# How Would You Reply?



## michael walsh (Sep 6, 2009)

If someone was to ask you why you thought classical ... as in orchestral; chamber, opera, including modern, etc, was superior to other musical genre, how would you reply, in summary?


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

I would look at them and tell them that classical is not superior and that music is not a competition. Although, classical and jazz are my favorite music styles, I don't think it's right for someone, such as myself, to put them up on some kind of pedestal like they're somehow better or superior than other styles of music. This kind of thinking is dangerous I think. I was brought up on rock and jazz and I developed a love for classical as time went on. I think people should never forget their "roots." You have to start somewhere with music whether its with country, blugrass, or whatever. The more interested and passionate you become about it, the more this leads to exploring music that takes more of an effort to understand. Regardless, you should listen to what makes you happy whether it's something of a deeper meaning or something that's just fun.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

michael walsh said:


> If someone was to ask you why you thought classical ... as in orchestral; chamber, opera, including modern, etc, was superior to other musical genre, how would you reply, in summary?


I wouldn't. I'm all for trying to introduce non-listeners to the wonders of classical music and the worst possible way to achieve that is to address them with an air of superiority.


----------



## nickgray (Sep 28, 2008)

Superior? I like to think of it more as a complex. The most complicated music genre in virtually everything, from the length of music and number of instruments involved to the emotional impact and complexity in form and harmony.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

I shall say "saddle bags". I shall say it again. Shall I say it again? Speak, hands, for me! The eagle suffers little birds to sing.


----------



## bassClef (Oct 29, 2006)

It's superior only in as much as it has withstood the tests of time - what music today will still be played in hundreds of years time?


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

michael walsh said:


> If someone was to ask you why you thought classical ... as in orchestral; chamber, opera, including modern, etc, was superior to other musical genre, how would you reply, in summary?


It ought to be possible to judge in advance whether your answer would satisfy the questioner. In most cases I would just tell them what I think they might agree with, or can't easily refute, rather than suggest anything controversial. For example, you might just say that you like the sound of lots of different instruments performing congruously together, and the richness and complexity of some melodies. Only if I thought they were genuinely seeking guidance on classical music (an event I have very rarely encountered outside forums like this) might I be tempted to go into any further details about why I believe classical music is superior to anything else.


----------



## michael walsh (Sep 6, 2009)

I love the thought provoking answers and one can guarantee a diversity of opinion, though it wasn't a trick question. It is a question I have often struggled myself to answer. In that respect some of the replies here are most helpful. 
I think one I would mention; a musician's take on it, which I read in one of my anecdotal books: "If you like it it's good music. If you don't like it; it's bad music.' 
That seems a bit too simplistic for me and perhaps you too. But it is yet another interesting reply. This is going to take more thought to summarise in a paragraph.


----------



## purple99 (Apr 8, 2008)

Artemis said:


> It ought to be possible to judge in advance whether your answer would satisfy the questioner. In most cases I would just tell them what I think they might agree with, or can't easily refute, rather than suggest anything controversial. For example, you might just say that you like the sound of lots of different instruments performing congruously together, and the richness and complexity of some melodies. Only if I thought they were genuinely seeking guidance on classical music (an event I have very rarely encountered outside forums like this) might I be tempted to go into any further details about why I believe classical music is superior to anything else.


That's roughly what I'd do. But I might decide to take them head on, break out of the subjectivist, moral relativist cul-de-sac, and argue openly for an objective aesthetics. Kant did it in the third Critique. When making the argument a large amount of alcohol helps.


----------



## danae (Jan 7, 2009)

Is classical music superior to all other musics? Hmm, I didn't know that...


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

purple99 said:


> That's roughly what I'd do. But I might decide to take them head on, break out of the subjectivist, moral relativist cul-de-sac, and argue openly for an objective aesthetics. Kant did it in the third Critique. When making the argument a large amount of alcohol helps.


Could be a recipe for disaster if you ask me, i.e talking about Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative when you're drunk. It strikes me that certain subtleties of the philosophy might possibly come over in a mangled form, not to mention the possiibility of infelicitous mispronunciation of certain key words. Don't you think?


----------



## purple99 (Apr 8, 2008)

Artemis said:


> Could be a recipe for disaster if you ask me, i.e talking about Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative when you're drunk. It strikes me that certain subtleties of the philosophy might possibly come over in a mangled form, not to mention the possiibility of infelicitous mispronunciation of certain key words. Don't you think?


Oh come on! What normal person could hope to recognise a synthetic a priori judgment when sober?


----------



## danae (Jan 7, 2009)

Now that I think of it, I would love to get into a heated conversation regarding the superiority of anything over anything, especially in art. I would be fun.


----------



## Edward Elgar (Mar 22, 2006)

michael walsh said:


> If someone was to ask you why you thought classical ... as in orchestral; chamber, opera, including modern, etc, was superior to other musical genre, how would you reply, in summary?


