# Why so many recent threads on contemporary music?



## Guest (Mar 21, 2014)

This question was asked on another thread recently but not, to my recollection, answered.

Here's a thread for answering it. 

Here's my answer. There are two reasons. A good news and bad news kind of thing. First the bad reason: because there are a lot of people who dislike it and need to express their dislike to all and sundry.

The good reason: Because there are a lot of people who like it and want to express their enjoyment to similarly minded people.

What a strange reason that second one is, no? After all, people who like Bach or Beethoven or Wagner or Mahler don't keep making threads about those people. In fact, people generally just don't like to talk about things they like, do they?

There's a corollary to the good reason, too, to get back to the serious talk. Because so many people still start with the false assumption that contemporary music is bad--at least the "extreme, experimental, avant garde, serial" stuff--there are many false attacks on it. People who know the stuff and like it will very naturally want to counter those attacks, replacing the false conclusions with intellectually and experientially more accurate views on the matter.

But that must not be allowed! Hatred must conquer all.:devil:

And that's why it keeps going round and round on the same groove. (Another observation on another thread.)

One thing would guaranteed pop us out of the groove, for a certain group of people to accept the premise that there is nothing wrong with contemporary avant garde music. It might not please the people in that group, but what of that? Nor Chopin nor Wagner nor Bax particularly please me. Nothing much, really, to conclude there except maybe for fans of those people to figure I might be missing out. And, of course I am. It's true.

But I think it's another premise that may be the real sticking point, though, and that is that the things one dislikes are truly bad and awful and that anyone who likes them is truly bad and awful themselves--fakers and liars and only interested in being different for different's sake. Yeah. That one might take a little effort to dislodge.

Try it is my point. Try starting here--contemporary avant garde art music is fine. See where that takes you.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

*Original post deleted*


----------



## MagneticGhost (Apr 7, 2013)

Some people maybe. But There are many of us I'm sure, that don't feel the need to participate in conversations about things we don't like.


Whilst I'm here, I really dig Ligeti and my discovery of the week was Guo Wenjing.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I agree that some people enjoy contemporary music and wish to talk about it and some people strongly dislike it and wish to disparage it. Those people will start threads expressing their beliefs and feelings.

I would quibble slightly with the statement "there are a lot of people who dislike it and need to express their dislike to all". I think there are relatively few on TC who "need to express their dislike to all". These few may sometimes post often on this topic, but I still believe it's a small minority at TC.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Contemporary music is certainly not news, but it is newer news than anything about music from before 1890.

The majority of classical music fans mostly liking music written before or up to 1890 are like a historical re-enactment club, more interested in the past then the present. (Do you adore Tchaikovsky? ... and you don't somehow equate that to the Americans who dress up on weekends and go to American Civil War re-enactments, and you don't find that a titch eccentric?)

Fine, but why that should not be more considered as rare and off-center -- and more than just a little bit psychologically kinky -- than an interest in more current affairs, well, that is the topsy-turvey standard for most classical music fans, who think there is absolutely nothing odd, weird, or wrong with them for being so occupied with the past.

People who venture into works of the last century and their own time are accused of doing it to set themselves apart from the crowd, posing as eccentric, or to be different. LOL. (What an infantile load of rationale that is; the life phases -- for strongly wanting to conform or at all caring if you conform in order to belong, or conversely go out of your way to be perceived as different -- being the 'tweens or early teens.)

Classical fans who only go for music of a further distant past are just as likely, by those outside music in the more general life, to be considered those eccentrics, people preoccupied with and who love to escape to the past at the drop of a hat for any reason.

Perhaps those who are more the members of "The classical music re-enactment societies" have some need to mock or disparage the newer music and any and all who like it, in order to rationalize they are not as eccentric as those folk who dress up on weekends to go to their historic re-enactment meetings?


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Contemporary music is certainly not news, but it is newer news than anything about music from before 1890.
> 
> The majority of classical music fans mostly liking music written before or up to 1890 are like a historical re-enactment club, more interested in the past then the present. (Do you adore Tchaikovsky? ... and you don't somehow equate that to the Americans who dress up on weekends and go to American Civil War re-enactments, and you don't find that a titch eccentric?)
> 
> ...


This really needed to be said in such a way. Well done.


----------



## Guest (Mar 21, 2014)

some guy said:


> Try it is my point. Try starting here--contemporary avant garde art music is fine. See where that takes you.


What do you think of Medieval and Renaissance music?

Do you hold each of these in the same high regard as you do contemporary music?


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

Why is there so much navel-gazing? The story of the internet chapters 1 thru 872.


----------



## Guest (Mar 21, 2014)

Partita said:


> What do you think of Medieval and Renaissance music?
> 
> Do you hold each of these in the same high regard as you do contemporary music?


First, I don't find either of these questions to be pertinent.

But since you've asked, what the hay? I like Medieval and Renaissance music very much. I hold both in very high regard, though I spend less time with them than I do with music of today.

I've noticed, to try to make it more pertinent, that when people who are really deeply involved with the creation and performance of new music are asked about their favorite other music it is frequently ancient music that they name. Several of my favorite electroacoustic composer friends like Bach above all others--though none of their music sounds in any way like Bach. At least one of my electroacoustic friends spends all his spare time (spare listening time) listening to top forty.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Partita said:


> What do you think of Medieval and Renaissance music?
> 
> Do you hold each of these in the same high regard as you do contemporary music?


Why are you asking such a question? You are well aware that some guy and the rest of us pro-contemporary types like the old stuff as well as the new. There is plentiful evidence of that in many of our posts. Is it really necessary for me to profess that I love the virginal music of William Byrd or are you stunned that I know who William Byrd is?


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

I very much enjoy old music. This thread seems to be more about putting a highlight on the folks who squawk from their boxes at those who are interested in the progression of music.


----------



## Guest (Mar 21, 2014)

arpeggio said:


> Why are you asking such a question? You are well aware that some guy and the rest of us pro-contemporary types like the old stuff as well as the new. There is plentiful evidence of that in many of our posts. Is it really necessary for me to profess that I love the virginal music of William Byrd or are you stunned that I know who William Byrd is.


Obviously, some people do not have such wide, electic tastes in classical music as you and "some guy" evidently do. I hasten to add that my tastes are very wide, and I am definitely interested in some contemporary music, so I am not part of the critical set.

However, I would imagine that the percentage of those interested in classical music who like all genres and eras, including contemporary, is a tiny fraction of the total. The vast majority are evidenly bunched mainly in the period from roughly 1600-1950, judging from most polls that I have seen.

Therefore, given what I perceive to be a low interest in contemporary music by many people, it isn't surprising that the occasional member might pop up to express their dislike openly. I agree that some negative comment is quite pathetic and ill-informed, but one has to take the rough with the smooth on Boards of this nature. Trying to stop such criticism would be an impossible task. I therefore cannot see any useful purpose being served in lecturing people on how they should adjust their attitudes to contemporary music, as it will largely fall on deaf ears.


----------



## Guest (Mar 21, 2014)

Partita said:


> ...it will largely fall on deaf ears.


Yes, there's a lot of that going around.:lol:

He who has ears, let him hear.


----------



## Guest (Mar 21, 2014)

some guy said:


> Yes, there's a lot of that going around.:lol:
> 
> He who has ears, let him hear.


Telling people to adopt a positive attitude towards music they have sampled and dislike is like buying hay for a dead horse.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Wow. An interest in history, including the history of music, is equivalent to being a Civil War reenactor, which is evidently supposed to be some kind of humiliatingly ridiculous thing to be rather than just one more odd subculture that happens when there are three hundred plus million people with a bit of leisure time. 

Despite such insults, I refuse to stop enjoying the music of history. I'm gonna listen to Tchaikovsky, Duke Ellington, Jimi Hendrix, and for that matter Hildegard von Bingen, and the haters can shove it in their pipes and smoke it. 

And if I continue to enjoy contemporary music, it is also in spite of such insults.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

PetrB said:


> The majority of classical music fans mostly liking music written before or up to 1890 are like a historical re-enactment club, more interested in the past then the present. (Do you adore Tchaikovsky? ... and you don't somehow equate that to the Americans who dress up on weekends and go to American Civil War re-enactments, and you don't find that a titch eccentric?)
> 
> Fine, but why that should not be more considered as rare and off-center -- and more than just a little bit psychologically kinky -- than an interest in more current affairs, well, that is the topsy-turvey standard for most classical music fans, who think there is absolutely nothing odd, weird, or wrong with them for being so occupied with the past.


I think we generally agree on the value of newer music, but I think the above might go a bit far. I think you're confusing a focus on events of the past with enjoyment of events in the present. When people do re-enactments, they're focusing on past events and celebrating them. The vast majority of people listening to Tchaikovsky are in no way focusing on events of the past. They are enjoying events in the present. The music exists today, is played today, and most importantly gives enjoyment today.

