# Lack of diversity on TC.



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

I feel like there is a certain lack of diversity here on TC. Every other thread begins with "Which Beethoven symphony", "What Brahms masterpiece", "Your favorite...", "Best ___ composer"... it's a little sickening, to be honest. I'm not saying that I haven't contributed to this problem, but where are the lovers for other parts of classical music? ―it's _all_ classical music. Forums like these have to be places for meaningful, thoughtful discussions that get you as passionate about composers as you were 20 or 30 years ago. I just don't feel this way. Moreover, I think that many users are a little stubborn, refusing to listen to other symphonies than Beethoven's 5th or Mahler's 9th. There are no tonalists and modernists ―there are only lovers of classical music. I think that everyone should have an equal balance of every_thing_. Why not "The most stylistically advanced Rubbra symphony?", but no "I'm not familiar with Rubbra's work" option. Let them take a few weeks to listen, and come back to vote. So they will know how to have a "discussion" when someone else talks about nuances in the 6th; so they can contribute _meaningfully_. If there is an easy get-away, that user that isn't familiar with Rubbra will never get around to hear his symphonies, and thus will never get out of their little bubble of, say, Romantic music. All eras are equal, so all should be treated with the same importance. Users do so by listening to everything. Even if you don't like an atonal piece, it doesn't mean you don't like atonal music; it probably means that you don't have a taste for that composer. Don't be so quick to judge. If you say that you love classical music, it means that you can answer a question about Haydn's symphonies as easily as you can Schnittke's string trio.

Bleh. Now that I've succesfully barfed out all my grievances with TC, I think my bagel's ready.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

It just takes one to see change! Just start making the posts you desire to see, and perhaps they will catch on and others will start making threads after being exposed by one of your threads!


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

I was listening a bit of Rubbra´s sixth symphony good music.


----------



## LesCyclopes (Sep 16, 2016)

Portamento said:


> All eras are equal, so all should be treated with the same importance.


Because...?

In your world, is it not allowed to enjoy an era or a genre of music more than others?


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

LesCyclopes said:


> In your world, is it not allowed to enjoy an era or a genre of music more than others?


Of course you can like some eras or music more than others; everyone has their preferences. All eras and music, however, should be treated with the same amount of respect and willingness to appreciate by the listener.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

There was some discussion on atonal and modern in some threads. On the whole they just ain't that popular.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Here are a few active threads that deal with works or composers that are less popular:

Neglected Composers
21st-century-classical
What are 3 works in the Modernist era that you view ARE Masterpieces (brand new!)
The Classical Music Project, #2701 and Onward
unknown composers we should talk classical about

In particular you're welcome to host an "unknown composer" in the last thread. And of course you can start or add to threads that discuss lesser composers or works.


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

Portamento said:


> Of course you can like some eras or music more than others; everyone has their preferences. All eras and music, however, should be treated with the same amount of respect and* willingness to appreciate by the listener*.


I think they should be treated with respect in regards to discussion here, but I don't think every talkclassical listener should be obligated to "willingly listen". Time is valuable. It's nice to branch out, discovery can be fun in and of itself. But one shouldn't be required to listen to X hours of music of composer A if they do not feel compelled to do so


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

I'm not entirely sure what type of change you'd like to see on Talk Classical. Are you asking people to be respectful towards the musical tastes of other TC members? If this is what you're saying, then I strongly agree with you.

Or are you urging everyone to expand their own musical tastes? In that case, I must say that I disagree with you. Many TC members have a group of favorite composers who provide them with satisfying musical experiences. There's no good reason why they should be pressured to widen their musical horizons.


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

I must admit that I have not the slightest interest in atonal to my ears it sounds terrible and I have tried listening to it but for me it is a waste of time, if you want that kind of discussion try another forum such as GMG etc which I visit now and again but getting less and less. 
I agree that “which is your favourite 9th” etc is not very interesting but some people like to take part.
As far as composers that are seldom heard to day, well, let’s face it if people liked them they would be heard more often, so they just have not made the grade.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

There are many members on TC who collectively have very broad interests. If you search in Google for a composer on TC you'll almost always find a Composer Guestbook for that person. Further, you'll often find many other threads with entries including works or comments on that composer. 

Of course it's nice to have a new thread or new posts discussing particular composers. There are a reasonable number of these, and as I mentioned, you can create more.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Portamento said:


> I feel like there is a certain lack of diversity here on TC. Every other thread begins with "Which Beethoven symphony", "What Brahms masterpiece", "Your favorite...", "Best ___ composer"... it's a little sickening, to be honest. I'm not saying that I haven't contributed to this problem, but where are the lovers for other parts of classical music? ―it's _all_ classical music. Forums like these have to be places for meaningful, thoughtful discussions that get you as passionate about composers as you were 20 or 30 years ago. I just don't feel this way. Moreover, I think that many users are a little stubborn, refusing to listen to other symphonies than Beethoven's 5th or Mahler's 9th. There are no tonalists and modernists ―there are only lovers of classical music. I think that everyone should have an equal balance of every_thing_.


When it comes to music, I think that it's best for each person to do whatever he/she wants to do. You're sounding like a globalist.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors (Sep 16, 2016)

Bettina said:


> "...are you urging everyone to expand their own musical tastes? In that case, I must say that I disagree with you. Many TC members have a group of favorite composers who provide them with satisfying musical experiences. There's no good reason why they should be pressured to widen their musical horizons.


Agree entirely. There's plenty of diversity to explore on TC. If you don't see what you're looking for, you're certainly free to try to stimulate discussion relating to any of the broad topics herein that interest you.


----------



## Gradeaundera (Jun 30, 2016)

That is part of the reason I'm barely bother with classical forums, the lack of diversity I find boring..a snooze. Maybe if there was more equal discussion, it would be more of an appealing prospect to the younger kids and to the established fans of this music. Why would someone choose to be in such a heavily discriminating environment? Plus the language censorship prevents me from speaking my mind at those particular members who try to impose their egotistical opinions on others.

It would be nice but it's far from reality, it's a pipe dream. Expect TC to always be 99% about Classical, romantic and Baroque music, then you won't get your feelings crushed.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Hey, anyone notice there is more interest talking about lack of diversity and interest in modern music, than actually discussing modern works as in the other thread. :lol:


----------



## beetzart (Dec 30, 2009)

I tend to use TC for the threads that interest me. I like talking on Beethoven and Bach (amongst others) threads but 20th century and atonal/modern music doesn't interest me much and I don't know very much about it, hence why I stay away from those threads. You can make want you want from TC. Start some threads about your favourites, I don't see anything wrong in that.


----------



## Lenny (Jul 19, 2016)

I don't agree. Yes, most of the threads are like that (which I don't personally mind at all), but there are so many writers on this board that every day several unusual discussions appear.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

This is moaning for the sake of it.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Gradeaundera said:


> Expect TC to always be 99% about Classical, romantic and Baroque music, then you won't get your feelings crushed.


There are lots of threads about other music than that. Not so much about medieval and renaissance music but certainly modern and contemporary music.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Bettina said:


> Or are you urging everyone to expand their own musical tastes? In that case, I must say that I disagree with you. Many TC members have a group of favorite composers who provide them with satisfying musical experiences. There's no good reason why they should be pressured to widen their musical horizons.


Agreed, no one should be pressured. But there's nothing wrong with inviting, encouraging people to try new things. I appreciate all the opportunities here at TC to widen my horizons; sometimes I take advantage of them. Of course, the choice is entirely my own.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Portamento said:


> Why not "The most stylistically advanced Rubbra symphony?", but no "I'm not familiar with Rubbra's work" option. Let them take a few weeks to listen, and come back to vote. So they will know how to have a "discussion" when someone else talks about nuances in the 6th; so they can contribute _meaningfully_. If there is an easy get-away, that user that isn't familiar with Rubbra will never get around to hear his symphonies, and thus will never get out of their little bubble of, say, Romantic music. All eras are equal, so all should be treated with the same importance. Users do so by listening to everything. Even if you don't like an atonal piece, it doesn't mean you don't like atonal music; it probably means that you don't have a taste for that composer. Don't be so quick to judge. If you say that you love classical music, it means that you can answer a question about Haydn's symphonies as easily as you can Schnittke's string trio.


I don't know Rubbra's music at all, so I would indeed benefit from an extensive discussion of its merits and highlights. But the main reason I haven't heard Rubbra isn't because of disrespect or living in a bubble: I'm busy listening to tons of other music I haven't heard yet.
Undoubtedly there are many people who are content to listen only to the standard core repertoire, or just a small number of composers. I'm not one of them, but I have no problem with that attitude and don't see why they should feel bad about it.

Hey, maybe this would be a great opportunity for me to plug my composer polls, where TC members can show off their interest (or otherwise!) in hundreds of composers...


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I find PLENTY of diversity on TC, by the way.

To love classical music doesn't mean one needs an encyclopedic knowledge of every composer from every period of time.

One can simply love Bach to the exclusion of all other composers and be considered a passionate lover of classical music, IMO.


----------



## Ekim the Insubordinate (May 24, 2015)

"Classical" music is a very broad topic, with a LOT of works. Where do you start it? The Medieval period? Renaissance? Regardless, you are talking about an incredibly vast and incredibly diverse field. It is almost as nonsensical as saying that if you claim to like rock music, then you must acquaint yourself with all of the subgenres - hard rock, fusion, metal, death metal, dark metal, etc. That is absurd. Except for those who are in it for the academic nature of it, there is no reason why anybody should have to be acquainted with all of it. I listen to classical music because I enjoy listening to classical music. And so, if there is something I don't enjoy, I don't listen. It is as simple as that. From time to time, I get adventurous and pick up a CD from the library that looks interesting. But I feel no obligation to do so.

You want a discussion of Rubbra? Start one. That is how this forum works. If someone isn't discussing already a topic you wish to discuss, you are welcome to start it. Do so. You will probably get people joining in. But don't expect everybody else here to have the same enthusiasms as you. It doesn't work that way. Even within a genre I like, I don't feel the need to sample every single composer who ever composed in that genre. I love the classical and romantic eras - but I generally avoid most operas, even though they were an important genre in those eras, because I don't enjoy opera. And there is nothing that says I have to.


----------



## Jacred (Jan 14, 2017)

There's no need to go through threads if they don't interest you. The fact that some composers/pieces/eras are more commonly discussed than others reflects the music that most TC members enjoy, but doesn't imply that everything else is bad.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Gradeaundera said:


> That is part of the reason I'm barely bother with classical forums, the lack of diversity I find boring..a snooze. Maybe if there was more equal discussion, it would be more of an appealing prospect to the younger kids and to the established fans of this music. Why would someone choose to be in such a heavily discriminating environment? Plus the language censorship prevents me from speaking my mind at those particular members who try to impose their egotistical opinions on others.
> 
> It would be nice but it's far from reality, it's a pipe dream. Expect TC to always be 99% about Classical, romantic and Baroque music, then you won't get your feelings crushed.


Your percentage is obviously incorrect. Music of the 20thc is strongly represented. Speaking your mind requires the option of insulting people using prohibited language? Really? There might be more to learn on TC than you think.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

EdwardBast said:


> Your percentage is obviously incorrect.