I'd say, the best music is that which you get the most enjoyment from. I enjoy music played on a variety of instruments playing soulful and intelligent music. Ergo, classical music is the best music for me. If you enjoy the same chords played over and over again on a guitar while someone tries to validate the composition by singing lyrics that might resound with your life experiences, that's the best music for you.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Classical may utilise any instruments, texture, form, note, effect or technique and is capable of everything, the only goal is art.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I agree with others, I don't think that there is any 'superior' genre or style. I mean, I like classical (& jazz) the most, but that says more about me than the quality or otherwise of those genres. For me, what it boils down to is that classical especially has so much variety & richness, it's something that you can get into deeply & yet not even begin to scratch the surface over a lifetime. But, then again, maybe some other people think the same thing about rock, rap, soul, country, etc. etc...


----------



## chillowack (Jul 16, 2009)

michael walsh said:


> I love the thought provoking answers and one can guarantee a diversity of opinion, though it wasn't a trick question. It is a question I have often struggled myself to answer. In that respect some of the replies here are most helpful.
> I think one I would mention; a musician's take on it, which I read in one of my anecdotal books: "If you like it it's good music. If you don't like it; it's bad music.'
> That seems a bit too simplistic for me and perhaps you too. But it is yet another interesting reply. This is going to take more thought to summarise in a paragraph.


There's a tendency in human nature--especially in the West--to judge and evaluate and define everything. Terms like "superior," "inferior," "good," and "bad" pop up quite often, as we seek to divide human experience into cognitive categories that we can better comprehend.

But this kind of thinking can often lead to error, as most of the responses here show. The question itself is incorrect: nothing is "superior" to anything else, it's just a different facet of human experience. Whether it's "good" or not is in the mind of each individual: it's subjective, relative.


----------



## michael walsh (Sep 6, 2009)

Okay! Next time I cross the Atlantic I will ponder this reply as I contemplate whether the ocean liner is superior to the canoe? I shall look at a blank sheet of canvas as neither better nor worse than a van Gogh painting ... a great symphony as perhaps inferior to Baa Baa Black sheep. All being subjective of course.


----------



## purple99 (Apr 8, 2008)

michael walsh said:


> Okay! Next time I cross the Atlantic I will ponder this reply as I contemplate whether the ocean liner is superior to the canoe? I shall look at a blank sheet of canvas as neither better nor worse than a van Gogh painting ... a great symphony as perhaps inferior to Baa Baa Black sheep. All being subjective of course.


hehe that's the mess liberals get themselves into with their moral relativism.


----------



## Padawan (Aug 27, 2009)

While I’m reluctant to get into any argument about whether classical music is superior to any other genre…here goes.

From a non-musician’s perspective, it appears to me that classical music surpasses other genres in one area, technical difficultly, specifically the effort it takes to master it. Whether it be playing an instrument, conducting or composing. From a layman’s perspective it seems that many other genres are more less-disciplined, experimental, and improvisational.


----------



## chillowack (Jul 16, 2009)

michael walsh said:


> Okay! Next time I cross the Atlantic I will ponder this reply as I contemplate whether the ocean liner is superior to the canoe? I shall look at a blank sheet of canvas as neither better nor worse than a van Gogh painting ... a great symphony as perhaps inferior to Baa Baa Black sheep. All being subjective of course.


Is the ocean liner superior to the canoe in a narrow, shallow river?

Are van Gogh's paintings superior to a blank canvas in the eyes of a man who hates van Gogh's style?

To someone who loves rock and roll more than any other form of music, is a classical symphony superior?

There's no "mess of moral relativism" here--every one of these points can be clearly demonstrated, not theoretically, but by everyday pragmatic experience, common to us all. There's no "right" and "wrong" answer to any of this stuff, it's all about different situations, different people's tastes and opinions.

The "mess" happens when we lose sight of that, and start thinking dogmatically. That's when the "I'm right and you're wrong" mentality comes in--to which every major problem of the world, from religious intolerance to war to terrorism to political oppression, can be directly traced.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

chillowack said:


> There's no "mess of moral relativism" here--every one of these points can be clearly demonstrated, not theoretically, but by everyday pragmatic experience, common to us all. There's no "right" and "wrong" answer to any of this stuff, it's all about different situations, different people's tastes and opinions.


You're right. Even here on this forum, one comes across a few people whose views seem to be tempered by ideology & dogma, rather than common sense & simply being open to experiencing things. They dismiss things based on prejudgement, rather than on actual judgement. That's partly why I don't dismiss genres or styles which I don't like, as there might be something out there which I might like, but haven't been exposed to. I actually don't mind listening to a bit of soul, country or reggae occassionally on radio, just to provide a break from my regular listening. Sure, they're not what I usually listen to, but somethimes they can be a welcome break from what I consider to be more serious, heavy duty listening. There's a huge diversity out there, & one should not dismiss it fully...