When you enjoy nature (maybe sitting near a bubbling brook, strolling through a wooded area, or gazing out over a wide valley) are you more interested in the past than the present because those regions were created in the past? No, you are simply enjoying the present. When I use classical electrodynamics to calculate the voltage in a battery, am I more interested in the past because Maxwell was a contemporary of Tchaichovsky? No, Maxwell's equations are just as useful today as when they were discovered. (And they are just as beautiful as well. )

I'm not happy when people disparage modern music or make unreasonable claims about those who enjoy it. In response I prefer to try to understand those people and see if I can get them to see our side a little better.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Vesuvius said:


> I very much enjoy old music. This thread seems to be more about putting a highlight on the folks who squawk from their boxes at those who are interested in the progression of music.


Sqauwk _*and volubly whine*_, imo.

Good Lord, Apollo, and all others... TC is a classical music forum, and _there really ought to be enough room to discuss any of it, 1000 a.c.e. to present_, without one or more members turning up mainly to say how much they don't like music from this era or that. (Some members do this quite regularly, i.e. seeking out contemporary music posts to disparage or destroy; some members regularly make polls on the subject which are unwavering in being inflected in the negative against, as if their dislike of all modern / contemporary music is a beyond clinical compulsive fixation / obsession -- i.e. they are known for little if any other contributions, or positive contributions on anything else.)

Maybe TC needs to write into its policy so anyone joining and participating on this forum knows full well that they can and should expect "classical music," to mean _*all of it,*_ including the classical music from the 20th and 21st centuries. The fact of modern and contemporary music is and should be a huge _no big deal_ that it is truly a wonder how many feel entitled to show up in so many contemporary music threads to simply voice their dislike or near hatred of it, while there are that many more threads where modern and contemporary rep are not the topic of discussion at all.

I'm beginning to think it is not the music, but a particular and specific dysfunctional sort of person who latches on to contemporary music as a fixated center of their general malcontent: rather than being the problem, it is just a symptom.

There are so many here more than willing and able to advise and direct, or mentor, anyone sincerely interested in exploring the newer classical music, and those sincerely interested have well taken advantage of TC and some specific members to do just that.

But for those others who just show up to continuously say how awful it is, how much it is not for them? The people from and since 1890 have not been composing music which fits the sentimental tastes of a number of people, and the complainants are those who have clearly never, ever, "kept up," with the progression of music from earlier eras, to say the least. Some really really only want the old stuff or music near to exactly like it; they seem to want and expect -- completely without any semblance of either reason or logic -- for composers in the present day to write so similarly to the old styles that the requests (near demands at times,) are for no more than facsimiles and pastiche while they condemn any who will not cater to their whims to reproductive drudgery... while there is an ocean of repertoire which more than fits the anti-modernist's requisites.

Who pays any real attention to people who are beyond unreasonable? They are not major players. They are not the creators or supporters of the arts, etc. Ergo, they are not a factor in what happens to classical music at all.

But they do make of themselves a very high profile presence in so many threads about modern and contemporary music and other threads about how to keep the classical music business alive and well, etc. I think the phenomena is more a matter of its being the internet, which is often the place cranks and complainers can go because they've already run through all their family, friends and close acquaintances -- and bored them to death with these same sort of complaints -- then, _kaboom, zInternetz!!!_... with its fresh bounty of audience numbering in in the millions as new victims to listen to the same complaints everyone around them in real life turned away from out of sheer tedium.

Go figure.


----------



## Wood (Feb 21, 2013)

PetrB said:


> _1000 a.c.e. to present_,


There are literally hundreds of ACE acronyms, and I can't make sense of this one, even though I presume it means AD.

Please put me out of my misery. 

What does it stand for?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

mmsbls said:


> I think we generally agree on the value of newer music, but I think the above might go a bit far. I think you're confusing a focus on events of the past with enjoyment of events in the present. When people do re-enactments, they're focusing on past events and celebrating them. The vast majority of people listening to Tchaikovsky are in no way focusing on events of the past. They are enjoying events in the present. The music exists today, is played today, and most importantly gives enjoyment today.
> 
> When you enjoy nature (maybe sitting near a bubbling brook, strolling through a wooded area, or gazing out over a wide valley) are you more interested in the past than the present because those regions were created in the past? No, you are simply enjoying the present. When I use classical electrodynamics to calculate the voltage in a battery, am I more interested in the past because Maxwell was a contemporary of Tchaichovsky? No, Maxwell's equations are just as useful today as when they were discovered. (And they are just as beautiful as well. )
> 
> I'm not happy when people disparage modern music or make unreasonable claims about those who enjoy it. In response I prefer to try to understand those people and see if I can get them to see our side a little better.


One thing we need to keep in mind is that there are different kinds of people.

I'm a historical guy. If I think of Maxwell's equations, or forests, or coffee, or pianos, or boats, or blue dyes, or dogs, or human rights, I'm automatically drawn to questions like, "When did this start? Where did it come from? What influenced it? What did it replace? How did it effect other things? How has it (and/or people's attitudes to it) changed over time? What similar historical phenomena can I compare and contrast to this?"

There are other kinds of people, who are less drawn to that kind of question and more drawn to questions like, "What is this thing really? Can I take it apart? How does it work?" I'm not totally uninterested in those questions, but I'm more interested in historical ones. So I'm less interested in the structure of DNA than in how that structure was discovered. Other people are less interested in how it was discovered than in what it is. For me, Maxwell's equations (sadly, I can't understand the math; I consider myself extremely fortunate merely to understand some of Euler's math) are most interesting as part of a story about the development of human knowledge and control of electricity. Even when I can understand the math (as with Kepler), the historical context and historical effects are more interesting to me.

But another kind of person can't understand how, in a world with baseball or laughing babies or mountains to climb or television to watch or foreign languages to learn, anyone can be interested in any of that stuff.

And so on.

I don't intend to set up any iron dichotomies here, only to illustrate the fact of human diversity. We don't all have to like the same stuff, or approach it the same way. It's ok if I don't like Byrd, or Tchaikovsky, or Murail - and it's ok if you do. In fact, our reasons for liking or not liking whatever usually don't even matter. I enjoy thinking about the history of the violin when I listen to Corelli, or of the piano when I listen to Chopin, or the rise of the bourgeoisie (and their money, and their social values) when I listen to Brahms, and so on; in fact, I rarely listen to Corelli or Chopin or Brahms without thinking of such things. That is not required for anyone else, but I like it. I know that some people consider this absolutely wrong because music is supposed to be pure and I'm sullying it with these filthy considerations, but to me, it's just that they have their way of appreciating it and I have mine.

In an ideal world, we'd be able to listen and learn from each other. (Or perhaps, in an ideal world we'd all be the same. That's someone else's ideal, though; I don't see that as ideal.) But in this gloriously diverse or sadly broken world, what matters is to be minimally respectful of each other, or at least that matters if we want to get along.

But even that is probably beyond us. I think I've seen enough of these discussions to know that the two sides don't actually want to get along. They each want to legitimize their condescension for each other. It's not enough to say you like their music, you have to agree with their POV on the people who don't.

I no longer believe anything productive can be done because we've got two (or, two-ish) groups of people who are going to continue to do what they want to do. Better communication isn't going to help anything because misunderstanding isn't the problem. But I don't mean this as if I think I'm better than either of the groups in this fight: I realize that I'm in the game too, in that I consider myself beyond it, and that is its own form of condescension. So I suppose, in a diverse world, we'll have to lash out at each other (on a moderated forum, in more or less passive-aggressive ways) as we try to carve out a sense of our own legitimacy.

But I still like the music ("so far, so good" might apply here), and I will go on enjoying it my own way, and I hope lots of other people do too, and I really hope that in the near future the various partisans get more comfortable with each other's differences. _The Rite of Spring_ was first performed during the "First World War." That is just one thing that is much more interesting for me to think about.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Wood said:


> There are literally hundreds of ACE acronyms, and I can't make sense of this one, even though I presume it means AD.
> 
> Please put me out of my misery.
> 
> What does it stand for?


I think he means "CE", which is "Common Era" (i.e. the last 2000 and change years).


----------



## Wood (Feb 21, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> I think he means "CE", which is "Common Era" (i.e. the last 2000 and change years).


I see, thanks. A new one to me.

Presumably a PC version of AD.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Wood said:


> I see, thanks. A new one to me.
> 
> Presumably a PC version of AD.


In archeology and history, it was initially B.C. / A.C. -- literally before and after Christ, then changed to A.C.E. and B.C.E. - those read as before / after the Christian Era, which was I suppose a first politically correct move in softening "Christ" to "the Christian Era" so as not to assume the whole world was or remains Christian, or to get faith further away from it, though clearly the original and revised markers both use Christ as the pivot point from those dates running backward to the dates running forward (lol.)


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

PetrB said:


> In archeology and history, it was initially B.C. / A.C. -- literally before and after Christ...