Indeed, snide remarks about 4'33'' alone account for far more than 1% of forum discourse, I believe--though mind you I haven't been posting as much as usual lately.


----------



## LesCyclopes (Sep 16, 2016)

hpowders said:


> One can simply love Bach to the exclusion of all other composers and be considered a passionate lover of classical music, IMO.


Indeed. And to such people, it would be far more useful to say "You love Bach? I think you will also enjoy Rameau and Handel" than say, "All eras are equal, so you must go listen to Glass and Xenakis".


----------



## LesCyclopes (Sep 16, 2016)

> Why would someone choose to be in such a heavily discriminating environment? Plus the language censorship prevents me from speaking my mind at those particular members who try to impose their egotistical opinions on others.


"Discriminating environment? "Egotistical opinions"?

Personally, I couldn't care less if nobody likes the music I love. Why do you?


----------



## Martin D (Dec 13, 2016)

Nereffid said:


> Hey, maybe this would be a great opportunity for me to plug my composer polls, where TC members can show off their interest (or otherwise!) in hundreds of composers...


I thought you had planned to finish all this well before now. I've had a look at the top 50 "leader board" and it contains a few weird-looking results in comparison with more conventional composer ranking procedures. No doubt you'll have a suitable explanation for these, or possibly may apply some "adjustments". Can't wait to learn more.


----------



## Martin D (Dec 13, 2016)

There's plenty of diversity on this Board in terms of composer discussions. Possibly the OP has only looked at a few recent pages in this part of the Forum. He might try delving back a bit further, or using google to search for specific composers he is interested in that may have been discussed in the past.


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

If someone wants me to be excited about modern classical, it would be a good start if they show me THEIR enthusiasm. Or find a way to mutually connect.

"Dude, I saw you were listening to Beethoven's late string quartets AGAIN! You know, X Modern composer uses a similar technique in the first movement of his 5th string quartet too. You might want to check it out"

Instead of saying, Brahms and Beethoven, how boring, listen to X instead. If there is a common connecting thread or something else that can draw me in, I'd be more likely to want to try it out.
The notion that you NEED to put homework in to be a meaningful contributor to the forum, well I'll accept my mediocrity. My family and my work get the best of me. I like my TalkClassical friends, but you will all have to content yourselves with the scraps 

That said, since you singled out Rubra, tell you what. I'll give his sixth symphony a listen this week.


----------



## Tristan (Jan 5, 2013)

I thought this was going to be a complaint about too many "best X" and "X vs. X" threads, not another "where's the modernism?" thread.  I get sick of all the "best X" and "X vs. X" threads mainly because I often find it too hard to pick a "best" and some of the comparisons are just crazy and make no sense!


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

Sonata said:


> Instead of saying, Brahms and Beethoven, how boring, listen to X instead.


Who actually says that?


----------



## Tristan (Jan 5, 2013)

Chronochromie said:


> Who actually says that?


I don't think anyone actually says those words, but I think that was implied in the OP--they were vexed with the constant threads about Brahms and Beethoven and wanted to see more about obscure modern composers, and there's nothing wrong with wanting to see more threads about what you like, but it was the implication that those who post only about Romantic music are somehow dull or lacking that's the problem.

But this is what I often find hypocritical about this whole thing. It's perfectly alright to accuse someone of being in a "bubble" when they prefer Romantic music, but what about someone who only listens to 20th century music and doesn't care for anything before that? Would you ever accuse them of being in a "modernist bubble"? There seems to be this idea that those who listen to modern music exclusively are already "adventurous enough" so they have no bubble to break out of, they've reached an appreciation of the most "enlightened" music and can't be accused of being closed-minded. It just doesn't seem fair that people who've similarly found there "niche" in older eras get accused of closed-mindedness and being in a "bubble".


----------



## LesCyclopes (Sep 16, 2016)

Portamento said:


> All eras and music, however, should be treated with the same amount of respect


I respect not ideas or music but the *people* who love them.

What does it even mean to respect an era or a piece of music?


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

Tristan said:


> But this is what I often find hypocritical about this whole thing. It's perfectly alright to accuse someone of being in a "bubble" when they prefer Romantic music, but what about someone who only listens to 20th century and doesn't care for anything before that? Would you ever accuse them of being in a "modernist bubble"? There seems to be this idea that those who listen to modern music exclusively are already "adventurous enough" so they have no bubble to break out of, they've reached an appreciation of the most "enlightened" music and can't be accused of being closed-minded. It just doesn't seem fair that older eras have "bubbles", but newer eras don't.


True, but I think you'd agree that people who listen to 20th century classical exclusively are much less common, at least around here, than those who only listen to the Romantic era.


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

Chronochromie said:


> True, but I think you'd agree that people who listen to 20th century classical exclusively are much less common, at least around here, than those who only listen to the Romantic era.


Does them being less common mean they are more open minded? Does that make sense?


----------



## Tristan (Jan 5, 2013)

I agree that they're much less common and I can understand that for someone who doesn't like Romantic music or at least isn't as interested in it as modern music, it can be frustrating not being able to find common ground with others. But that's not the same as implying that people are "stuck" in eras. It's the language of accused closed-mindedness that bugs me.


----------



## LesCyclopes (Sep 16, 2016)

Sonata said:


> Does them being less common mean they are more open minded?


No. It just means that's the music that "fits" their brain.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

Sonata said:


> Does them being less common mean they are more open minded? Does that make sense?


No, it doesn't...?


----------



## Guest (Mar 27, 2017)

Admittedly diversity is more readily attainable when forces that drive away minorities are better kept in check.

[Honestly I don't know that this is even a problem anymore, but only because the damage was already done]


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Ekim the Insubordinate said:


> I don't enjoy opera. And there is nothing that says I have to.


*I* say you have to.

But that's another thread.


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

These lesser known composers should be so thankful that I even spend time on their work. Because I think I could easily spend the rest of my whole life listening to my "preferred" composers (Händel, Beethoven, Mozart, Liszt, Debussy, Prokofiev, Shostakovich and some others) and still not having enough time to fully discover and appreciate their work. Sometimes I think I spend too much time on the lesser known composers because it's rare that they come even near the big guys.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

There's several different types of diversity on TC. There are people who love music from every era and genre. There are people who vastly prefer music from a particular genre or era over all others. There are people who hate particular eras, genres, composers, or works. There are people who love those same eras, genres, composers, or works. There are people who hate the lack of widespread diversity of interests. There are people who hate the hatred of the lack of widespread diversity of interests. It's all here for everyone to love, hate, analyze, ignore, or do anything else (well almost anything else).


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

EdwardBast said:


> Speaking your mind requires the option of insulting people using prohibited language? Really? There might be more to learn on TC than you think.


You're assuming that prohibited language is improper language, and that apt and merited responses are always acceptable to the language police.

There may be more to learn on TC than you think, unless you're better than some of us at walking on eggs.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I think things are fine as they are.

TC is a good reflection of the way things stand in the real world: a small, intelligent cognoscenti who are into modern and avant garde music, and a large, ignorant, conservative mass who only want more of the same old museum-piece works. :lol:


----------



## Klassik (Mar 14, 2017)

I'm too new here to discuss forum specific issues in any detail, but just in general I think the more popular composers have more momentum which leads to more threads about them. There's the obvious factors. Most people know about the popular composers so more people can join in the discussions and have something worthwhile to say about their works. Also, there's more recordings of them so that leads to more discussions about them. 

I'll give an example of how it can be difficult to discuss a lesser known composer. I like the some of the works by David Maslanka, a living composer of same fame within the wind symphony subgenre. It'll be hard to talk about him here because A) I myself don't know much about him aside from the fact that I like some of the works I've heard so it's not like there's much intelligent conversation I can add to the forum, B) concert band music does not seem too popular here. Maybe some don't consider it to be "real classical music," C) While you can find his stuff on YouTube, there aren't a ton of commercial recordings of his works. There are some good ones (the CD containing his Symphony #4 on the Reference Recordings label is absolutely terrific), but some of his works aren't on CD at all it seems and some of the CDs are of amateurish sounding college orchestras, D) he composes in an era where many people are skeptical of the quality of the music so it's hard to convince people that he's worth a listen.

As far as point D goes, I myself am guilty of it. I'm much more likely to give some unknown Baroque, Classical, or Romantic era composer a chance than a 20th century+ one. I like the idea of finding new music from living or recently deceased composers, but I've found the signal-to-noise ratio to be too low when listening to it. With the older stuff, there's a pretty decent chance that I'll like what I hear if I go looking for new stuff. With the newer stuff, well, too many of the composers I've read about end up sounding bad when I give them a chance. Due to that, I'm less likely to go listen to modern music if someone offers a recommendation. There's people who love modern music though and it seems like there are threads with activity discussing modern composers and lesser known composers from older eras.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Klassik said:


> I'll give an example of how it can be difficult to discuss a lesser known composer. I like the some of the works by David Maslanka, a living composer of same fame within the wind symphony subgenre. It'll be hard to talk about him here because ...concert band music does not seem too popular here. Maybe some don't consider it to be "real classical music,"


I think many of us have started a thread on a more obscure topic or composer and found little interest. Of course that's fine. You might be surprised to learn that David Maslanka has a Composer Guestbook (unfortunately with only 1 post, but you could add to that), and there is a thread, The Concert Band Thread, with several posts on Maslanka including his 4th symphony.


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

millionrainbows said:


> I think things are fine as they are.
> 
> TC is a good reflection of the way things stand in the real world: a small, intelligent cognoscenti who are into modern and avant garde music, and a large, ignorant, conservative mass who only want more of the same old museum-piece works. :lol:


Now here we can see the main motivation of todays' modernists; they want to look intelligent and exclusive :lol:


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

millionrainbows said:


> I think things are fine as they are.
> 
> TC is a good reflection of the way things stand in the real world: a small, intelligent cognoscenti who are into modern and avant garde music, and a large, ignorant, conservative mass who only want more of the same old museum-piece works. :lol:


The common-practice tonal language, when used skillfully and imaginatively, takes me to incomparable spiritual, emotional and intellectual heights. Nothing else in the world moves me as powerfully--not modern music, not postmodern music, not avant-garde music. If that makes me an ignorant, conservative person, then so be it!


----------



## LesCyclopes (Sep 16, 2016)

Ekim the Insubordinate said:


> I generally avoid most operas, even though they were an important genre in those eras, because I don't enjoy opera.


I thought the same, until I started listening to Baroque operas and realised that it is Classical era stuff that I don't particularly like.

When I Am Laid In Earth from Purcell's opera Dido and Aeneas.

Start listening at 31:30 for Cruelle Mère des Amours from Rameau's opera Hippolyte et Aricie


----------



## LesCyclopes (Sep 16, 2016)

> a small, intelligent cognoscenti who are into modern and avant garde music, and a large, ignorant, conservative mass who only want more of the same old museum-piece works.


You keep telling yourself that


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> I think things are fine as they are.
> 
> TC is a good reflection of the way things stand in the real world: a small, intelligent cognoscenti who are into modern and avant garde music, and a large, ignorant, conservative mass who only want more of the same old museum-piece works. :lol:


This post gives me an idea: we should enhance this site with analytics software able to analyze posters and assign one of two labels to a poster (instead of Senior/Junior Member, which are kinda useless): intelligent cognoscente or ignorant conservative. That way, we'll know immediately what to expect from a poster.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Bettina said:


> The common-practice tonal language, when used skillfully and imaginatively, takes me to incomparable spiritual, emotional and intellectual heights. Nothing else in the world moves me as powerfully--not modern music, not postmodern music, not avant-garde music. If that makes me an ignorant, conservative person, then so be it!