----------



## colin (Sep 7, 2009)

I would have to think that the genius in composition, for a multitude of instruments, in an era without electronic aids in recording, would make the passages of music from many full orchestra symphonies, a more skilled peice of natural genius in writing. Just imagining how the talent of a great composer would relay thoughts to manuscript, to create an experience for the human ear leaves me in awe. I also think a musician interested in classical music strives for perfection in tone more as well. Many peices of music from the past must have been discarded, as many peices from today will be forgotten, its what remains as regarded a classic, that has stood the test of time, in both writing and playing.
As for an answer to someones question. I appreciate music of distinction that derives itself from the norm, yet remains intelligible to the senses, to enhance my mind.


----------



## Guest (Sep 11, 2009)

michael walsh said:


> If someone was to ask you why you thought classical ... as in orchestral; chamber, opera, including modern, etc, was superior to other musical genre, how would you reply, in summary?


Exactly, just as men are superior women


----------



## danae (Jan 7, 2009)

Andante said:


> Exactly, just as men are superior women


Finally, a short reply I can relate to. Couldn't have said it better. Well said, Andante.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I don't think it's being snobbish to suggest that certain aspects of classical music lend themselves more so to that 'transcendental quality' that draws me so much to the genre. I don't listen to it merely because the simple sound of it is in some way, intangibly more 'pleasing' than any other genre, but because it enriches my human experience in a way that no other music possibly can. Just as Lord Byron is worthier of my praise than Dan Brown.

But, as Daniel Barenboim said in response to the question about whether or not pop music can have that same transcendental quality - if you can feel, then good for you!


----------



## Padawan (Aug 27, 2009)

> I don't think it's being snobbish to suggest that certain aspects of classical music lend themselves more so to that 'transcendental quality' that draws me so much to the genre. I don't listen to it merely because the simple sound of it is in some way, intangibly more 'pleasing' than any other genre, but because it enriches my human experience in a way that no other music possibly can. Just as Lord Byron is worthier of my praise than Dan Brown.


For the most part I agree.



> But, as Daniel Barenboim said in response to the question about whether or not pop music can have that same transcendental quality - if you can feel, then good for you!


Daniel Barenbiom is one of my favorite conductors.


----------



## danae (Jan 7, 2009)

Polednice said:


> Just as Lord Byron is worthier of my praise than Dan Brown.


He is, but so are a lot of writers who haven't been dead for almost 200 years. Why especially Lord Byron?


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Indeed, more contemporary writers are just as worthy of praise. The distinction I'm try to make is that between literature as art (both old and new), and literature as commercial 'trash', for want of a less damning word. I make that same distinction between classical music (both old and new) - which is music as art - and music as commercial 'trash'.

As for Lord Byron, he was just the first person that came to my mind because I've been obsessed with 'Manfred' for quite a while recently..


----------



## danae (Jan 7, 2009)

Of course I understand that this is distinction you wanted to make. I agree completely. But choosing a historical figure from classical literature as an example can damage the argument itself, because automatically the person reading this will make this an issue about histocism and not quality.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Then I shall make sure I don't fall into that trap in future


----------



## Denerah Bathory (6 mo ago)

michael walsh said:


> Okay! Next time I cross the Atlantic I will ponder this reply as I contemplate whether the ocean liner is superior to the canoe? I shall look at a blank sheet of canvas as neither better nor worse than a van Gogh painting ... a great symphony as perhaps inferior to Baa Baa Black sheep. All being subjective of course.


Thank you for commenting, as I was just about to remark that the current attitude of relativistic ethics and subjectivity overall is the very reason we are living in the decline of the West. With no firm principles, it's a downward spiral to chaos.


----------



## Nate Miller (Oct 24, 2016)

michael walsh said:


> I think one I would mention; a musician's take on it, which I read in one of my anecdotal books: "If you like it it's good music. If you don't like it; it's bad music.'


that's a good quote, but as a musician, I know there is lots of good music that I dont like. And there's also been alot of music I dont like, that I had to play. 

to me, the thing about the art of music is that the person listening has to have the ability to relate the the music. This comes from within, and it is partly personality and partly what they have been exposed to. If the music doesn't speak to them, then no amount of persuasive arguments can move them.

this, by the way, is the same reason why some people just hate rap


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

If the above dates are correct, this thread was resurrected after 12 years which means that a 5 year old at the time of the 2009 post would now be able to get married, drive a car and serve in the military.


----------



## hoodjem (Feb 23, 2019)

There is art music.
And there is folk music.

One is done by highly trained, skillful, thoughtful musicians.
The other by anyone who can carry a tune (or not) and played by anyone who can bend their fingers to make two chords.

One is done by persons who have profound ideas to communicate.
The other is done by persons who wish to entertain themselves or to make money.

I happen to like both, but for very different reasons. Plus, the rationales and motivations behind each are different.


----------