Believe it was BC and AD, "anno domini". At least all the time I was growing up.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

How about just dropping the labels and giving any piece of music we encounter the same undivided attention? It's amazing how rich an experience this can be. For example, I don't listen to much Bach, but the other day while tuned into Exploring Music, Bill McGlaughlin played two fantastic pieces I had never heard. A re-composed Vivaldi work with Bach's ornate complexity, and an incredible work for solo violin performed by Itzhak Perlman. I don't remember the titles, and I wouldn't try to tack on any labels.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

mmsbls said:


> I think we generally agree on the value of newer music, but I think the above might go a bit far. I think you're confusing a focus on events of the past with enjoyment of events in the present. When people do re-enactments, they're focusing on past events and celebrating them. The vast majority of people listening to Tchaikovsky are in no way focusing on events of the past. They are enjoying events in the present. The music exists today, is played today, and most importantly gives enjoyment today.
> 
> When you enjoy nature (maybe sitting near a bubbling brook, strolling through a wooded area, or gazing out over a wide valley) are you more interested in the past than the present because those regions were created in the past? No, you are simply enjoying the present. When I use classical electrodynamics to calculate the voltage in a battery, am I more interested in the past because Maxwell was a contemporary of Tchaichovsky? No, Maxwell's equations are just as useful today as when they were discovered. (And they are just as beautiful as well. )
> 
> I'm not happy when people disparage modern music or make unreasonable claims about those who enjoy it. In response I prefer to try to understand those people and see if I can get them to see our side a little better.


Well, both the Civil War analogy and old Classical music are actually both re-enactments in the present. They're very much related to people being smitten by the past…. in the present. I like it all, really. But a good bit are simply obsessed with the past. Maybe the changing into the unknown is intimidating for most people, I don't know….


----------



## Guest (Mar 22, 2014)

Partita said:


> I wasn't asking for your comment, so it is clearly unnecessary for you to profess your interest in the music of William Byrd, or anyone else from that era.
> 
> Obviously, some people do not have such wide, electic tastes in classical music as you and "some guy" evidently do. I hasten to add that my tastes are very wide, and I am definitely interested in some contemporary music, so I am not part of the critical set.


If you don't want others to comment, why post in a public forum? You can always PM someguy if you want to ask private things!

And why do you 'hasten' to add, I wonder?


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

I can't wait for the "Uncommon Era" to start. I feel it may be soon.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Then we can rename the House of Lords, the House of Uncommons.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

The problem with someguy's opening post, and all the answers which follow, is the result of a basic misunderstanding; a confusion of 'inner' and 'outer.' Everyone seems to have deluded themselves into thinking that there can be 'objectivity,' or that qualities exist 'out there' in the music. Nothing exists 'in' the music.

Zen can help with this. If you sit in one spot long enough, and remain silent, then eventually you will realize that 'your thoughts' are 'inner,' and have essentially nothing to do with whatever object you are experiencing.

Music is not 'this' or 'that.' Your experience of it is 'this' or 'that,' but these qualities do not exist 'out there' in the object.

What is someguy defending? Apparently, he is defending some 'quality' that he feels can be ascribed to 'contemporary music,' but in reality, these qualities are without substance, and are illusory. So are the 'qualities' of 'thisness' or 'thatness' that anyone ascribes to music 'out there.'

We are chasing ghosts, gentlemen.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Denouncing Contemporary Music*

I find some of the threads are actually platforms for denouncing contemporary music.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> The problem with someguy's opening post, and all the answers which follow, is the result of a basic misunderstanding; a confusion of 'inner' and 'outer.' Everyone seems to have deluded themselves into thinking that there can be 'objectivity,' or that qualities exist 'out there' in the music. Nothing exists 'in' the music.
> 
> Zen can help with this. If you sit in one spot long enough, and remain silent, then eventually you will realize that 'your thoughts' are 'inner,' and have essentially nothing to do with whatever object you are experiencing.
> 
> ...


Of course, everything seems to be empty until we impart our meaning to it. But music has withstood so much explanations and dictations that it _appears_ to be an entity on it's own. I mean, we're all here to talk about this mystical entity… aren't we? A fabric of the human imagination, but that we're here shows that we take it to have some gravity.


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

Yes, if there was the God of Music I would worship it. Why the hell not?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

PetrB said:


> In archeology and history, it was initially B.C. / A.C. -- literally before and after Christ, then changed to A.C.E. and B.C.E. - those read as before / after the Christian Era, which was I suppose a first politically correct move in softening "Christ" to "the Christian Era" so as not to assume the whole world was or remains Christian, or to get faith further away from it, though clearly the original and revised markers both use Christ as the pivot point from those dates running backward to the dates running forward (lol.)


TC was down, or unavailable to edit this.

Of course, it is B.C. and A.D. -- the Anno Domini literally "in the year of our Lord." That is what was changed with a (better, I think) recognition that the A.D. was a wrongly "Christian-centric" viewpoint. Politically correct maybe no more to do with it than a decision that a more subjective term was desirable.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Serge said:


> Yes, if there was the God of Music I would worship it. Why the hell not?


Apollo... or your choice of one of the three ancient 'proto - muses' or from the later named larger group
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muse


----------



## Guest (Mar 22, 2014)

MacLeod said:


> If you don't want others to comment, why post in a public forum? You can always PM someguy if you want to ask private things!
> 
> And why do you 'hasten' to add, I wonder?


And why should any of these things matter to you?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Vesuvius said:


> Of course, everything seems to be empty until we impart our meaning to it. But music has withstood so much explanations and dictations that it _appears_ to be an entity on it's own. I mean, we're all here to talk about this mystical entity… aren't we? A fabric of the human imagination, but that we're here shows that we take it to have some gravity.


The tricky thing about art, and music, is that it is a symbolic form of communication; the interface of experience upon experience. I think that the problems begin to creep in when our experiential paradigms and assumptions are challenged. This turns out to be a failing or deficiency on our part, unless the 'art' or composer has somehow failed to communicate adequately.

However, even this turns out to be unprovable, since we, as humans, tend to be 'pattern-seekers.' We will impart meaning to stains on the wall, we will see structure in the tiles on the floor.

Meanwhile, as I sit here in this toilet stall, with stained walls and tiled floors, I lament the fact that experience, i.e. total subjectivity, is as 'unprovable' as God, or anything metaphysical. Do I exist? I stink, therefore, I am.


----------



## Guest (Mar 22, 2014)

Partita said:


> And why should any of these things matter to you?


Because we - you, me, some guy, arpeggio, all TCers - are not just here to exchange views about classical music, but to form virtual relationships of a sort. So how and why people post what they do is - for some of us, at any rate - of interest.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

I don't mind people not liking contemporary music, it's the ******* ignorance and lies that bother me (eg. contemporary composers don't use counterpoint, they don't organize anything, it's easy to be great as a contemporary composer ect.)


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> The tricky thing about art, and music, is that it is a symbolic form of communication; the interface of experience upon experience. I think that the problems begin to creep in when our experiential paradigms and assumptions are challenged. This turns out to be a failing or deficiency on our part, unless the 'art' or composer has somehow failed to communicate adequately.
> 
> However, even this turns out to be unprovable, since we, as humans, tend to be 'pattern-seekers.' We will impart meaning to stains on the wall, we will see structure in the tiles on the floor.
> 
> Meanwhile, as I sit here in this toilet stall, with stained walls and tiled floors, I lament the fact that experience, i.e. total subjectivity, is as 'unprovable' as God, or anything metaphysical. Do I exist? I stink, therefore, I am.


But you exist even when you don't stink… or think.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Believe it was BC and AD, "anno domini". At least all the time I was growing up.


You're right. TC was down for a good chunk of the day, my finding that when I hit (x3 or more) and had to give up. That correction is now in a later post.


----------



## Guest (Mar 22, 2014)

science said:


> ...
> 
> In an ideal world, we'd be able to listen and learn from each other. (Or perhaps, in an ideal world we'd all be the same. That's someone else's ideal, though; I don't see that as ideal.) But in this gloriously diverse or sadly broken world, what matters is to be minimally respectful of each other, or at least that matters if we want to get along.
> 
> But even that is probably beyond us. I think I've seen enough of these discussions to know that *the two sides* don't actually want to get along. They each want to legitimize their condescension for each other. It's not enough to say you like their music, you have to agree with their POV on the people who don't.


I wonder whether talk about the "two sides" is an exaggeration of the differences of view that exist in practice amongst the main protagonists on this Board right now.

Yes, there are occasional members who post antagonistic opinions about contemporary music, but as far as I can see many of them are from people who are not far short of trolling, when account is taken of the usually very low number of their posts and their typical reticence in amplifying upon their views when questioned.

From my casual observations, most of the regular members do not appear to be as hostile to contemporary music as some like to make out. I agree that there were a few cantankerous members in the past who appeared to delight in having regular showdowns expressing their dislike for a lot of the contemporary scene, but either they have disappeared or have been clobbered into relative silence by the devices best known to the management.

The only concerns that I have seen from some members who are not over the moon about contemporary music is that they are against what are perceived as the over-zealous attempts to promote it by some on the dubious notion that there is nothing wrong with it, and if they don't like it then, by implication, they must be some kind of historical-fantasising weirdo.

I do not like all styles of contemporary music but there is some that I do. I suspect the same opinion applies to several other members whose main interests lie elsewhere. As for people having entrenched positions in these matters, I am not influenced by any opinions I see on this Board. I either agree with them or disagree, but seldom come across anything I didn't already know that I wished I had known. I'm not in the learning music game to any great extent, and to the limited extent that I am I prefer other ways of discovering new music. I strongly suspect that the same applies to several other people on this Board.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Partita said:


> I agree that there were a few cantankerous members in the past who appeared to delight in having regular showdowns expressing their dislike for a lot of the contemporary scene, but either they have disappeared or have been clobbered into relative silence by the devices best known to the management.