I like common-practice tonality, but only if it's been done skillfully by historical figures from a long, long time ago. It also helps if the composer got syphilis, became deaf, or went crazy and jumped into a river. It's gotta have a pedigree. Modern-day tonality doesn't have any of that.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

hpowders said:


> I find PLENTY of diversity on TC, by the way.
> 
> To love classical music doesn't mean one needs an encyclopedic knowledge of every composer from every period of time.
> 
> One can simply love Bach to the exclusion of all other composers and be considered a passionate lover of classical music, IMO.


You said that just so you could rack up the # of likes didn't you


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> I like common-practice tonality, but only if it's been done skillfully by historical figures a long time ago. It also helps if the composer got syphilis, became deaf, or went crazy and jumped into a river. It's gotta have a pedigree. Modern-day tonality doesn't have any of that.


Even more disconcertingly, contemporary jazz artists generally seem to be pretty well adjusted as far as I can tell.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Blancrocher said:


> Even more disconcertingly, contemporary jazz artists generally seem to be pretty well adjusted as far as I can tell.


Eww, yes, isn't it horrible? Even the new black guys. No heroin, no cigarette smoke in bars, no pain...


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

Bettina said:


> The common-practice tonal language, when used skillfully and imaginatively, takes me to incomparable spiritual, emotional and intellectual heights. Nothing else in the world moves me as powerfully--not modern music, not postmodern music, not avant-garde music. If that makes me an ignorant, conservative person, then so be it!


No one thinks that, millionrainbows just likes to joke about people who are nowhere to be seen. I imagine he's pretty happy with the fact that pesky Mahlerian isn't here to call him out anymore.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> I think things are fine as they are.
> 
> *TC is* a good reflection of the way things stand in the real world: a small, intelligent cognoscenti who are into modern and avant garde music, and a* large, ignorant, conservative mass *who only want more of the same old museum-piece works. :lol:


And yet you are still here.....


----------



## Badinerie (May 3, 2008)

Diversity is relative. If one has grown up with broadly catholic tastes in music then it just feels normal. It does not mean however that such a person would or should look down upon someone whom listens exclusively to a core group of popular composers. That seldom happens here,but it does happen. As does the reciprical. 

Appreciating recent works by new composers can be problematic. Even in the age of the internet it can be difficult to find any information or facts to discuss. But it is getting better. I remmember listening to new works on BBC Radio 3 in the 1980's. It was so frustrating that so little was known about the composers or any of their other compositions. Only recently has it been possible to gleen any information on composers from this period. Get a facebook page guys! its 2017 already.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Saint-Saens on diversity in music: "Why cannot we understand that in art, as in everything else, there are some things to which we must not accustom ourselves."


----------



## TurnaboutVox (Sep 22, 2013)

Bettina said:


> [...] If that makes me an ignorant, conservative person, then so be it!


I think that's the way to take it. Sticks and stones, etc.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

nathanb said:


> Admittedly diversity is more readily attainable when forces that drive away minorities are better kept in check.
> 
> [Honestly I don't know that this is even a problem anymore, *but only because the damage was already done]*


Or perhaps because a tiny number of people who were breeding enmity defected to other fora?


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> You're assuming that prohibited language is improper language, and that apt and merited responses are always acceptable to the language police.
> 
> There may be more to learn on TC than you think, unless you're better than some of us at walking on eggs.


Egg shells? Hah! I've yet to earn my first infraction point and I've not found civility an impediment to vigorous disputation. Of course I don't have to deal with the anti-Wagnerian rabble on a daily basis.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

EdwardBast said:


> Egg shells? Hah! I've yet to earn my first infraction point and I've not found civility an impediment to vigorous disputation. Of course I don't have to deal with the anti-Wagnerian rabble on a daily basis.


For my own part, I've found it easy enough to avoid infractions by staying away from threads where people endorse thousand-dollar stereo cables.


----------



## bz3 (Oct 15, 2015)

Portamento said:


> All eras are equal, so all should be treated with the same importance.


Sounds like communism!


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Blancrocher said:


> For my own part, I've found it easy enough to avoid infractions by staying away from threads where people endorse thousand-dollar stereo cables.


To quote bz3: Sounds like communism!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

EdwardBast said:


> Egg shells? Hah! I've yet to earn my first infraction point and I've not found civility an impediment to vigorous disputation. Of course I don't have to deal with the anti-Wagnerian rabble on a daily basis.


I don't find civility a problem either. The problem is with officers of the law who think that saying to a persistent pest, "It was inevitable that you'd show up on a Wagner thread to tell us for the fiftieth time that you can't appreciate Wagner, so I thought a little tit for tat was just the thing to shed light on, and make light of, the matter," is uncivil. I think it not only civil but rather cute - and precisely correct. Evidently the law sides with cranky disruptors who offend repeatedly and then run whimpering to Big Brother when called out, however civilly, on their obnoxious habits.

Oh dear. Have I been too truthful again?

You're right. You don't have to deal with it. And with the Schoenberg militia gone and no longer leveling accusations of ignorance and dishonesty, your professorial tenure is pretty comfortable.


----------



## Gordontrek (Jun 22, 2012)

Just a general observation: every now and then, a "lack of diversity" complaint thread surfaces on this site. Does that mean, therefore, that this thread is actually contributing to TC's supposed lack of diversity?


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

Gordontrek said:


> Just a general observation: every now and then, a "lack of diversity" complaint thread surfaces on this site. Does that mean, therefore, that this thread is actually contributing to TC's supposed lack of diversity?


Probably, Gordon.... probably...


----------



## Rhinotop (Jul 8, 2016)

Portamento said:


> I feel like there is a certain lack of diversity here on TC. Every other thread begins with "Which Beethoven symphony", "What Brahms masterpiece", "Your favorite...", "Best ___ composer"... it's a little sickening, to be honest. I'm not saying that I haven't contributed to this problem, but where are the lovers for other parts of classical music? ―it's _all_ classical music. Forums like these have to be places for meaningful, thoughtful discussions that get you as passionate about composers as you were 20 or 30 years ago. I just don't feel this way. Moreover, I think that many users are a little stubborn, refusing to listen to other symphonies than Beethoven's 5th or Mahler's 9th. There are no tonalists and modernists ―there are only lovers of classical music. I think that everyone should have an equal balance of every_thing_. Why not "The most stylistically advanced Rubbra symphony?", but no "I'm not familiar with Rubbra's work" option. Let them take a few weeks to listen, and come back to vote. So they will know how to have a "discussion" when someone else talks about nuances in the 6th; so they can contribute _meaningfully_. If there is an easy get-away, that user that isn't familiar with Rubbra will never get around to hear his symphonies, and thus will never get out of their little bubble of, say, Romantic music. All eras are equal, so all should be treated with the same importance. Users do so by listening to everything. Even if you don't like an atonal piece, it doesn't mean you don't like atonal music; it probably means that you don't have a taste for that composer. Don't be so quick to judge. If you say that you love classical music, it means that you can answer a question about Haydn's symphonies as easily as you can Schnittke's string trio.
> 
> Bleh. Now that I've succesfully barfed out all my grievances with TC, I think my bagel's ready.


I completely agree with you. I feel the same. Most of people in this forum speak about Mozart, Beethoven, Bach..., the same composers, same works to the full, really is boring that. There are other many great composers and works, not only are the previous ones.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

So why do you stay??? There is no force field keeping you prisoner here. 

I love Mozart, Beethoven and Bach as do most folks here. 

That's the meat of the repertoire. One cannot change that.


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

hpowders said:


> So why do you stay??? If you are unhappy, leave!! There is no force field keeping you prisoner here.
> 
> I love Mozart, Bach, Beethoven and Bach. That's what most folks here love!!!


Yes, I can tell that you really love Bach...you listed him twice!


----------



## Rhinotop (Jul 8, 2016)

hpowders said:


> So why do you stay??? There is no force field keeping you prisoner here.
> 
> I love Mozart, Beethoven and Bach as do most folks here.
> 
> That's the meat of the repertoire. One cannot change that.


Really, I don't care your words.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Bettina said:


> Yes, I can tell that you really love Bach...you listed him twice!


Poetic license. I already corrected that.

Perhaps on a planet far away in another galaxy, the music of Boulez and Cage is worshipped and featured in neon lights on their classical music website, but not on planet earth.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Rhinotop said:


> Really, I don't care your words.


So do you think that the vast majority of conservative classical music lovers on this site enjoy yours?

There are PLENTY of atonal and contemporary intellectual threads on TC.

Look and you will find!

Do a search!


----------



## Rhinotop (Jul 8, 2016)

hpowders said:


> Poetic license. I already corrected that.
> 
> Perhaps on a planet far away in another galaxy, the music of Boulez and Cage is worshipped and featured in neon lights on their classical music website, but not on planet earth.


Ha ha ha! It's even funny read that.


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

Rhinotop said:


> Really, I don't care your words.


I don't see any problem with what hpowders said. He's absolutely right: Mozart, Beethoven and Bach are among the most widely performed composers, and many people on TC count those three composers among their favorites. What could possibly be objectionable about his factual statements?


----------



## Ekim the Insubordinate (May 24, 2015)

amfortas said:


> *I* say you have to.
> 
> But that's another thread.


Those are fighting words!!!!!!!


----------



## Rhinotop (Jul 8, 2016)

hpowders said:


> So do you think that the vast majority of conservative classical music lovers on this site enjoy yours?


I don't need that other people enjoy my opinion. I just say what I think.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

I think there is good diversity here at TC. You can easily find many threads about Haydn or Schnittke.


----------



## Oldhoosierdude (May 29, 2016)

Im not much of a music expert. I don't know much of the terminology used: atonal, etc. I only know if I like how something sounds or not. If the point is that we should look beyond the standard masters of Beethoven, Bach, etc. Then I agree. I always want to hear things new to me. If i like it, then great. If not, then i move on. Do I have to like all classical music to call myself a classical music lover? I don't think so. But I should at least give different things a listen.

Yes. This forum does have a lot of duplicate thread themes. I always try to do a search before starting a new thread. Some people don't think of that. That's the nature of forums I fear.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Rhinotop said:


> Ha ha ha! It's even funny read that.


Do you notice that I never put you down by mocking you?


----------



## Ekim the Insubordinate (May 24, 2015)

I think there is a reason that Beethoven, Bach, Brahms, Mozart, etc., get so much more attention than Rubbra. Wait for it . . . their music is more popular. They have stood the test of time, and are still popular. Rubbra's music hasn't been around that long - and it should have the status of those others?


----------



## Ekim the Insubordinate (May 24, 2015)

Rhinotop said:


> I don't need that other people enjoy my opinion. I just say what I think.


Well, then, that's probably why you aren't going to get that many people engaging you in a discussion of modern classical music. And if this is really true, why be here? Participating in a discussion requires that you at least pay some service to being enjoyable to have a discussion with.

