 'superior' for making that choice. Gaspard has nailed your argument and position it is simply an exercise in ego massage.


----------



## Varick

Polyphemus said:


> Your last quote shows the weakness of your argument. You claim classical music is superior (meaning better I presume). I happen to prefer classical music too, but, it does not make me 'superior' for making that choice. Gaspard has nailed your argument and position it is simply an exercise in ego massage.


[banging head against wall repeatedly]

For the UMPTEENTH TIME... Who is saying ANYTHING about being superior????????? There is no inference to that except the claims that YOU (and a few others who would rather attack the person rather than the argument) have made.

I have said over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over that just because one likes sometHing superior doesn't make them superior.

Just because someone likes something inferior, doesn't make them an inferior person. I love Wendy's hamburgers. It's an inferior product quality wise, health wise, and lifestyle wise to most other kinds of burgers. Because I like such an inferior product doesn't make me an inferior human being. Just because I like classical music doesn't make me a superior person To anyone who hates classical music.

I have stated as much again and again throughout this thread. Either have the decency to admit you haven't read this entire thread and what I have written throughout it, or have the cajones to say you don't believe me and call me a liar. I can live with either.

What I can't live with is when I say I like the color yellow over the color orange, but someone keeps insisting that I like the color orange more.

V


----------



## hpowders

Polyphemus said:


> Your last quote shows the weakness of your argument. You claim classical music is superior (meaning better I presume). I happen to prefer classical music too, but, it does not make me 'superior' for making that choice. Gaspard has nailed your argument and position it is simply an exercise in ego massage.


Yes. Those who claim classical is "superior" are indeed massaging their own egos.


----------



## Polyphemus

Varick said:


> [banging head against wall repeatedly]
> 
> For the UMPTEENTH TIME... Who is saying ANYTHING about being superior????????? There is no inference to that except the claims that YOU (and a few others who would rather attack the person rather than the argument) have made.
> 
> I have said over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over that just because one likes sometHing superior doesn't make them superior.
> 
> Just because someone likes something inferior, doesn't make them an inferior person. I love Wendy's hamburgers. It's an inferior product quality wise, health wise, and lifestyle wise to most other kinds of burgers. Because I like such an inferior product doesn't make me an inferior human being. Just because I like classical music doesn't make me a superior person To anyone who hates classical music.
> 
> I have stated as much again and again throughout this thread. Either have the decency to admit you haven't read this entire thread and what I have written throughout it, or have the cajones to say you don't believe me and call me a liar. I can live with either.
> 
> What I can't live with is when I say I like the color yellow over the color orange, but someone keeps insisting that I like the color orange more.
> 
> V


Wow man take it easy such rants will lead to heart attacks. Personally I don't give a damn what you like or don't like but the entire tenure of your posts up to this point is that classical music was superior and the tenure of your posts gave the reader the opinion that that made you feel superior. By the current post it seems that a misunderstanding has occurred so if that is the case we have nothing to argue about.
I am sure you will agree having read all the posts in this subject that certain contributors do hold that belief. Reading my posts as you did it is plain that I find that position unsupportable and silly.
Anyway I am glad any misunderstanding has been cleared up and normal relations can be resumed.


----------



## Guest

You could say that classical music is more complex than say, pop/rock music. There's simply MORE there. Most pop/rock music is essentially variations on the same I-IV-V-II chord progression, and pentatonic scales. A basic structure of verse, chorus and bridge with very little harmonic progression. It's meant to be direct, catchy and simple.

I offer you this quote from George Orwell "1984" novel, which summarizes for me what pop music mostly represents nowadays.

_The tune had been haunting London for weeks past. It was one of countless similar songs published for the ben- efit of the proles by a sub-section of the Music Department.

The words of these songs were composed without any hu- man intervention whatever on an instrument known as a versificator. But the woman sang so tunefully as to turn the dreadful rubbish into an almost pleasant sound. He could hear the woman singing and the scrape of her shoes on the flagstones, and the cries of the children in the street, and somewhere in the far distance a faint roar of traffic, and yet the room seemed curiously silent, thanks to the absence of a telescreen._

Of course, you could say the same for much of the rubbish operas that were produced in the 18th and 19th centuries, when opera was a mass business.


----------



## bigshot

There are all kinds of superior music. I love music in general even more than I love any specific genre of it.

A better question would be, why do classical music listeners consider themselves to be superior?


----------



## ArtMusic

The superior music is the one you enjoy listening to.  :lol:


----------



## Xaltotun

One reason for the alleged superiority of classical music is simply that I don't get _bored_ listening to it. Some other types of music do that, too. Most, however, don't.


----------