The moderation team takes no side on this or any other matter. We work together as a team to try to ensure an environment that is welcoming to people of all views, *so long as those views are expressed in a civil manner*. Any member is free to report offensive posts, and we will not decide that a post is or is not offensive based on the opinions expressed therein, but rather on the manner in which those opinions are expressed.


----------



## Guest (Mar 22, 2014)

Likes and dislikes is one huge red herring.

The fox (or rabbit) is the notion that dislike for new music is both normal and normative.

Some of us care what you (whoever you are) like. Of course, we like the same things, some of us. Some of us care what you dislike, too. Of course, we dislike the same things. Otherwise, no one cares *that* you like this or that or that you dislike this or that. No one thinks you should be forced to change.

But some of us do care when you vent. Some of us do care when you promote ideas of balkanization or ghettoization. We want to develop and maintain the kind of collegiality that used to exist before the whole idea of "classical music" was developed, before the notion of "the canon" was developed, before concerts splintered into little subgroups--solo recitals, string quartet concerts, vocal concerts, symphony concerts, before "new music" was treated with suspicion and contempt, even if it sounded old. The only difference between 1814 and 2014 in that regard is that in 2014 new music that sounds old is accepted and even praised. In the nineteenth century, that a composer was alive was enough. Reject. It's a miracle that any of that music survived, really. OK, not a miracle, the unflagging efforts of people who believed in that music.

You think the current posters to TC who promote new music are extremists? Believe me, the promoters of new music in the nineteenth century were much more aggressive and indefatigable. And you have the promoters of new music in the nineteenth century--those froth-mouthed avant gardists--to thank for the continued existence of Beethoven and Berlioz and Schumann and Bizet and Brahms and Tchaikovsky and Wagner (self-promotion) and Bruckner and Mahler. And now that you have your Mendelssohns and your Chopins and your Liszts and your Dvoraks, you want to do battle with the people who want to promote new music in 2014?

Really? Ain't that just a titch inconsistent?


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

arpeggio said:


> I find some of the threads are actually platforms for denouncing contemporary music.


I'm not at all sure why 'contemporary' music needs to be _ann_ounced as such. I denounce the practice as uninformative and thus useless. It serves no purpose as a generalized 'warning of bad music', being no more accurate than a similar generalized warning about Classical or Romantic music would be. It is useless as a warning that the music is incomprehensible to 'regular' folk, because, for instance, most "post-modern" music is easily comprehended. It may not all be very good music, but most of that Ditters fellow's music isn't very good either.

Um, so there.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Mahlerian said:


> The moderation team takes no side on this or any other matter. We work together as a team to try to ensure an environment that is welcoming to people of all views, *so long as those views are expressed in a civil manner*. Any member is free to report offensive posts, and we will not decide that a post is or is not offensive based on the opinions expressed therein, but rather on the manner in which those opinions are expressed.


Hey! I distinctly recall a post in the Mahlerian-as-moderator celebration thread that predicted he would never resort to the dreaded Red Font. Hah! Is this yet another example of the "Power Corrupts" axiom?


----------



## Guest (Mar 22, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> The moderation team takes no side on this or any other matter. We work together as a team to try to ensure an environment that is welcoming to people of all views, *so long as those views are expressed in a civil manner*. Any member is free to report offensive posts, and we will not decide that a post is or is not offensive based on the opinions expressed therein, but rather on the manner in which those opinions are expressed.


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


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

some guy said:


> ... The only difference between 1814 and 2014 in that regard is that in 2014 new music that sounds old is accepted and even praised. In the nineteenth century, that a composer was alive was enough. Reject. It's a miracle that any of that music survived, really.


1814? Believe that was one month following the première of Beethoven's 7th Symphony. It was received effusively by critics and the audience as well. And BTW has remained popular ever since.

I keep seeing this myth about the rejection of "new" music in the 19th century...it was often controversial, certainly!


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

KenOC said:


> 1814? Believe that was one month following the première of Beethoven's 7th Symphony. It was received effusively by critics and the audience as well. And BTW has remained popular ever since.
> 
> I keep seeing this myth about the rejection of "new" music in the 19th century...it was often controversial, certainly!


Hah! Way to Go! Choose a Special Case with which to disprove an exaggerated generalization. Are one or both of you spin-doctors by profession?


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Partita said:


> This is an irrelevant comment. It is completely unjustified by anything I wrote. I was merely saying that the most antagonistic anti-contemporary members have probably been dealt with according to whatever Forum rules are applied on these occasions.


Mahlerian's comment was simply a clarification. Your post left open the possibility that the moderation team gave infractions or banned them _due to the content of their posts rather than violations of the Terms of Service_. Mahlerian wanted to make sure members realized that we do not infract for content.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Ukko said:


> Hah! Way to Go! Choose a Special Case with which to disprove an exaggerated generalization. Are one or both of you spin-doctors by profession?


Not a particularly special case! I could supply a list. But I was trying to stick with or near 1814. Actually Ludwig wrote a piece in 1814 that was even more popular than his 7th Symphony, but I hesitate to name it... :lol:


----------



## Tristan (Jan 5, 2013)

There are certainly a number of "hot button" topics that people won't shut up about, and on this site "contemporary music" is one of them. And yes, it often seems to be the detractors who like to talk about it ad nauseam. It seems to be human nature to want to keep talking about something you dislike or are against. Personally I don't like to waste my breath on that too much, but that's just me 

It reminds me of how on other "general discussion" forums you will have a million threads about contentious political/religious issues (it is often the same discussions repeated) and these threads will get hundreds of responses every time! The same naysayers will make their same arguments and the same supporters will be spouting the same thing as well. And it keeps happening over and over. It's madness!

Anyway, what I'm saying is that contemporary music keeps getting brought up because it's one of the few classical music-related topics that is contentious, controversial, and polarizing, even if the responses that get posted on these threads are just the same old arguments and comments. The next thing we need is a bunch of threads about Wagner and his antisemitism...


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

KenOC said:


> Not a particularly special case! I could supply a list. But I was trying to stick with or near 1814. Actually Ludwig wrote a piece in 1814 that was even more popular than his 7th Symphony, but I hesitate to name it... :lol:


I'm guessing Opus 80. But Beethoven himself is a special case. I don't know the German equivalent of "Joe Doaks", so I will use "Jörg Braunberg". He couldn't find a publisher or arrange a performance of his orchestral work, because nobody had heard of Jörg Braunberg the composer.

There, see?


----------



## cwarchc (Apr 28, 2012)

I was blissfully unaware of "contemporary" classical music until I found TC
I have made some great discoveries here
We need to accept, that some people like "different" music than we do
It's not the music, it's our interpretation.
There was a, very good, program on BBC4 (for all those who can access iPlayer) http://tinyurl.com/ne2azz7
It is about contemporary composers in their own words
I found it interesting and enlightening


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> Because we - you, me, some guy, arpeggio, all TCers - are not just here to exchange views about classical music, but to form virtual relationships of a sort. So how and why people post what they do is - for some of us, at any rate - of interest.


That's right; I virtually love you guys! (virtual kiss kiss)


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Ukko said:


> Hey! I distinctly recall a post in the Mahlerian-as-moderator celebration thread that predicted he would never resort to the dreaded Red Font. Hah! Is this yet another example of the "Power Corrupts" axiom?


All this time I thought that he had been a covert moderator; posing as a normal poster, trying to sneak up on troublemakers (like me). Apparently, it was a legit transformation. Or is this just a cover-up to make it *seem* legit?

At any rate, *I'm alive! I'm alive!
*


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

some guy said:


> This question was asked on another thread recently but not, to my recollection, answered.
> 
> Here's a thread for answering it.
> 
> ...


Hello there some guy,

We all miss you. I revive this thread in memory of a brilliant guy who hopefully will come back.

We started an electroacoustic thread in memory of your absence. Hopefully you can return soon.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

MagneticGhost said:


> Guo Wenjing


Sorry for the post-resurrection resurrection, but how did you make this discovery? What was it like?


----------



## MagneticGhost (Apr 7, 2013)

science said:


> Sorry for the post-resurrection resurrection, but how did you make this discovery? What was it like?


Gosh! I wrote that so long ago I can hardly remember.
I think it was from a chapter in Alex Ross. Either the Rest is Noise or Listen to This.
I listened to a couple of works several times on Spotify and really enjoyed them. But I haven't revisited since - and I couldn't tell you what the works were.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

MagneticGhost said:


> Gosh! I wrote that so long ago I can hardly remember.
> I think it was from a chapter in Alex Ross. Either the Rest is Noise or Listen to This.
> I listened to a couple of works several times on Spotify and really enjoyed them. But I haven't revisited since - and I couldn't tell you what the works were.


That's ok. I have a part-time commitment to the music of contemporary Asian, and especially Chinese, composers, because I'm pretty sure that's the future of classical music.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

science said:


> That's ok. I have a part-time commitment to the music of contemporary Asian, and especially Chinese, composers, because I'm pretty sure that's the future of classical music.


Speaking of which, do you have any contemporary Chinese composers whom you recommend at all? For Japanese ones, I only really know of Takemitsu honestly.