Who wants to discuss a topic with someone who wants to just be disagreeable?


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

That's my thoughts too. It should be be no surprise that the great composers get more discussion. The point here however is whether there is diversity, not on how much, so the fact is - there is diversity of topics.


----------



## Julius Seizure (Mar 28, 2017)

ArtMusic said:


> That's my thoughts too. It should be be no surprise that the great composers get more discussion. The point here however is whether there is diversity, not on how much, so the fact is - there is diversity of topics.


YAY! SCHNITTKE IS BAD! HE DONT KNOW HOW TO compose.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

I think I must be a real hard-core conservative ignoramus. I've listened to nothing all day but Sibelius, Bach and Grieg. No Beethoven yet but the night is still young.


----------



## Rhinotop (Jul 8, 2016)

Ekim the Insubordinate said:


> I think there is a reason that Beethoven, Bach, Brahms, Mozart, etc., get so much more attention than Rubbra. Wait for it . . . their music is more popular. They have stood the test of time, and are still popular. Rubbra's music hasn't been around that long - and it should have the status of those others?


They are more popular because of most of labels record and record and record, e.g. Mozart's piano concertos, Bach's partitas (there must be thousands and thousands of recordings of those works), etc. Of course, they are all great works, I like too, but they aren't the only interesting pieces that exist. Many other great composers are opaque by them. People do not want to leave their comfort zone in music terms.

I prefer variety and not the same monotony, for more masterpieces that they are. This is my personal opinion. I don't know why some people bother that.


----------



## Ekim the Insubordinate (May 24, 2015)

Sibelius, Grieg, and Bach. I believe I could spend a very enjoyable day with those composers!

Sibelius' Violin Concerto, Grieg's Peer Gynt Suite, and maybe Bach's Cello Suites.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Ekim the Insubordinate said:


> Sibelius, Grieg, and Bach. I believe I could spend a very enjoyable day with those composers!
> 
> Sibelius' Violin Concerto, Grieg's Peer Gynt Suite, and maybe Bach's Cello Suites.


Sounds like a very fine day to me. I listened to Sibelius's Tapiola, The Oceanides and string quartet, Grieg's string quartet and Bach's Partita for piano (ahem, keyboard) No 2.


----------



## Ekim the Insubordinate (May 24, 2015)

It is not my job to like the works of different composers. They have to prove to me that I should listen to them. Why must I leave a "comfort zone?" I listen to music for enjoyment. How is leaving a comfort zone and being uncomfortable enjoyable to me? I owe those composers nothing. Back in the day, Beethoven and Bach and Brahms and Mozart had to create music that people were willing to pay for. Same thing with modern composers. They don't deserve my listening to them simply because they have written something.


----------



## Rhinotop (Jul 8, 2016)

Ekim the Insubordinate said:


> Well, then, that's probably why you aren't going to get that many people engaging you in a discussion of modern classical music. And if this is really true, why be here? Participating in a discussion requires that you at least pay some service to being enjoyable to have a discussion with.
> 
> Who wants to discuss a topic with someone who wants to just be disagreeable?


If I'm here or not, I think that only interests me. In fact, currently I just read certain threads, nothing more.

If I leave or not I will decide, I don't need other people to tell me that.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Rhinotop said:


> If I leave or not I will decide, I don't need other people to tell me that.


You must be thrilled with the power of choice you have!


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Diversity? How do you know I'm not a 13-year old girl in Zimbabwe? ("On the internet, no one knows you're a dog."  )

More seriously, if there's a discussion you want to have, start it.

Also, unfortunately but truly, when I was younger I listened to, and formed an interest in or opinion about just about everything. But as you reach the age where the volume of sand in the top of your hour glass is visibly diminishing and every minute counts, one tends to narrow what he listens to to music of known personal meaning-- so my play list is smaller. (Just like I'm more likely to have a glass of wine I know I'll like, rather than one just to have a glass of wine.  )


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

Portamento said:


> Of course you can like some eras or music more than others; everyone has their preferences. All eras and music, however, should be treated with the same amount of respect and willingness to appreciate by the listener.


Why? Who died and made you the Czar of Musical Taste?


----------



## Rhinotop (Jul 8, 2016)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> You must be thrilled with the power of choice you have!


I just laugh with what people write me. :lol:  I do not take anything personally. I love everybody, and all the music!


----------



## Ekim the Insubordinate (May 24, 2015)

I also avoid books, movies, and TV shows that I don't find enjoyable. I'm just picky that way. Why spend my money and time on things I don't like?



Triplets said:


> Why? Who died and made you the Czar of Musical Taste?


Hmm, is there an application process to earn that title?


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

Rhinotop said:


> They are more popular because of most of labels record and record and record, e.g. Mozart's piano concertos, Bach's partitas (there must be thousands and thousands of recordings of those works), etc. Of course, they are all great works, I like too, but they aren't the only interesting pieces that exist. Many other great composers are opaque by them. People do not want to leave their comfort zone in music terms.
> 
> I prefer variety and not the same monotony, for more masterpieces that they are. This is my personal opinion. I don't know why some people bother that.


You can prefer what you wish to prefer. Allow others the same privilege. If you don't like threads where you think people are talking about the same old same old, start threads about topics that you wish to discuss. There are a lot of posters here and the like minded posters will find you. Why drag others kicking and screaming into discussions that they don't wish to participate in? I come here to relax after a hard days work, not to be bullied by people who think they can dictate how I wish to spend my time


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Ekim the Insubordinate said:


> I also avoid books, movies, and TV shows that I don't find enjoyable. I'm just picky that way. Why spend my money and time on things I don't like?


Why? So you can become an intelligent cognoscente and educate the masses about all kinds of boring music you don't like but pretend to because it makes you feel superior.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I sympathise with and know where Rhinotop, million rainbows, and Portamento are coming from. Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven are great no doubt within the realms of tonality. But they don't count for anything when it comes to world of modern music like avant garde. It's a totally separate tree. Building on Bartok and Stravinsky, and a few others, there is little or none of the former big 3. Modern music haters (the ones who don't understand it will naturally react in a negative way, as I used to) will view this modern music as weeds in a garden, while modern music lovers will see it as beautiful flowers, as beautiful as anything the former big 3 has ever written. 

Cage credits Varese was the first or one of the first to explore the deconstruction of music and music in noise. It takes a totally different approach to music, as discussed in a previous thread on contemporary music. You can't compare Bach to Varese. They are both innovators, but of different kind of music. It doesn't matter who is more popular even with critical consensus. They are both equally as great, that is as close you can get to an objective statement. I hinted at this in another thread. Both are innovators, just with different elements. Maybe in the future modern music will become as accepted and the traditinal tonal types.


----------



## Ekim the Insubordinate (May 24, 2015)

Phil loves classical said:


> I sympathise with and know where Rhinotop, million rainbows, and Portamento are coming from. Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven are great no doubt within the realms of tonality. But they don't count for anything when it comes to world of modern music like avant garde. It's a totally separate tree. Building on Bartok and Stravinsky, and a few others, there is little or none of the former big 3. Modern music haters (the ones who don't understand it will naturally react in a negative way, as I used to) will view this modern music as weeds in a garden, while modern music lovers will see it as beautiful flowers, as beautiful as anything the former big 3 has ever written.
> 
> Cage credits Varese was the first or one of the first to explore the deconstruction of music and music in noise. It takes a totally different approach to music, as discussed in a previous thread on contemporary music. You can't compare Bach to Varese. They are both innovators, but of different kind of music. It doesn't matter who is more popular even with critical consensus. They are both equally as great, that is as close you can get to an objective statement. I hinted at this in another thread. Both are innovators, just with different elements. Maybe in the future modern music will become as accepted and the traditinal tonal types.


I don't have much of a beef with most of what you say here. Would I call Varese great? Well, that is subjective, isn't it? But where I take exception is calling people who don't care for modern music "haters." I'm not a hater of modern music. I don't like it. That doesn't make me a hater. Quite honestly, I just ignore it. I don't like it, but I know many do. More power to them. If it brings them enjoyment, then great!


----------



## regenmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

I enjoy TC and it's probably the most sophisticated art type forum online. But I understand your concern. i posted lots of interesting thread ideas that weren't picked up much, which required some degree of abstract thinking involved to respond.


----------



## Guest (Mar 28, 2017)

EdwardBast said:


> Or perhaps because a tiny number of people who were breeding enmity defected to other fora?


Call it what you will; I don't really mind any more. Either way, in the context of this thread, I'm sure we can both agree that, regardless of who the aggressor was, a demographic got a good bit weaker here at TC recently (therefore, by definition, diversity decreased).


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

nathanb said:


> Call it what you will; I don't really mind any more. Either way, in the context of this thread, I'm sure we can both agree that, regardless of who the aggressor was, a demographic got a good bit weaker here at TC recently (therefore, by definition, diversity decreased).


Aggressor? Sounds pretty tame to me. A little playful banter. Not much worse than: "Don't tell me what to like!" Early last year this thread would have been a rancorous blood bath. And by page two it would have been about Schoenberg and atonality.  The fact that it is not is heavenly diversity to me.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Ekim the Insubordinate said:


> I don't have much of a beef with most of what you say here. Would I call Varese great? Well, that is subjective, isn't it? But where I take exception is calling people who don't care for modern music "haters." I'm not a hater of modern music. I don't like it. That doesn't make me a hater. Quite honestly, I just ignore it. I don't like it, but I know many do. More power to them. If it brings them enjoyment, then great!


No, i'm not picking on you or anyone in particular.


----------



## Guest (Mar 28, 2017)

EdwardBast said:


> Aggressor? Sounds pretty tame to me. A little playful banter. Not much worse than: "Don't tell me what to like!" Early last year this thread would have been a rancorous blood bath. And by page two it would have been about Schoenberg and atonality.  The fact that it is not is heavenly diversity to me.


Fair enough, I reckon.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

nathanb said:


> Call it what you will; I don't really mind any more. Either way, in the context of this thread, I'm sure we can both agree that, regardless of who the aggressor was, a demographic got a good bit weaker here at TC recently (therefore, by definition, diversity decreased).


What I found frustrating back then was that the members of this demographic didn't spend much time speaking about the music they sought to champion in a constructive or positive way. They spent far more time attacking its perceived enemies. There was also a set of bizarre and wrong theoretical and historical propositions one was supposed to accept, for reasons I never understood. This wasn't good for discussion.

ON THE OTHER HAND...there was a lot less "emperor's new clothes," "cat walking across a piano," "random noise" stuff back then. I think it's because people who were inclined to say things like that felt bullied and intimidated. I'm conflicted because I think bullying and intimidating people is wrong, morally speaking, but it did keep out some really irritating, low-value posts!


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

isorhythm said:


> What I found frustrating back then was that the members of this demographic didn't spend much time speaking about the music they sought to champion in a constructive or positive way. They spent far more time attacking its perceived enemies. There was also a set of bizarre and wrong theoretical and historical propositions one was supposed to accept, for reasons I never understood. This wasn't good for discussion.
> 
> ON THE OTHER HAND...there was a lot less "emperor's new clothes," "cat walking across a piano," "random noise" stuff back then. I think it's because people who were inclined to say things like that felt bullied and intimidated. I'm conflicted because I think bullying and intimidating people is wrong, morally speaking, but it did keep out some really irritating, low-value posts!