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

I've heard a couple of Guo, Wenjing pieces live... Can thoroughly recommend "Chou Kong Shan", Concerto for bamboo flutes and orchestra, I heard it in Gothenburg in the early 2000's, the soloist Dai, Ya did something very magical with his bamboo flutes! (Don't know if its ever been recorded commercially?)

In the same period I heard Nieuw Ensemble/Ed Spanjaard in Amsterdam with Da, Nang, pipa play Guo's "Concertino for Pipa and Ensemble", this I think have been released on Disc. 

I quite like the sonorous mix of classical Chinese instruments and western ensembles! 

/ptr


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

OP: Perhaps because we live in contemporary times?


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

hpowders said:


> OP: Perhaps because we live in contemporary times?


Speak for yourself!


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

hpowders said:


> OP: Perhaps because we live in contemporary times?


Seeing how much old music members here listen to You must surely be wrong, seems like most people live in a museum!

/ptr


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

ptr said:


> Seeing how much old music members here listen to You must surely be wrong, seems like most people live in a museum!
> 
> /ptr


It's just different tastes; I don't think we have to get personal about it.


----------



## Guest (Mar 19, 2015)

science said:


> It's just different tastes; I don't think we have to get personal about it.


I think he was just stating a fact, bro


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

nathanb said:


> I think he was just stating a fact, bro


Calling an insult a fact doesn't mean it's not an insult.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

It's the same old thing. We've got to let people have different musical tastes without saying things like, "You must live in a museum." That's just the inverse of all those "clever" insults people who don't like modern music make about you.

If you want them to respect your tastes, respect theirs.


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

Sorry Science, but I think that You give my petty little reflection way to much credit! FWIW I don't have any views on other peoples musical tastes whatsoever, but if You feel offended by the museum innuendo please receive my heartfelt apologies!

/ptr


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

ptr said:


> Sorry Science, but I think that You give my petty little reflection way to much credit! FWIW I don't have any views on other peoples musical tastes whatsoever, but if You feel offended by the museum innuendo please receive my heartfelt apologies!
> 
> /ptr


Hey, no problem, man. I'm not offended at all - my own tastes are beyond reproach!

I was thinking that you and nathanb probably didn't see it as an insult, or that you didn't mean to put anyone in particular down, but of course other people will see it that way.

I just want us all to be able to get along.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

That's the typical put down of classical music haters: we are listening to "old" music that has no relevance to our own time and we and our music belong in a museum.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

ptr said:


> Seeing how much old music members here listen to You must surely be wrong, seems like most people live in a museum!


I understand your thought, and in fact something along these lines as been posted before. But in some sense one can argue that those who listen to music of the past (pre-early 20th century) are the ones living in the present. While one _can_ find contemporary music performed, the overwhelming percentage of live classical music is music of the past. In many places (at least in the US) it's almost impossible to hear contemporary music performed live. I've listened to several classical music radio stations and almost never heard contemporary music. If it weren't for TC and my frequent excursions on the internet (mostly Naxos Music Library), I would struggle to learn about and hear any contemporary music. So in that sense, music of the past is currently really the classical music of the present.

Those of us who buy contemporary composers' CDs, who listen on the internet to contemporary music, or who find and attend contemporary concerts are like explorers who are listening to the classical music of the future.


----------



## Guest (Mar 19, 2015)

hpowders said:


> That's the typical put down of classical music haters: we are listening to "old" music that has no relevance to our own time and we and our music belong in a museum.


There's a difference between enjoying old music and the whole "is there any hope for music today?" crowd. Old music...that's just some spice. The extreme end of the spectrum to whom high quality art music is pretty much a dead artform? Museum. Fact.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

nathanb said:


> There's a difference between enjoying old music and the whole "is there any hope for music today?" crowd. Old music...that's just some spice. The extreme end of the spectrum to whom high quality art music is pretty much a dead artform? Museum. Fact.


This is the kind of thing that makes me wish I didn't enjoy new music so much. Maybe somehow you don't mean that in a condescending way, but I can't see it as anything but condescending, and I want to distance myself from it.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

nathanb said:


> There's a difference between enjoying old music and the whole "is there any hope for music today?" crowd. Old music...that's just some spice. The extreme end of the spectrum to whom high quality art music is pretty much a dead artform? Museum. Fact.


Old music is not a dead end. New recordings, new performances and new discoveries of ancient pieces from the Baroque, Classical periods continue to come every year.


----------



## Guest (Mar 20, 2015)

science said:


> This is the kind of thing that makes me wish I didn't enjoy new music so much. Maybe somehow you don't mean that in a condescending way, but I can't see it as anything but condescending, and I want to distance myself from it.


So you're cool with the notion that we're here to discuss a dead art form?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Of course one could agree with nathanb and admit that "classical music" as a new, living, breathing art form is dead. Personally I find Bach, Mozart, Wagner, Stravinsky, etc... to be more "alive" than any classical composer I've stumbled across (or "tread in" ). Certainly most of the names nathan would likely cite as the great composers of today are "dead in the water" in terms of relevance within the larger culture... almost wholly unknown and irrelevant even within the rather small niche audience for "classical music" as a whole. Personally, I'd much rather listen to the finest Jazz, Blues, Bluegrass, Rock, and other Popular/Populist music of the last 50-75 years than I would to Stockhausen or Xenakis. But I guess one can always convince oneself that only that music beloved by a micro-niche audience within the slightly larger niche of "classical music" is worthy of being recognized as "high quality art music".

Once again:

_People always make the mistake of thinking art is created for them. But really, art is a private language for sophisticates to congratulate themselves on their superiority to the rest of the world._


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

nathanb said:


> So you're cool with the notion that we're here to discuss a dead art form?


I don't see old music as dead, but I see portraying that way as intentionally insulting to the people who enjoy it.

I understand you're angry, and I know very well - believe me! - that these discussions are infuriating. I just reread the old "what is the point of atonal music" thread last night and this morning. I wish I'd been as calm at that time as I was this time.

But really, I'd much rather just let people enjoy whatever they happen to enjoy without saying these kinds of things. There's a lot of really good, informative and/or supportive discussion to enjoy about the music we love, old or new or whatever, without getting into this kind of rhetoric about people who don't share our tastes.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

nathanb said:


> So you're cool with the notion that we're here to discuss a dead art form?


I'm not dead, you're not dead and all the folks who currently listen to classical music keep the music alive. I'm getting tired of hearing about a dead art form and old music. You call it old, I call it timeless.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> or "tread in"


See what has started? This begins with "museum" and "dead" and now it's "tread in" and we're on an escalator that can only stop on the floor where we all start brawling.

Totally unnecessary, and nothing short of tragic. We have beautiful, wonderful, amazing, interesting music to share with each other, and with a lot of people who haven't even started exploring it yet, but what we're choosing to do instead is sling the old, old, old, old, old, old, old, old insults at each other 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 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 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 and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over...

and the only possible result is that we will turn people off to the music that we profess to love.


----------



## Guest (Mar 20, 2015)

science said:


> I don't see old music as dead, but I see portraying that way as intentionally insulting to the people who enjoy it.
> 
> I understand you're angry, and I know very well - believe me! - that these discussions are infuriating. I just reread the old "what is the point of atonal music" thread last night and this morning. I wish I'd been as calm at that time as I was this time.
> 
> But really, I'd much rather just let people enjoy whatever they happen to enjoy without saying these kinds of things. There's a lot of really good, informative and/or supportive discussion to enjoy about the music we love, old or new or whatever, without getting into this kind of rhetoric about people who don't share our tastes.


The insult is to fans of new music. Phrases like "The Last Of The Great Composers" is entirely invalidating to everything we enjoy. Sorry if you thought *I* was calling classical music a dead art form.

Same goes to you, Bulldog. Think you might've misunderstood. I am entirely insulted by such notions. Specifically for the reason that the art form is alive and well!

The idea of new performances and new recordings and whatnot is charming, but if you've ever hinted that the "canon" is no longer eligible for revision, you've called my hobby a dead art form.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

nathanb said:


> The insult is to fans of new music. Phrases like "The Last Of The Great Composers" is entirely invalidating to everything we enjoy. Sorry if you thought *I* was calling classical music a dead art form.
> 
> Same goes to you, Bulldog. Think you might've misunderstood. I am entirely insulted by such notions. Specifically for the reason that the art form is alive and well!
> 
> The idea of new performances and new recordings and whatnot is charming, but if you've ever hinted that the "canon" is no longer eligible for revision, you've called my hobby a dead art form.


I know that people insult new music all the time. All the time. Over and over and over. As I said.

Is it possible at all for someone not to like the music you like without you taking it personally? I hope it is. Because some people don't like it. Do we actually have to choose between enjoying your insights and enthusiasms and enjoying theirs? Or can we have it all?

Edit: BTW, I actually don't mind very much when someone insults modern music. My thoughts on such people cannot be expressed within the limits of the TOS of this site - not because I'm angry at them but because I don't have a flattering opinion of them - but _at least they don't represent me_. When they say something stupid, it's just someone saying something stupid.

But _you represent me_. You and I are on the same side of this. So when you say something insulting, I feel almost as much shame and guilt and self-hate as if I'd said it. I hate our side of this because we are so insulting all the time. I really wish we'd stop.


----------



## Guest (Mar 20, 2015)

science said:


> I know that people insult new music all the time. All the time. Over and over and over. As I said.
> 
> Is it possible at all for someone not to like the music you like without you taking it personally? I hope it is. Because some people don't like it. Do we actually have to choose between enjoying your insights and enthusiasms and enjoying theirs? Or can we have it all?
> 
> ...


In post 78, you agreed that such things were intentionally insulting (and thus, to be taken personally). But ok.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

nathanb said:


> In post 78, you agreed that such things were intentionally insulting (and thus, to be taken personally). But ok.


Calling the music someone loves "dead" _is_ intentionally insulting, and I think we all know that consciously. That doesn't contradict anything in that post.

Edit: BTW, please don't be upset. I mean, I can sense that you're upset, but I want you to know I'm definitely not attacking you, and also not attacking modern music or defending the people who do attack it. Please don't let this discussion hurt your feelings. I'd just like us to get along better. We don't have to go on hurting each others' feelings over this stuff. Or at least I hope we don't.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

From all that I can tell, classical music has been dead for at least 350 years and modern music has always been subjected to scorn and ridicule, so why should we worry if things haven't changed? No doubt there were many who couldn't stand Vivaldi's ridiculous new-fangled compositions and looked wistfully back at the golden age of Monteverdi.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

There is a Moby song that samples a sermon that says, "Finally, brethren, after a while, the battle will be over, for that day we shall lay down our burdens and study war no more."

The music is ok-ish (it's Moby doing what Moby does), but that quote knocks me out. The preacher's delivery is great too.

I know he's talking about death, and that is a sanguine way of looking at death! But I can't help thinking, why wait? I understand that self-defense is necessary in a world of men who would use violence to benefit themselves at our expense. Analogously, I understand that when ethical principles are at stake, we should (except when strategy dictates otherwise) wage a ruthless and relentless war of words.

But in the realm of art, there's room for all of us. We can lay down our burdens and study war no more - _right flipping now_. The battle is over.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I remember reading of a renaissance composer who had a hard time because his music, which had been very much in demand, was superseded by a new style inside of ten years. I suspect that much scorn was heaped on his music, as well as (among conservatives) on the music that supplanted it. The more things change...

People have criticized music, styles, and composers for hundreds of years. It seems strange to me that anybody could find this upsetting or "personally insulting."


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Of course one could agree with nathanb and admit that "classical music" as a new, living, breathing art form is dead. Personally I find Bach, Mozart, Wagner, Stravinsky, etc... to be more "alive" than any classical composer I've stumbled across (or "tread in" ). Certainly most of the names nathan would likely cite as the great composers of today are "dead in the water" in terms of relevance within the larger culture... almost wholly unknown and irrelevant even within the rather small niche audience for "classical music" as a whole. Personally, I'd much rather listen to the finest Jazz, Blues, Bluegrass, Rock, and other Popular/Populist music of the last 50-75 years than I would to Stockhausen or Xenakis. But I guess one can always convince oneself that only that music beloved by a micro-niche audience within the slightly larger niche of "classical music" is worthy of being recognized as "high quality art music".
> 
> Once again:
> 
> _People always make the mistake of thinking art is created for them. But really, art is a private language for sophisticates to congratulate themselves on their superiority to the rest of the world. _


I'd say that most of the larger culture for the greater part of human history has always has been irrelevant .


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

I remember the first "difficult" "avant-garde" composer I started listening to, when I was a freshman in college. It was Penderecki (who's not really one of my favorites these days, but that's beside the point).

What got me to listen to it was another undergraduate, a serious musician, who was REALLY into Penderecki. He did not talk at all about how important or advanced or "interesting" Penderecki was. He was just obviously really EXCITED about this music. His face lit up when he talked about it, he couldn't wait to tell other people about it.

I thought: I need to hear this music, see what this is about!

There is a lesson here, I think.


----------



## Ludric (Oct 29, 2014)

Becca said:


> From all that I can tell, classical music has been dead for at least 350 years and modern music has always been subjected to scorn and ridicule, so why should we worry if things haven't changed? No doubt there were many who couldn't stand stand Vivaldi's ridiculous new-fangled compositions and looked wistfully back at the golden age of Monteverdi.


Actually, Vivaldi was very popular in his time exactly because his music was so fresh, exciting, and explored the new and innovative ritornello/solo concerto form. His published music was very successful - selling many copies and gaining international recognition. However, during the later part of his life, Vivaldi's music fell out of fashion since new styles had emerged which captivated the public while Vivaldi was still writing music in the same old style (similar to the situation that KenOC just mentioned). After he died, Vivaldi's music became almost completely unknown until the early 20th century when a large collection of his manuscripts were rediscovered.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

nathanb said:


> The insult is to fans of new music. Phrases like "The Last Of The Great Composers" is entirely invalidating to everything we enjoy.


I know you _feel_ insulted, but I'd like to argue that this notion, in an important sense, is simply not correct. I want to compare statements similar to "Modern music is pure garbage containing nothing but noise" to "Mozart wrote horrible music that sounds like **** cheeks slapping together." I believe that the only difference is that more people enjoy Mozart than modern classical music.

I happen to love Mozart's music and believe he is the greatest composer. When I see the latter statement, I don't feel attacked. I don't feel as though what I love has been invalidated. I don't feel insulted. I have no desire to defend Mozart or my own tastes in music. I simply believe that the author unfortunately does not appreciate what others so easily can. The statement reflects on the author - not on me or Mozart. I know Mozart is great. There's no argument so I just let it go perhaps feeling somewhat sorry for the author unable to enjoy what classical music lovers have found so moving and profound for so many years.

When I read a statement like the former one above, I basically feel the same way. I don't feel attacked or insulted. I don't feel as though the music I listen to everyday and crave has been invalidated. I know modern/contemporary music is no different than earlier music. I know those who care to explore and to listen carefully to modern music find much to enjoy and appreciate. There's no question that it's great (not all of it just as not all of Mozart or Classical era music is great). The author is simply stating something about her tastes in music. I also feel somewhat sorry that the author is unable to enjoy what others have found so moving and profound for many years.

Statements like "Mozart sucks" or "Modern music sucks" can't invalidate Mozart, modern music, or my personal tastes. How could they? Mozart does not suck. Modern music does not suck. I know this. Lovers of modern music know "their" music is wonderful and will be loved for many, many years. Those statements can only inform others about the author's tastes in music.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

mmsbls said:


> I know you _feel_ insulted, but I'd like to argue that this notion, in an important sense, is simply not correct. I want to compare statements similar to "Modern music is pure garbage containing nothing but noise" to "Mozart wrote horrible music that sounds like **** cheeks slapping together." I believe that the only difference is that more people enjoy Mozart than modern classical music.
> 
> I happen to love Mozart's music and believe he is the greatest composer. When I see the latter statement, I don't feel attacked. I don't feel as though what I love has been invalidated. I don't feel insulted. I have no desire to defend Mozart or my own tastes in music. I simply believe that the author unfortunately does not appreciate what others so easily can. The statement reflects on the author - not on me or Mozart. I know Mozart is great. There's no argument so I just let it go perhaps feeling somewhat sorry for the author unable to enjoy what classical music lovers have found so moving and profound for so many years.
> 
> ...


I agree that criticisms of things, even if crude or harshly worded, are not insults. Insults are directed at persons, not at art or ideas. "Electronic music is just noise" or "Bach is just empty technique" or "The suggestion that _La Boheme_ is a great opera is absurd" are not insults. They are just ignorant criticisms of things. If those are things you happen to like, you may find criticisms annoying. You may wish to refute them. There's no need to take them personally. However, the fact is that criticisms of your tastes may be _intended_ to annoy you. They may even be intended to imply that anyone who has your tastes must be an idiot. That turns "criticisms" into weapons, and the expression of "tastes" becomes a contest of egos or an incoherent brawl.

So don't be insulted, or think that Xenakis and Puccini are being insulted, just because their music is criticized. But if someone is obviously trying to annoy you, throwing their negativity into a pleasant discussion, telling you that smarter people than you disagree with you, or implying that you are just prejudiced and in denial and can't tolerate criticism, call it what it is and tell them to take their attitude elsewhere.

But be careful how you do it or you may get an infraction.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Music is personal though. Maybe all the arts are, but music definitely is. We identify with the music we love - it's inevitable, it's a human thing, it's why every religion uses music and why every modern state uses music and why advertisers use music.

So distinguishing between an insult of Brahms's music and an insult of someone who loves Brahms's music doesn't make much more sense than distinguishing between an insult of Christianity and an insult of a particular person who identifies as a Christian.

Just as wise policy - etymologically related to "polite" but on a site where the TOS is "be polite" that's not just a coincidence! - if we have something critical to say about the music someone loves, we'd better be careful that the criticism is about precise aspects of the music rather than just general dismissals, let alone what we usually try to do: the kind of piercing _bon mots_ that would score points in an eighteenth-century French salon.