I think some users could explain why they thought they thought the music they liked was great and could show that they liked it because they find beauty in it. It is not so much cat walking on a piano and random noise comments now either at least not compared with youtube comments.


----------



## Tristan (Jan 5, 2013)

isorhythm said:


> What I found frustrating back then was that the members of this demographic didn't spend much time speaking about the music they sought to champion in a constructive or positive way. They spent far more time attacking its perceived enemies. There was also a set of bizarre and wrong theoretical and historical propositions one was supposed to accept, for reasons I never understood. This wasn't good for discussion.


There does seem to be some tendency for _that demographic_ to be constantly on the defensive, in some cases unnecessarily so to the point that it's off-putting and stifles any real potential discussion and learning.


----------



## Casebearer (Jan 19, 2016)

I agree with topic starter. There are far too many 'Best this' posts especially on Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms. The diversity in the main subforums has been much less since people like Mahlerian left. Posts on modernist music always end up the same way and don't inspire. 

It's a good thing we now have the 'unknown composers' threads. Nevertheless imo we should also have a separate subforum under Music and repertoire for Modernist classical music where millionrainbows and other people like me that like this stuff can meet without bumping into people that hate it all the time.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

isorhythm said:


> ON THE OTHER HAND...there was a lot less "emperor's new clothes," "cat walking across a piano," "random noise" stuff back then. I think it's because people who were inclined to say things like that felt bullied and intimidated. I'm conflicted because I think bullying and intimidating people is wrong, morally speaking, but it did keep out some really irritating, low-value posts!


These points might well be true, including the one about suppressing "irritating, low-value posts." But I think we can counter such posts without bullying and intimidation. And now that moderate voices are not tied down in permanent trench warfare over definitions, perhaps they will have time for such friendly (or at least not coercive) persuasion? I've found myself so inclined of late, now that I am not distracted by badgers.


----------



## Lenny (Jul 19, 2016)

What really is amazing in this forum is how good discussions and kind behavior it has, given the HUGE number of members. Personally I wound't mind at all if this were "talkbrahmstop3quartets.com" (domain seems to be available). I could allow a little bit of Varese discussions there as well...  just kiddin of course.

Seriously, any kind of CM dicussion is good. Even if it were 99,99% of "top this and that", it's all good. I seriously doubt this is the reason why some people have left. On the contrary, this sort of "mainstream" discussion keeps alive and gives meaning to more substance-oriented discussions and writers.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

There are hundreds of famous composers whose work I don't know at all or don't know well. I wonder if I should prioritize Rubbra over Clemens Non Papa, Rautavaara, Sarasate, Atterberg, Ferrari, Borodin, Nielsen, Rubinstein, Buxtehude, Martinu, Porpora, Lachenmann, Ullmann, Henze, Medtner, Goldmark, Sor, Suk, Cui, Ries, Foss, Spohr, Yun, Holst, Bloch, Bridge, and so on, and so on, and so on? 

And is going composer by composer really the best approach? Do I really need to listen to almost everything by one composer before moving on to another one? Or is it better for me to move from one composer's most famous works on to another composers most famous works? 

I mean, hey, if we're going to be programmatically critical of each other's listening choices, let's just explicitly lay out the program that we're all supposed to be following. No one would like that more than I would.


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

science said:


> There are hundreds of famous composers whose work I don't know at all or don't know well. I wonder if I should prioritize Rubbra over Clemens Non Papa, Rautavaara, Sarasate, Atterberg, Ferrari, Borodin, Nielsen, Rubinstein, Buxtehude, Martinu, Porpora, Lachenmann, Ullmann, Henze, Medtner, Goldmark, Sor, Suk, Cui, Ries, Foss, Spohr, Yun, Holst, Bloch, Bridge, and so on, and so on, and so on?
> 
> And is going composer by composer really the best approach? Do I really need to listen to almost everything by one composer before moving on to another one? Or is it better for me to move from one composer's most famous works on to another composers most famous works?
> 
> I mean, hey, if we're going to be programmatically critical of each other's listening choices, let's just explicitly lay out the program that we're all supposed to be following. No one would like that more than I would.


That's an interesting question about how best to explore lesser-known composers. I realize that you probably intended it as a satirical critique of the OP's premises, but let me offer a serious response anyway. When searching for lesser-known composers who might appeal to you, it's often useful to start with composers who are stylistically similar to your tried-and-true favorites.

In order to find such composers, you might find it helpful to read encyclopedia articles about your favorite musical periods and styles; such articles often mention obscure composers alongside the more famous names. The goal is to find the names of lesser-known contemporaries of your favorite composers, preferably from the same region as well as the same time period.

Of course, this advice only applies to people who are interested in discovering lesser-known composers...there's no imperative to do so, and there's certainly nothing wrong with listening primarily to well-known composers.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Bettina said:


> That's an interesting question about how best to explore lesser-known composers. I realize that you probably intended it as a satirical critique of the OP's premises, but let me offer a serious response anyway. When searching for lesser-known composers who might appeal to you, it's often useful to start with composers who are stylistically similar to your tried-and-true favorites.
> 
> In order to find such composers, you might find it helpful to read encyclopedia articles about your favorite musical periods and styles; such articles often mention obscure composers alongside the more famous names. The goal is to find the names of lesser-known contemporaries of your favorite composers, preferably from the same region as well as the same time period.
> 
> Of course, this advice only applies to people who are interested in discovering lesser-known composers...there's no imperative to do so, and there's certainly nothing wrong with listening primarily to well-known composers.


No, there's no satire at all. I really want to know what I'm supposed to do so that I can do it and not have people come around and treat me like I'm trash because I don't already know, say, Rubbra. Or whatever.

It's not about what "might appeal to" me. Not being treated like trailer park trash is what appeals to me.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

science said:


> Is going composer by composer really the best approach? Do I really need to listen to almost everything by one composer before moving on to another one? Or is it better for me to move from one composer's most famous works on to another composers most famous works?
> 
> I mean, hey, if we're going to be programmatically critical of each other's listening choices, let's just explicitly lay out the program that we're all supposed to be following. No one would like that more than I would.


So glad you asked.

To solve this perennial problem of how to listen to music properly and garner the least criticism from our betters, you should not prioritize any piece of music over any other. The best way to ensure this is to listen to every work ever written, or as near to that as possible, only once, and in chronological order, checking each piece off on a list of works which you have prepared in advance of ever listening to anything.

So far this plan is only in the conceptualization stage. Would you let me know how it works out for you so that I'll know what I'm missing?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> So glad you asked.
> 
> To solve this perennial problem of how to listen to music properly and garner the least criticism from our betters, you should not prioritize any piece of music over any other. The best way to ensure this is to listen to every work ever written, or as near to that as possible, only once, and in chronological order, checking each piece off on a list of works which you have prepared in advance of ever listening to anything.
> 
> So far this plan is only in the conceptualization stage. Would you let me know how it works out for you so that I'll know what I'm missing?


If it were anything like this, it would have to be reverse chronological order. I've almost never seen anyone shamed for not knowing Renaissance music - though, God and TC know, it has happened. But at any given moment you'd better be ready to list your ten favorite works from the past three years.

If a chronological program were to have merit, it would probably have three parts. One is reverse chronological order, starting now and going backwards as fast as you can. Every time a new composition becomes available, you listen to it and then resume the project where you left off. The second part would be starting at about 1830 and working forwards as fast as possible; the third part would be starting at about 1830 and working backwards as fast as possible.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I should add, it would be essential to figure out which music you're supposed to like and how much. For example, you should know those Strauss waltzes well enough to recognize them, but you should not enjoy them, or if you can't help yourself, you should consider them a guilty pleasure. Or, you should know all kinds of twentieth century music, but neo-anything had better be no more than guilty pleasures. And you should definitely never imagine that anything from the past seventy years deserves the kind of respect given to the olympians of the CPP eras. 

I'm genuinely less clear on what the rules for early periods are. I suspect the cultural enforcers haven't agreed on them yet.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

science said:


> I should add, it would be essential to figure out which music you're supposed to like and how much. For example, you should know those Strauss waltzes well enough to recognize them, but you should not enjoy them, or if you can't help yourself, you should consider them a guilty pleasure. Or, you should know all kinds of twentieth century music, but neo-anything had better be no more than guilty pleasures. And you should definitely never imagine that anything from the past seventy years deserves the kind of respect given to the olympians of the CPP eras.
> 
> I'm genuinely less clear on what the rules for early periods are. I suspect the cultural enforcers haven't agreed on them yet.


I see you've thought long and hard about this. The pain must be excruciating. I recommend listening to Josef Strauss's "Delirien" waltz and dancing around the room while no one is looking.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> I see you've thought long and hard about this. The pain must be excruciating.


I am of course addicted to it, and hence here I am.


----------



## Martin D (Dec 13, 2016)

science said:


> There are hundreds of famous composers whose work I don't know at all or don't know well. I wonder if I should prioritize Rubbra over Clemens Non Papa, Rautavaara, Sarasate, Atterberg, Ferrari, Borodin, Nielsen, Rubinstein, Buxtehude, Martinu, Porpora, Lachenmann, Ullmann, Henze, Medtner, Goldmark, Sor, Suk, Cui, Ries, Foss, Spohr, Yun, Holst, Bloch, Bridge, and so on, and so on, and so on?
> 
> And is going composer by composer really the best approach? Do I really need to listen to almost everything by one composer before moving on to another one? Or is it better for me to move from one composer's most famous works on to another composers most famous works?
> 
> I mean, hey, if we're going to be programmatically critical of each other's listening choices, let's just explicitly lay out the program that we're all supposed to be following. No one would like that more than I would.


I'd like to add my two-penneth of opinion on the best procedure as well.

I have been keen on classical music for many years (several decades). My CD library is now very large and comprises in the region of some 600 composers from all eras.

In achieving this, I do not use classical music forums to help me decide how to prioritise my listening, or to seek out new composers, and I have never done so. I generally find that discussions on classical music forums are not much good for any serious learning. They might be OK for beginners but they soon become irrelevant once the listener has gained a modicum of experience.

I have found that composer discussions are often simplistic, very highly repetitive, sometimes highly biased, and occasionally ill informed. When they are none of that, they are full of rubbish of one sort or another, and only worth reading for fun and amusement. Many of the non-composer discussions (e.g. does "greatest" or "best" exist?) have been done so often previously that it's embarrassing to see yet another in the same series, and one can only assume that newcomers are unaware that it's all very "old hat" that they're regurgitating, but dressed up as new.

As for most of the Polls one sees on Forums, I consider them to be nothing more than a source of amusement. I think that many are intended to be just that, but there are others that seem to have aspirations of being more useful, and yet these too are generally full of holes statistically. They all serve little purpose apart from providing a bit of fun with an opportunity to fill up questionnaires, and for one or two people the job of making sense of often dubious results, when such people can be bothered to get round to doing so.

I find other ways of pursuing diversity in my classical music listening to be far better. For a comlete beginner, the obvious way to proceed is to try a few of the best-known composers. Beyond that the approach I have generally followed is to pick up an initial interest of works by composers who were new to me from radio programmes, and I have mainly used various BBC's Radio 3 programmes for this purpose over a number of years. For example, the "Composer of the Week" series is one such useful source, but there are several others spread throughout the week. Although they tend to favour the usual "greats", the BBC is pretty good at offering some diversity, especially so in their off-peak programmes.