Unfortunately that kind of consideration has to be legislated because we usually don't actually care enough about each other to consider each other's feelings. I realized the extent of this when participating in a certain chat room (of whose existence we are officially unaware). When I saw people's faces, and was able to converse with them in almost "real time," I found myself _caring_ about them. Not like I want to sacrifice my life or anything, just that I noticed an almost-conscious change in my attitudes to the people I saw there: I could still say what I had to say, but just as I do with people in "real life," I'd be careful to find "politic" or considerate ways to say it. At the same time, I became much less sensitive to what they write here, much more careful to interpret their words charitably. Very interesting change in me.

So, anyway, like, yeah, and stuff. People take it all personally. If we care, we will consider that. If we don't, eventually the mods will consider it on our behalves. In the meantime, we lose people - including good people on both sides, people with unique and interesting opinions or insights that they could've shared with us.

I don't know, maybe it doesn't matter. We should probably just go on playing the "how insulting can I be without actually crossing the mods' lines" game. I guess that's more fun. Of course we could go to an unmoderated forum and just rip into each other with our sincerest teeth and claws, but that wouldn't be as much fun as flirting with the mods, right?

I don't know about that either. But I do know that our interactions here make at least a little difference to some people whose openness to the music we profess to love is at stake.

Win an argument, lose a sale.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

There is a related matter about which I have been thinking of starting a new thread but will mention here. There seems to be a tendency on the part of some on TC to phrase their likes & dislikes in what I'd describe as an absolute manner, as if it were a given truth rather than a personal opinion. That kind of posting almost inevitably leads to some heated responses when the opinion flies in the face of differing opinions. I sometimes wonder if it is done strictly to promote those responses or if the person has difficulty separating opinion from fact.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

I feel lucky that the only composer that I feel meh about is Havergal Brian and maybe it is because I haven't explored his works fully enough.


----------



## TurnaboutVox (Sep 22, 2013)

Becca said:


> I sometimes wonder if it is done strictly to promote those responses or *if the person has difficulty separating opinion from fact.*


I think this is something we are all, to a greater or lesser degree, prone to do when upset / annoyed. When we recover our 'right selves' then most of us here on TC have no difficulty separating opinion from fact (Occasionally sometimes new arrives at TC who has more severe difficulty with this, usually resulting in an absurd exchange and a rapid departure in high dudgeon.)

However, it seems to me that there are posts where people have posted as if temporarily they believe that their opinion is fact (I include myself in this, by the way) and then afterwards of, course...

I mean, who wants to be told that they can't tell the difference, especially when they have subsequently recovered their normal capacity for reality testing, and therefore their self-awareness?

It's a very complex business to discuss conflicting tastes, values and opinions with other people. I think that within poll threads, the differences are managed by having an overtly competitive voting process. This seems to allow for a greater degree of detachment and humour in the discussion elements of that thread. Yet splitting off the conflict in such a way is (obviously) not available in different sorts of threads where e.g. the focus is directly on 'difference of opinion' subjects.

A pity, as there are so many people here with interesting things to say. I am sad at the recent departure of some of my favourite disputants.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> However, the fact is that criticisms of your tastes may be _intended_ to annoy you. They may even be intended to imply that anyone who has your tastes must be an idiot. That turns "criticisms" into weapons, and the expression of "tastes" becomes a contest of egos or an incoherent brawl.


Yes, I agree. If someone is simply stating their, perhaps ignorant, belief, it remains her belief. If the intention goes further, it certainly could be trolling and is against the Terms of Service. Unfortunately, intent, and hence trolling, is not always easy to determine.

I do believe that the vast majority of negative statements about modern music, other composers, or music in general is not intended to annoy others but rather to make one's views known.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

science said:


> So, anyway, like, yeah, and stuff.


Could you try to use less technical language so we can better understand?



science said:


> People take it all personally. If we care, we will consider that. If we don't, eventually the mods will consider it on our behalves. In the meantime, we lose people - including good people on both sides, people with unique and interesting opinions or insights that they could've shared with us.


Yes, people do take it personally. And definitely, and huge yes, we ought to consider how others will view our comments. Unfortunately, that's often rather difficult to do. I suspect most of us have been completely surprised by responses to certain posts.

It's hard to see people become so upset by others' comments that they feel badly, become angry, and ultimately wish to leave the forum. I would love to find ways to vastly decrease that progression.

I guess I wish that people could "learn" to view a negative comment (even an overly strong one) as simply poorly worded. When someone writes "Stockhausen writes pure noise and is garbage", they "meant" to say "I strongly dislike Stockhausen's music". I know that's not easy for everyone.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

mmsbls said:


> I guess I wish that people could "learn" to view a negative comment (even an overly strong one) as simply poorly worded. When someone writes "Stockhausen writes pure noise and is garbage", they "meant" to say "I strongly dislike Stockhausen's music". I know that's not easy for everyone.


But you are surely aware that many people actually believe that Stockhausen's music is, on an objective level, noise and garbage. Just as they believe that Schoenberg's music is tuneless (this was stated outright by the announcer of a BBC documentary as supposedly being his intent!) or Mahler's music is formless.

Tastes are one thing, false statements are another.

I realize that many such statements are meant as opinions or personal views, but that doesn't make them any less pernicious.

"I dislike Debussy's music because he abjures all melody, harmony, and rhythm."
"I dislike Beethoven's music because it's all simple tunes like Ode to Joy."
"I dislike Wagner's music because it's all screeching and bombast."


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Honestly I avoid speaking negatively about any composer in my life. They didn't intrude in my life... they didn't bug me at all. And trying to be a positive role model here, so if there are elements in a composer's work that bug me or I don't favor, I make sure to single it out.

I don't make classical music that type of personal where I speak to the composer directly . I want to relate to the music and to figure it all out there in that fashion without resorting back to vehement attacks on a composer, especially since I don't know most of them on a personal level as an acquaintance.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Becca said:


> There is a related matter about which I have been thinking of starting a new thread but will mention here. *There seems to be a tendency on the part of some on TC to phrase their likes & dislikes in what I'd describe as an absolute manner, as if it were a given truth rather than a personal opinion.* That kind of posting almost inevitably leads to some heated responses when the opinion flies in the face of differing opinions. I sometimes wonder if it is done strictly to promote those responses or if *the person has difficulty separating opinion from fact.*


The inability to tell opinion from fact is not uncommon - and that's a fact, not just an opinion (he said, definitively).

I don't care what silly things people say as expressions of taste or as personal impressions of this or that, if they state them as such. I will not feel insulted, and I will merely shrug indifferently or, at most, snort dismissively, and walk away. But if they're going to make broad, ex-cathedra pronouncements repeatedly and tell me I'm wrong to disagree, they're going to need to back up their claims with evidence if they want an actual conversation to take place. Sometimes I don't think people understand that extreme or controversial opinions offered without foundation can be taken as rude provocations, and that done repeatedly on a forum like this they amount to a form of trolling. How to make people see that this is what they're doing, I really don't know; they may insist that they're "just expressing their opinion" or even feel persecuted if we take them to task, and what they're doing may not be generally perceived as trolling or incur any infractions. Ultimately we can probably do nothing more than state our disagreement and walk away, but that can be hard to do if we know that the rules of rational debate are being trounced in an issue we care about. I suspect there is no good solution to this.


----------



## TurnaboutVox (Sep 22, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Sometimes I don't think people understand that extreme or controversial opinions offered without foundation can be taken as rude provocations, and that done repeatedly on a forum like this they amount to a form of trolling. How to make people see that this is what they're doing, I really don't know; they may insist that they're "just expressing their opinion" or even feel persecuted if we take them to task, and what they're doing may not be generally perceived as trolling or incur any infractions. Ultimately we can probably do nothing more than state our disagreement and walk away, but that can be hard to do if we know that the rules of rational debate are being trounced in an issue we care about. *I suspect there is no good solution to this.*


Amen to that. We are all flawed. And you can't change other people very much or very easily (I speak from experience, as I (try to) do this for a living) But cultivating a capacity for detachment, allowing a space for some reflection, can be very helpful.



Mahlerian said:


> Tastes are one thing, false statements are another.
> 
> I realize that many such statements are meant as opinions or personal views, but that doesn't make them any less pernicious.


However, I think you do a particularly good job of patiently correcting misapprehensions and presenting accurate information. Perhaps that's all you can reasonably do.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> But you are surely aware that many people actually believe that Stockhausen's music is, on an objective level, noise and garbage. ...
> 
> Tastes are one thing, false statements are another.
> 
> ...


Actually the first statement is interesting, and while I wouldn't say you are incorrect, I take a more nuanced view. People certainly post as though they are making definitive, objective statements about some music. In some cases they are, in fact, doing exactly that. In others I think they are quite aware that their knowledge is rather limited (although they might not admit it readily).

When I read sentences like the ones you posted above, I interpret them as:

"I dislike Debussy's music because _it sounds to me as though_ he abjures all melody, harmony, and rhythm."
"I dislike Beethoven's music because _it sounds to me as though_ it's all simple tunes like Ode to Joy."

Note that the statements above are statements of fact. The music really does sound that way to them. If pressed, I doubt those posters would state that they are truly knowledgeable about the music. I think they would fairly quickly revert to statements as in my interpretations. When you have corrected statements like the ones you posted, I don't recall any serious argument from those people.