If I happen to like a piece by a composer new to me I then check out further information regarding that composer from the relevant Wiki article. To gain an appreciation of the composer's best-known works I normally use the ArkivMusic website, from which a very good read out can be gleaned. [For example, someone asked recently in another thread how to get into Bruckner's religious works. A decent answer can be obtained almost instantly by seeing that the Te Deum is very popular, as identified on the Arkiv website. There are several other leads too]. If I need a further sample or two, I use Spotify to listen to a few examples. When I choose to buy a CD I get advice on the best recordings available by using "Presto Classical", where all the main recommendations by professional reviewers are listed. In my estimation, this procedure is generally far more reliable than the random ad hoc recommendations one finds on music forums.

In short, it doesn't bother me whether or not this Forum lacks diversity on composers, as I find other methods of pursuing diversity to be far superior. Nevertheless, I happen to think that diversity is quite broad on this Forum, and can only assume that the OP hasn't looked far enough into the older threads. In my view, T-C is the most comprehensive, and amusing of all the classical music forums, which is what mainly draws me to it. Some of the more "serious" discussions are very comical, and have me in fits of laughter. I have been a member of most other classical music forums and find they're all very drab in comparison.


----------



## TurnaboutVox (Sep 22, 2013)

Ekim the Insubordinate said:


> I also avoid books, movies, and TV shows that I don't find enjoyable. I'm just picky that way. Why spend my money and time on things I don't like?


Principally for the chance to experience (learn, taste, etc.) something new. Which I might like.



Sloe said:


> I think some users could explain why they thought they thought the music they liked was great and could show that they liked it because they find beauty in it.


I hope that I try to do this on my meandering way around this forum.  However, as a musical layman I lack the specialist knowledge (and language) to provide a serious critique.


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

regenmusic said:


> I enjoy TC and it's probably the most sophisticated art type forum online. But I understand your concern. i posted lots of interesting thread ideas that weren't picked up much, which required some degree of abstract thinking involved to respond.


 Thereby implying that TC members are incapable of abstract thought? Excluding yourself and the few that do pick up on your threads, of course.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

isorhythm said:


> What I found frustrating back then was that the members of this demographic didn't spend much time speaking about the music they sought to champion in a constructive or positive way. They spent far more time attacking its perceived enemies. There was also a set of bizarre and wrong theoretical and historical propositions one was supposed to accept, for reasons I never understood. This wasn't good for discussion.


I have seen a number of posts that, like this one, suggestively mention what appears to have been some major event at TC about which I am totally unaware. Was there some kind of war in recent memory that resulted in a mass Exodus/banning?


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

JAS said:


> I have seen a number of posts that, like this one, suggestively mention what appears to have been some major event at TC about which I am totally unaware. Was there some kind of war in recent memory that resulted in a mass Exodus/banning?


During the bi-weekly contemporary music appreciation thread around this time last year, a practical joker from the politics and religion subforum crashed the proceedings and yelled: "NEOS online is selling all its cds for a dollar a pop!" The result was a mass exodus of modern-music fans, and when they found out it was a trick they were too embarrassed to return.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

science said:


> No, there's no satire at all. I really want to know what I'm supposed to do so that I can do it and not have people come around and treat me like I'm trash because I don't already know, say, Rubbra. Or whatever.
> 
> It's not about what "might appeal to" me. Not being treated like trailer park trash is what appeals to me.


Or just . . . you know . . . don't worry about it.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

JAS said:


> I have seen a number of posts that, like this one, suggestively mention what appears to have been some major event at TC about which I am totally unaware. Was there some kind of war in recent memory that resulted in a mass Exodus/banning?


No, you haven't missed anything important. For a while discussions of modern music always seemed to devolve into disputes over the definitions of the words tonal and atonal and other esoteric distractions. A few people stopped posting or went elsewhere and the dynamic shifted to a less confrontational (or less consistently confrontational) one. Most of us, I think(?), prefer it less confrontational. Some probably find it less exciting. There was no mass banning and no war - just a persistent, repetitious smoldering conflict confined to a thread or two, which the wise wisely ignored and onto which the bored occasionally dumped cans of gasoline.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

amfortas said:


> Or just . . . you know . . . don't worry about it.


Not an option!

I'm too busy worrying about it not to worry about it.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

science said:


> I'm genuinely less clear on what the rules for early periods are. I suspect the cultural enforcers haven't agreed on them yet.


Just picture the cultural enforcers sitting in front of their lonely computer screens in their wine-stained underwear wishing they had something better to do than browbeating the innocent. Then listen to what ever you want and be glad you aren't them.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

JAS, as only a peripheral participant/observer of the TC Culture Wars that saw several active posters leave--some in a huff, others in a snit; various vehicles were utilized--I can only say that the fatal dispute was the result of too much simple partisanship for and against "modern music", very broadly defined as music without immediately obvious melody. As someone myself whose interest in CM is confined to the spectrum anchored by Bach on one musical and temporal end, and Bartok on the other end, I think that Bartok's music, for me and perhaps for others, represents a frontier beyond which is _terra incognita_, melodically speaking, and does constitute a quite discernible inflection point different in intensity and kind from that separating, say, "classical" from "romantic" music. Having said that, as an extreme believer in the primacy of one's own musical tastes and enthusiasms, I smile upon anyone else's choices they make for themselves. The problems arise when partisans of clear melody approach that very real frontier and say that others cannot seriously like the music on its far side. This is countered by the explorers of that far country saying that critics of the new musics are lazy, incurious, cautious to a fault, wedded to the shopworn conventions of yesteryear--in other words, that people unhappy with modern music need new heads.

Both of these attitudes peaked here a while back and created the expected counterreactions, and several of the more excitable partisans of modern music left to join another forum. Once there though, their own internal wars over the meaning of terms like "atonal" continued on, and continue on, modern music being such an enormously vast territory with only a handful of recognized anchoring figures to establish recognizable canons within it.

Meanwhile, I just continue to listen to the music that fits me, of which CM is only a part, and would counsel others to do the same, without knocking the other person's tastes, enthusiasms, preferences. It is my weakness, but fun, though, to read well-crafted criticisms of the choices of others, if they are deft and only slightly mocking in tone.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Portamento said:


> I feel like there is a certain lack of diversity here on TC. Every other thread begins with "Which Beethoven symphony", "What Brahms masterpiece", "Your favorite...", "Best ___ composer"... it's a little sickening, to be honest. I'm not saying that I haven't contributed to this problem, but where are the lovers for other parts of classical music? ―it's _all_ classical music. Forums like these have to be places for meaningful, thoughtful discussions that get you as passionate about composers as you were 20 or 30 years ago. I just don't feel this way. Moreover, I think that many users are a little stubborn, refusing to listen to other symphonies than Beethoven's 5th or Mahler's 9th. There are no tonalists and modernists ―there are only lovers of classical music. I think that everyone should have an equal balance of every_thing_. Why not "The most stylistically advanced Rubbra symphony?", but no "I'm not familiar with Rubbra's work" option. Let them take a few weeks to listen, and come back to vote. So they will know how to have a "discussion" when someone else talks about nuances in the 6th; so they can contribute _meaningfully_. If there is an easy get-away, that user that isn't familiar with Rubbra will never get around to hear his symphonies, and thus will never get out of their little bubble of, say, Romantic music. All eras are equal, so all should be treated with the same importance. Users do so by listening to everything. Even if you don't like an atonal piece, it doesn't mean you don't like atonal music; it probably means that you don't have a taste for that composer. Don't be so quick to judge. If you say that you love classical music, it means that you can answer a question about Haydn's symphonies as easily as you can Schnittke's string trio.
> 
> Bleh. Now that I've succesfully barfed out all my grievances with TC, I think my bagel's ready.


Time is limited. I agree that TC should be a place full of passion/ meaningful discussion/ diverse questions/ varied composers.

But if I were to listen to music more extensively, it would mean that I didn't have time to go into depth in the areas that really interest me - early music & baroque. There are still far too many composers in these eras that I haven't listened to, or don't know much about, as I do have a life outside music.

I don't agree that listeners have an obligation to familiarise themselves with music they find not really to their taste so that they can join in the discussions. I am not sure that a few weeks spent dipping around would qualify me to join in discussions of modern music, though I read them (occasionally) with interest.

When I came back to the fiddle in retirement, I tried playing everything - classical, baroque, Klezmer, jazz classics etc. But now I have decided to follow my heart & stick to traditional folk music, mainly Scottish, also Irish & English, with a dash of early music & Carolan. It's amazing how much better I've got at playing and understanding this music since I started concentrating on it. Every practice is a joy and a feeling that I'm one with the music that I love.

It's good that some people go in for breadth of listening - some talented or lucky people even manage to go in for both breadth and depth of listening. But as for me, I'm old & tired, and I have to prioritise. So for me, it's depth.

I want and need to understand the classical music that I love. 
I want to *live* it. 

By the way, I've enjoyed reading this thread, which is among the more vibrant ones. 
Thanks, OP. :tiphat:

PS - The way to get TC to take notice of the composers that you like is to work to that end with your posts and your threads. Would you believe it, when I joined TC in 2013 there was *no composer guestbook on Lully*, my favourite baroque composer?!! We remedied that, and I plugged Lully all that I could, and now he features much more in discussions of baroque music on TC. 
So get to work, Portamento!


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

I wish I could respond to all your wonderful posts, but I am on vacation with very limited WiFi. Everything that I could wish to communicate through my post has already been explained very well. I see that following this thread many are making more modernist threads, but we will never get participation on them unless tolerance and our contemporary music lovers come back to TC.I suppose we are stepping in the right direction towards that...


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Portamento said:


> I wish I could respond to all your wonderful posts, but I am on vacation with very limited WiFi. Everything that I could wish to communicate through my post has already been explained very well. I see that following this thread many are making more modernist threads, but we will never get participation on them unless tolerance and our contemporary music lovers come back to TC.I suppose we are stepping in the right direction towards that...


I don't think "we" are stepping anywhere. People go where they will and say what they wish. When you get back into WIFI range perhaps you could provide us with some examples of threads from the idyllic days when tolerance and open mindedness reigned supreme so we can recreate this long lost and forgotten Eden?


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Strange Magic said:


> JAS, as only a peripheral participant/observer of the TC Culture Wars that saw several active posters leave--some in a huff, others in a snit; various vehicles were utilized--I can only say that the fatal dispute was the result of too much simple partisanship for and against "modern music", very broadly defined as music without immediately obvious melody. As someone myself whose interest in CM is confined to the spectrum anchored by Bach on one musical and temporal end, and Bartok on the other end, I think that Bartok's music, for me and perhaps for others, represents a frontier beyond which is _terra incognita_, melodically speaking, and does constitute a quite discernible inflection point different in intensity and kind from that separating, say, "classical" from "romantic" music. Having said that, as an extreme believer in the primacy of one's own musical tastes and enthusiasms, I smile upon anyone else's choices they make for themselves. The problems arise when partisans of clear melody approach that very real frontier and say that others cannot seriously like the music on its far side. This is countered by the explorers of that far country saying that critics of the new musics are lazy, incurious, cautious to a fault, wedded to the shopworn conventions of yesteryear--in other words, that people unhappy with modern music need new heads.


That is a pretty good summary. I was one of the ones lamenting what I felt to be the loss of accessible melody in much of modern music. I acknowledge that there was blame on both sides in the expression of our positions. But, there were a few individuals on the 'modern/atonal' who took the whole subject far too personally, something that isn't necessary if one is truly secure in one's perspective.

Also, it got to the point that even a little good humor was unacceptable. At one point, I remember saying that the problem was that at the turn of the century (19th-20th) all the good tunes had been used up and there were simply practically none left until the Beatles found a hidden cache of them. It was actually taken seriously by one (well, the main) individual who has since transferred the same darn thread over to another forum. Maybe I have to be careful of how I express my humor and not say things like: I originally joined TC because I thought that it stood for Tonal Classical. 

There is still a strong contingent of informed modern/contemporary music supporters here and for the most part they start and contribute to interesting threads. I admit that I'm a tough sell, but maybe I still have something to learn.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

While I would like to see more variation in topics as well, the atmosphere on this forum is a lot friendlier these days. It could get fairly toxic at times. Then a few members left. I'm not implying there's any correlation. :angel:


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Btw--now that we're going over unproductive debates of the past, this seems like an opportune moment to try to come up with a definitive definition of "atonality" for once and for all.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Blancrocher said:


> Btw--now that we're going over unproductive debates of the past, this seems like an opportune moment to try to come up with a definitive definition of "atonality" for once and for all.


Heh, heh!bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

DaveM said:


> But, there were a few individuals on the 'modern/atonal' who took the whole subject far too personally, something that isn't necessary if one is truly secure in one's perspective.


I feel that this has been explained, but maybe not...


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

DeepR said:


> While I would like to see more variation in topics as well, the atmosphere on this forum is a lot friendlier these days. It could get fairly toxic at times. Then a few members left. I'm not implying there's any correlation. :angel:


Sounds like Tacitus: "Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.".


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

If we are looking for a definitive definition of 'atonality', how about 'any music that I don't like!' :devil:


----------



## Tristan (Jan 5, 2013)

DeepR said:


> While I would like to see more variation in topics as well, the atmosphere on this forum is a lot friendlier these days. It could get fairly toxic at times. Then a few members left. I'm not implying there's any correlation. :angel:


I have noticed a decline in "factionalism" here as of late and that's always a good thing. Though threads like this are reminders of still extant "factions" that will probably never truly go away.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Barbebleu said:


> If we are looking for a definitive definition of 'atonality', how about 'any music that I don't like!' :devil:


The fact that 20 minutes after this post the forum hasn't burned to the ground goes to show how far we've come, imo.


----------



## Dr Johnson (Jun 26, 2015)

Chronochromie said:


> Sounds like Tacitus: "Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.".


It's a bit harsh to suggest that TC has become a desert.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Dr Johnson said:


> It's a bit harsh to suggest that TC has become a desert.


Perhaps instead of the official "Where they create a _desert_, they call it peace," we could render it as "Where they create a _dessert_, they call it peace." (In Latin, that would appear to be something like _Ubi mensa faciunt, pacem appellant_, although my grammar is probably wrong. Hmmm. Google gives "mensa" for "dessert," but "table" for "mensa," so that may not actually work.)

Really, I am amazed at the degree of hostility that discussions of that sort seem to raise. (It may be a little more understandable in the light of a previous brouhaha, particularly one with tangible consequences.) Someone recently had a thread here saying that he (or she) liked Baroque and Modernist, but not Romantic era music. I was much puzzled by this apparent clashing of taste, but in no way angered or offended by it. (I may be just so accustomed to enjoying music that is not shared with my peers that those edges have worn off long ago.) It is also interesting to see how difficult it is to really discuss our musical interests (beyond lists of "best," etc,), not just in terms of tone but also in terminology.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

Dr Johnson said:


> It's a bit harsh to suggest that TC has become a desert.


Yes, but I do think the place was much more interesting, even if less peaceful, about a year or two ago. Back in the old days, etc. Cue the "why are you still here?", "make threads yourself" etc. Yeah I haven't done that, true, but back then I didn't need to, and I'm not the savior TC needs. Call me a lazy whining nobody, it's true!


----------



## Dr Johnson (Jun 26, 2015)

JAS said:


> "Where they create a _dessert_, they call it peace."


Dulce et utile.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Chronochromie, What's true: that you're a lazy whining nobody? Or that this place is less interesting than it used to be? Can both be true? Neither? I affirm again that I am a windbag, in the spirit of redemptive confession, following your possible lead.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

Strange Magic said:


> What's true: that you're a lazy whining nobody? Or that this place is less interesting than it used to be? Can both be true? Neither? I affirm again that I am a windbag, in the spirit of redemptive confession, following your possible lead.


The former definitely, but I do think the latter is true too. I'm afraid I have no lead to offer.


----------



## Dr Johnson (Jun 26, 2015)

Chronochromie said:


> Yes, but I do think the place was much more interesting, even if less peaceful, about a year or two ago. Back in the old days, etc. Cue the "why are you still here?", "make threads yourself" etc. Yeah I haven't done that, true, but back then I didn't need to, and I'm not the savior TC needs. *Call me a lazy whining nobody*, it's true!


I hope that, even if I thought that, I would have the good manners not to say it.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Perhaps it is more along the lines of "I would like to be able to dip in and out of a good, deep conversation, but probably have neither the time nor energy to start or sustain one myself." If so, I don't think that really qualifies as laziness. The fuel close at hand for such a conversation is easily exhausted, and we are all busy with many things. As important an aspect of my life as it may be, I have demands and interests away from classical music.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

Dr Johnson said:


> I hope that, even if I thought that, I would have the good manners not to say it.


Any forum veteran knows that one can say almost anything without breaking the ToS as long as you dress it up in appropriate rhetoric. Just a pre-emptive strike.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

JAS said:


> Perhaps it is more along the lines of "I would like to be able to dip in and out of a good, deep conversation, but probably neither the time nor energy to start or sustain one myself."


Would you mind if I used that quote as my signature?


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

JAS said:


> Perhaps it is more along the lines of "I would like to be able to dip in and out of a good, deep conversation, but probably neither the time nor energy to start or sustain one myself." If so, I don't think that really qualifies as laziness. The fuel close at hand for such a conversation is easily exhausted, and we are all busy with many things. As important an aspect of my life as it may be, I have demands and interests away from classical music.


You're too nice. But really I've not been very busy lately, and have been posting here quite often even with my criticism of the current state of the forum.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

EdwardBast said:


> Just picture the cultural enforcers sitting in front of their lonely computer screens in their wine-stained underwear wishing they had something better to do than browbeating the innocent.


There's something better?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

amfortas said:


> There's something better?


Different staining on the underwear?


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Blancrocher said:


> Would you mind if I used that quote as my signature?


If you do, just make sure that you touch up my grammar, including the missing "have," as I have now done in my original post. (I am convinced that the editor drops words and letters, and inserts other characters after I have written my perfect prose and pressed SAVE. That is the only _possible_ explanation.)


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I like Schubert, Schumann, R. Strauss, Beethoven, Mozart, Dufay, Monteverdi, Webern, Stockhausen, Birtwistle, Schnittke, Varese, Berio, Babbitt, Perle, Carter, Copland, and more. I'm diverse.


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

millionrainbows said:


> I like Schubert, Schumann, R. Strauss, Beethoven, Mozart, Dufay, Monteverdi, Webern, Stockhausen, Birtwistle, Schnittke, Varese, Berio, Babbitt, Perle, Carter, Copland, and more. I'm diverse.


Diverse?? You are also a one eyed bigot for not liking Percy Lee what on earth have you got against P Lee ? why don't you just start up a "I hate P Lee" post and have done with it!!!!!!!!
and for the record I have never heard of "More" what did he/she write? eh answer that.


----------



## ido66667 (Aug 29, 2016)

I feel that this forum is a bit like an echo chamber for Romanticans (Don't know how to call it), that is, some one posts on how he likes Mahler's 8th symphony, then other respond "I like Mahler too, but I prefer his 7th". My point is that everyone generally agrees, and there is no dissenting views, which breeds rather bland discussions revolving around less significant things like Interpretations.
As others already said "Atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant"


----------



## Tristan (Jan 5, 2013)

ido66667 said:


> I feel that this forum is a bit like an echo chamber for Romanticans (Don't know how to call it), that is, some one posts on how he likes Mahler's 8th symphony, then other respond "I like Mahler too, but I prefer his 7th". My point is that everyone generally agrees, and there is no dissenting views, which breeds rather bland discussions revolving around less significant things like Interpretations.
> As others already said "Atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant"


I'd take that over endless arguments about whether or not contemporary music is "music" or "noise" or what defines "atonal", because that's the lot of what you'd see when "dissenting views" came into play. A lot of people come to this site to find other people who share their interests so they can discuss those interests and get ideas for music and recordings to explore, not necessarily engage in arguments. What would, in your opinion, be an example of a discussion that isn't bland? In what way do you think "dissenting" when someone posts something like "I like Mahler's 8th" fosters better discussion? What would the discussion be like?


----------



## ido66667 (Aug 29, 2016)

Tristan said:


> I'd take that over endless arguments about whether or not contemporary music is "music" or "noise" or what defines "atonal", because that's the lot of what you'd see when "dissenting views" came into play. A lot of people come to this site to find other people who share their interests so they can discuss those interests and get ideas for music and recordings to explore, not necessarily engage in arguments. What would, in your opinion, be an example of a discussion that isn't bland?


Personally I don't talk with other people so we can just agree, I want a lively but polite and logical argument. And when you drive away everyone that disagree with you you are left with a consensus that just affirms your already held conceptions, this in turn breeds intellectual entropy. Thus it is always worth engaging with people you strongly disagree with.


----------



## Tristan (Jan 5, 2013)

But again, I'm interested in what exactly would be an example of this on this forum? I provided a couple examples where people have shared dissenting views that have not gone down well: discussions and arguments about the nature of modern music. They tend to involve people talking over each other and missing each other's points, which is not a sign of healthy debate, and they tend to involve at some point personal attacks, also a bad sign. I'm for diversity of opinions, but not if it only leads to rehashed arguments, "factions" being created, and resentment among users.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

ido66667 said:


> I feel that this forum is a bit like an echo chamber for Romanticans (Don't know how to call it), that is, some one posts on how he likes Mahler's 8th symphony, then other respond "I like Mahler too, but I prefer his 7th". My point is that everyone generally agrees, and there is no dissenting views, which breeds rather bland discussions revolving around less significant things like Interpretations.
> As others already said "Atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant"


Given that everyone here likes classical music, I would expect much agreement. In fact I expected vastly more agreement when I first arrived. Recent polls show only 82% like Mozart and only 71% like Handel. Many love modern music, but many do not. Many love Baroque music while many do not. Just mentioning Wagner invites much, well let's say, discussion.