I think it's very useful to correct mistaken statements, and I'm very thankful to you and _some guy_ for helping me to understand atonality better and ultimately to essentially ignore the concept. I also think it's important to correct people in a straightforward way without in any way attacking or demeaning them, and I believe you are very good at doing precisely that.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

mmsbls said:


> I guess I wish that people could "learn" to view a negative comment (even an overly strong one) as simply poorly worded. When someone writes "Stockhausen writes pure noise and is garbage", they "meant" to say "I strongly dislike Stockhausen's music". I know that's not easy for everyone.


I agree, and people take these harmless opinions far, far too seriously. People may strongly dislike what I like in music, but I am not bothered by that because my preference is *independent* of theirs. If we all agree to this, then there would be no problem at all. Pure and simple.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> Sometimes I don't think people understand that extreme or controversial opinions offered without foundation can be taken as rude provocations, and that done repeatedly on a forum like this they amount to a form of trolling. How to make people see that this is what they're doing, I really don't know; they may insist that they're "just expressing their opinion" or even feel persecuted if we take them to task, and what they're doing may not be generally perceived as trolling or incur any infractions.


Excellent point. In fact, we moderators have discussed this issue at some length. A member may post opinions (or perceived facts) once or twice, and other members will, in general, not mind even if they argue forcefully against the particular opinion. When the original member repeatedly posts such opinions to the detriment of the forum, the actions can be interpreted as trolling. The moderators have decided to send a PM to members who we, collectively, agree are exhibiting such trolling behavior. The PM states that we will view future such posts as trolling, and infractions may follow.

Obviously not all repeatedly stated opinions are viewed as trolling, and we deliberate awhile before taking any action.


----------



## Guest (Mar 20, 2015)

You are all fairly correct, and this is why posts only really bother me when they come from relatively common posters who clearly mean them as intentional (although subtle) jabs or insults. One glance at the posting history of certain posters will make this intent all too clear.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

nathanb said:


> You are all fairly correct, and this is why posts only really bother me when they come from relatively common posters who clearly mean them as intentional (although subtle) jabs or insults. One glance at the posting history of certain posters will make this intent all too clear.


You have to put those guys on "ignore," man. Stress is bad for your health. Their opinions on your music are not worth suffering that stress. Just ignore them. They are not going to stop existing, and campaigns to get them banned are morally repulsive (and probably the thin end of a terrible wedge), so just ignore them.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

If somebody posts an ignorant attack on a composer I love, I either laugh or ignore it. If somebody makes an informed and plausible attack, I give them a "like" and run like hell.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

science said:


> You have to put those guys on "ignore," man. Stress is bad for your health. Their opinions on your music are not worth suffering that stress. Just ignore them. They are not going to stop existing, and campaigns to get them banned are morally repulsive (and probably the thin end of a terrible wedge), so just ignore them.


"Ignore" (whether the forum option or just an attitude choice) is often the best option if someone has brought you to the edge of a nervous breakdown. Up until that point (which I have not yet approached, thankfully), I feel a certain need to be vigilant with respect to certain issues raised by certain posters. It's actually a matter of conscience (which is not to deny the possible presence of a bit of ego); if I care about a subject, it's painful to see prejudices and foolishness propagated, and I may (rightly or not) believe myself able and qualified to do something about it.

However, I think that when we rise to defend our beliefs we need to be very careful that it's actual views we're opposing, and not just what we regard as a poster's general attitude and prejudices as they might seem to be implied by that poster's typical slant on things. I've often seen sarcastic or vaguely resentful responses to certain posts which I can only imagine must have a considerable "backstory," resulting in overtones of hostility which I can't fathom by looking at the post itself.

Such defensive responses and assumptions regarding the motives of certain posters can also be generalized to assumptions about the tone of the forum as a whole. We all tend to feel that those who disagree with us have too much prominence or power. We may be right - or not. But even if we don't choose to "ignore" - in either sense - we should be on guard against reading too much significance or power into people's behavior. A person who invades every discussion of Schoenberg with glib assertions that he destroyed music needs at some point to be told that music has not been destroyed and that people are sick of having the same unsupported opinions pushed on them and pleasant discussions disrupted. But a person who believes that Schoenberg's influence on music was regrettable and has merely revealed that belief over the years in a variety of non-confrontational contexts is not necessarily an enemy of modern music or our personal enemy and ought to be respected for his opinion whether we agree with it or not.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Blancrocher said:


> If somebody posts an ignorant attack on a composer I love, I either laugh or ignore it. If somebody makes an informed and plausible attack, I give them a "like" and run like hell.


Glorious post! Best laugh I've had today (I've been grouchy).

I hope never to send you running. No promises, though.


----------



## Guest (Mar 21, 2015)

science said:


> You have to put those guys on "ignore," man. Stress is bad for your health. Their opinions on your music are not worth suffering that stress. Just ignore them. They are not going to stop existing, and campaigns to get them banned are morally repulsive (and probably the thin end of a terrible wedge), so just ignore them.


I haven't campaigned for any of them, save maybe one


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

What is confusing to me is when such a person alternates the deliberate provocations with positive and apparently sincere posts. I do not understand the overarching motivation for being here.


----------



## OldFashionedGirl (Jul 21, 2013)

Don't worry, be happy!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

isorhythm said:


> What is confusing to me is when such a person alternates the deliberate provocations with positive and apparently sincere posts. I do not understand the overarching motivation for being here.


Maybe they just have an ornery streak. Maybe they feel powerful when they keep others off balance. Maybe they're only annoying when drunk. Maybe they're bipolar. Maybe they desperately need attention, can't get it, and keep switching tactics hoping one of them will work. Maybe when they feel like doing something really heinous they just come on TC and relieve the pressure. Maybe they feel guilty, go to confession, and manage to be nice for the next day or two. Maybe the Devil made them do it. Or maybe there's just no figuring people out.


----------



## Kivimees (Feb 16, 2013)

isorhythm said:


> What is confusing to me is when such a person alternates the deliberate provocations with positive and apparently sincere posts. I do not understand the overarching motivation for being here.


Maybe they sell chicken:


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

isorhythm said:


> What is confusing to me is when such a person alternates the deliberate provocations with positive and apparently sincere posts. I do not understand the overarching motivation for being here.


Or maybe confusing people is exactly their motivation!


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Are we just generalizing here or referring to specific members, because I feel quite uncomfortable reading generalizations being made here. I don't think it is appropriate and it's quite rude to be honest.


----------



## TurnaboutVox (Sep 22, 2013)

isorhythm said:


> What is confusing to me is when such a person alternates the deliberate provocations with positive and apparently sincere posts. I do not understand the overarching motivation for being here.





Woodduck said:


> Maybe they just have an ornery streak. Maybe they feel powerful when they keep others off balance. Maybe they're only annoying when drunk. Maybe they're bipolar. Maybe they desperately need attention, can't get it, and keep switching tactics hoping one of them will work. Maybe when they feel like doing something really heinous they just come on TC and relieve the pressure. Maybe they feel guilty, go to confession, and manage to be nice for the next day or two. Maybe the Devil made them do it. Or maybe there's just no figuring people out.


There may be people who deliberately upset others by doing this, but I think in the vast majority of cases people are genuinely ambivalent about the subject in hand, and about their wish to assert their views (and stoke the conflict) versus a wish to get on with fellow forum members.

I try to be generous about what motivates people, believing as I do that (most) people are only consciously aware of a tiny fraction of their own motivating forces.

I'm generalising, by the way, ArtMusic. No criticism or description of any individual forum member is consciously intended here.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

TurnaboutVox said:


> There may be people who deliberately upset others by doing this, but I think in the vast majority of cases people are genuinely ambivalent about the subject in hand, and about their wish to assert their views (and stoke the conflict) versus a wish to get on with fellow forum members.
> 
> I try to be generous about what motivates people, believing as I do that (most) people are only consciously aware of a tiny fraction of their own motivating forces.
> 
> I'm generalising, by the way, ArtMusic. No criticism or description of any individual forum member is consciously intended here.


I appreciate this clear statement, and completely agree about people's motivations. When people's actions or opinions displease us we tend to read nefarious motives into their behavior. Chances are, the actual motives were both mixed and half unconscious. Most of us are neither angels :angel: nor devils :devil: (as I invariably forget to tell myself when some irresponsible moron cuts me off in traffic and the rap "music" from his radio rattles my windows on his way past), and in a forum where all we can exchange are words we need to keep the focus of our responses on the ideas people offer and not on what we assume to be their reasons for offering them. Besides, doesn't it drive you nuts when people hear, not what you say, but what they assume you're trying to accomplish by saying it? It does me.

Hmmm... My intention here was not to tell the world what annoys me, but I appear to have done that twice. I guess there's no containing one's inner Mencken.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

The problem with threads like this, no matter how just or noble its intentions, is that they are, or have become, counterproductive. I have read many of these discussions and heated debates and in my view, if they've had any effect at all, they have only contributed to the whole "old vs new" polarization. Instead of constantly questioning people's manners, attitudes, opinions with regards to modern music, instead of asking for respect and an open mind, the one thing that could really help the "cause" of modern music is constructive topics about the music itself, promoting it, describing its specific qualities and effects on the listener. I have seen few of such topics and way too much of these.


----------