As a moderator, I would say there is plenty of healthy and some unhealthy disagreement. Over my time here the level of discord has risen and fallen, but there has always been a wide range of opinions. Maybe there is less dissent now than we've seen in past times, but I certainly do not feel there is general agreement on many subjects. I suppose that is a matter of opinion whether TC has too much, too little, or just the right level of general agreement.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Fwiw, hardly a day goes by where a don't discover a new work, composer, or recording that interests me as a result of surfing the forum. It's kind of a pain in the ***.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

ido66667 said:


> Personally I don't talk with other people so we can just agree, I want a lively but polite and logical argument. And when you drive away everyone that disagree with you you are left with a consensus that just affirms your already held conceptions, this in turn breeds intellectual entropy. Thus it is always worth engaging with people you strongly disagree with.


Since you do appreciate honest disagreement, allow me to disagree mostly with the final sentence. I like a passionate discussion as much as anyone, but it is certainly not true that it is "always worth engaging with people you strongly disagree with." The distinction must be made between discussion and mere arguing, and that difference, I think, is that in a discussion _neither_ side is trying to "win." Assuming that both sides can meaningfully articulate the respective positions, perhaps with some extra time and refinement (since we do not necessarily always know our own position as clearly as we might think, and language is always somewhat imprecise), a mutual exploration of differing positions can be very fruitful. But it takes much more than just disagreeing and insisting that "I am right and therefore you must be wrong." That is actually a very rare thing. (And I have also found that there is often much to be learned from discussion with people with whom you basically agree.)


----------



## ido66667 (Aug 29, 2016)

JAS said:


> Since you do appreciate honest disagreement, allow me to disagree mostly with the final sentence. I like a passionate discussion as much as anyone, but it is certainly not true that it is "always worth engaging with people you strongly disagree with." The distinction must be made between discussion and mere arguing, and that difference, I think, is that in a discussion _neither_ side is trying to "win." Assuming that both sides can meaningfully articulate the respective positions, perhaps with some extra time and refinement (since we do not necessarily always know our own position as clearly as we might think, and language is always somewhat imprecise), a mutual exploration of differing positions can be very fruitful. But it takes much more than just disagreeing and insisting that "I am right and therefore you must be wrong." That is actually a very rare thing. (And I have also found that there is often much to be learned from discussion with people with whom you basically agree.)


As I said, I appreciate arguments when they are sound and friendly. I agree that it is rather better to avoid acrimonious arguments and belligerent debaters. But, not all arguments must be like that, it's a matter of attitude: If you are personally offended when others disagree with you, most of your arguments will turn soar pretty fast. I see that generally, many people have this attitude.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

ido66667 said:


> As I said, I appreciate arguments when they are sound and friendly. I agree that it is rather better to avoid acrimonious arguments and belligerent debaters. But, not all arguments must be like that, it's a matter of attitude: If you are personally offended when others disagree with you, most of your arguments will turn sour pretty fast. I see that generally, many people have this attitude.


I will offer one last point of interest, mostly because I think the divergent meaning of a single word, depending on its usage, has some importance. A classical "argument" is the rational statement of one position, but a true "argument" between two or more positions (usually represented by more than one person) is almost always inherently heated. Without such heat, it is more properly called a "discussion." A genuine discussion is a _very_ rare thing, and something to be cherished. On the internet, it is virtually nonexistent, although, like sightings of the Loch Ness Monster, it is often claimed. I think of many, many, many political arguments that generate much heat and virtually no light. The hallmark of a discussion, as opposed to an argument, is that in a discussion, once both positions (assuming for the sake of convenience that there are only two) have been stated and points requiring clarification have been made, the discussion simply ends.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Blancrocher said:


> Fwiw, hardly a day goes by where a don't discover a new work, composer, or recording that interests me as a result of surfing the forum. It's kind of a pain in the ***.


Yeah, the Current Listening thread is an endless source of credit card abuse!:lol:


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

> I think that everyone should have an equal balance of every_thing_. Why not "The most stylistically advanced Rubbra symphony?", but no "I'm not familiar with Rubbra's work" option. Let them take a few weeks to listen, and come back to vote. So they will know how to have a "discussion" when someone else talks about nuances in the 6th; so they can contribute _meaningfully_. If there is an easy get-away, that user that isn't familiar with Rubbra will never get around to hear his symphonies, and thus will never get out of their little bubble of, say, Romantic music. All eras are equal, so all should be treated with the same importance. Users do so by listening to everything.


Well, I think I made it clear earlier that I disagree with some of your sentiments, but I did give Rubbra a go and I'm really enoying him. So thanks for that side of things


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Someone on this thread used the term, "whiners". That is so 20th century!

The current term is "snowflakes".


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

Every time I see this thread for a second I think it's going to be about what a Weisswurst convention this place is.


----------



## Tristan (Jan 5, 2013)

Magnum Miserium said:


> Weisswurst convention


Never heard that term before, but I love it  And very true it is...


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Magnum Miserium said:


> Every time I see this thread for a second I think it's going to be about what a Weisswurst convention this place is.


How can you tell? From pics people have posted?


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

EdwardBast said:


> How can you tell? From pics people have posted?


There have been polls asking the gender of members and they have indicated that this forum has a overwhelming male majority.


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

Dim7 said:


> There have been polls asking the gender of members and they have indicated that this forum has a overwhelming male majority.


And of course nobody tells lies.


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

Bumping this thread to share a thought that I just had. As several posters have observed, the TC threads on lesser-known composers don't spark much discussion, whereas threads on composers such as Mozart and Beethoven have hundreds of replies. This might seem to indicate a lack of diversity on TC, but I think that's a false impression.

Here's my take: I think that many TC members are passionate about lesser-known composers. However, we tend to be passionate about _different _lesser-known composers: I enjoy Severac, Cimirro is obviously fond of Tausig, Portamento is a champion of Toch (to name just a few recent threads). We don't necessarily share each others' tastes for these composers. I think that's why the threads on lesser-known composers often languish in obscurity: it's because we are actually quite diverse with regard to our tastes in non-canonical composers.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Bettina said:


> Bumping this thread to share a thought that I just had. As several posters have observed, the TC threads on lesser-known composers don't spark much discussion, whereas threads on composers such as Mozart and Beethoven have hundreds of replies. This might seem to indicate a lack of diversity on TC, but I think that's a false impression.
> 
> Here's my take: I think that many TC members are passionate about lesser-known composers. However, we tend to be passionate about _different _lesser-known composers: I enjoy Severac, Cimirro is obviously fond of Tausig, Portamento is a champion of Toch (to name just a few recent threads). We don't necessarily share each others' tastes for these composers. I think that's why the threads on lesser-known composers often languish in obscurity: it's because we are actually quite diverse with regard to our tastes in non-canonical composers.


Taking the charitable interpretation, since we come to TC excited to share these passions, and then our disappointment that no one shares our passion for ... Kilar or Geminiani or Richafort or whatever.... But then, we do sometimes bring each other along. I know of at least one person who has heard Jirasek's Missa Propria thanks to me!

Less charitably, there is a guilt-trip / manipulation / shaming aspect of things. I mean, how much can a big Krenek fan blame any of us for not having heard his symphonies? Well, I'd very cynically bet there's no limit.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Dim7 said:


> There have been polls asking the gender of members and they have indicated that this forum has a overwhelming male majority.





Dan Ante said:


> And of course nobody tells lies.


Women pretending to be men?

Most of the sites I frequent, it's the other way around.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

amfortas said:


> Women pretending to be men?
> 
> Most of the sites I frequent, it's the other way around.


Are you absolutely sure?


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

Bettina said:


> Bumping this thread to share a thought that I just had. As several posters have observed, the TC threads on lesser-known composers don't spark much discussion, whereas threads on composers such as Mozart and Beethoven have hundreds of replies. This might seem to indicate a lack of diversity on TC, but I think that's a false impression.
> 
> Here's my take: I think that many TC members are passionate about lesser-known composers. However, we tend to be passionate about _different _lesser-known composers: I enjoy Severac, Cimirro is obviously fond of Tausig, Portamento is a champion of Toch (to name just a few recent threads). We don't necessarily share each others' tastes for these composers. I think that's why the threads on lesser-known composers often languish in obscurity: it's because we are actually quite diverse with regard to our tastes in non-canonical composers.


It's just statistically much less probable to find common subjects of discussion about lesser known composers. That's all it is. When you start a post about Bach, Mozart, Beethoven; probably 80% of T.C. members have something interesting to reply without having to go and listen to a new piece of music. And even then when it's a lesser known work percentages will drop.
If you mention Weber, C.P.E.-Bach, Corelli or composers alike, percentages will drop again. And if you mention one of the composers that were in the "neglected-composers-game-thread" you should be happy to find someone to share your thoughts with. It's just statistics.

So it's all very cool and exotic to talk about lesser known composers but you should not whine about a lack of reaction because that's just a logical consequence of being a lesser known composer.

So don't blame it on the T.C. members (every member probably has HIS lesser known composer) but on the composers themselves! They should've tried harder! :tiphat:


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

ido66667 said:


> Personally I don't talk with other people so we can just agree, I want a lively but polite and logical argument. And when you drive away everyone that disagree with you you are left with a consensus that just affirms your already held conceptions, this in turn breeds intellectual entropy. Thus it is always worth engaging with people you strongly disagree with.


I prefer to talk on this site with people that agree with me. If I want an argument I can sit and talk with my wife of an evening.


----------



## Krummhorn (Feb 18, 2007)

Barbebleu said:


> . . . If I want an argument I can sit and talk with my wife of an evening.


You haven't been married for very long, have you? :lol:.

Married since 1970 - I lose every time ... she knows ALL the exact dates and times, even the day of the week and what I was wearing that day, the day I did something stupid. We don't argue ... I know better now.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Krummhorn said:


> You haven't been married for very long, have you? :lol:.
> 
> Married since 1970 - I lose every time ... she knows ALL the exact dates and times, even the day of the week and what I was wearing that day, the day I did something stupid. We don't argue ... I know better now.


Thirty five years. I didn't say I would win any of these arguments, merely participate in them.:lol:


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

amfortas said:


> Women pretending to be men?
> 
> Most of the sites I frequent, it's the other way around.


Like cross dressers, you should be very careful of these type of deviant sites


----------



## Lenny (Jul 19, 2016)

Bettina said:


> Bumping this thread to share a thought that I just had. As several posters have observed, the TC threads on lesser-known composers don't spark much discussion, whereas threads on composers such as Mozart and Beethoven have hundreds of replies. This might seem to indicate a lack of diversity on TC, but I think that's a false impression.
> 
> Here's my take: I think that many TC members are passionate about lesser-known composers. However, we tend to be passionate about _different _lesser-known composers: I enjoy Severac, Cimirro is obviously fond of Tausig, Portamento is a champion of Toch (to name just a few recent threads). We don't necessarily share each others' tastes for these composers. I think that's why the threads on lesser-known composers often languish in obscurity: it's because we are actually quite diverse with regard to our tastes in non-canonical composers.


Good point. Then there's one more aspect. Most countries have their own composers, that are very well known and respected in their countries, but relatively unknown outside. It would be actually a bit unfair to start propagating some composer that will most likely never be publicly played outside his own country.

For me personally, TC is mostly about internationally recognized, "objectively" good composers, the big names. But of course I accept any discussion or lack of discussion. People do what they want. But what I _do not accept_ is why people are not raving about Franz Schmidt!! What a shame!


----------

