# What has surprised you the most on TC?



## mmsbls

Before joining TC, everyone had certain views of classical music, composers, and classical listeners. After joining TC, did you become aware of something(s) that greatly surprised you? The surprise could involve a composer, a body of work, a particular work, or it could be something you learned about people's views on music, listening habits, likes/dislikes, etc..

Probably my greatest surprise was learning that more than a very few people did not like Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart. I assumed that almost everyone would place them in their top 3 or at least close to the top. Obviously, that's far from true.

A related surprise was discovering that most people do not like many composers. Nereffid did a series of polls asking if people liked various composers. Only 35 composers were liked by more than 2/3 of the participants. I assumed many composers would be liked by a much higher percentage of listeners.

So what surprised you?


----------



## Bulldog

Before I joined TC, I assumed that most folks agreed on the composers who are 2nd rate at best. I was way off, and over the years I've come to the point where I just consider those composers not to be my cup of tea.


----------



## Becca

The obsessive collectors.


----------



## Fabulin

The sea of games. I've never seen anything like it.


----------



## SONNET CLV

*What has surprised you the most on TC?*

How humorless we all are.

It makes me laugh.


----------



## Haydn man

What surprises me is the vitriol that some posters can generate when discussing music


----------



## MatthewWeflen

I am pleasantly surprised by how well people have kept politics out of the forum. I can recall only one or two incidents in the past 3 years, which is BLISS compared to the rest of the internet.


----------



## Shaughnessy

MatthewWeflen said:


> I am pleasantly surprised by how well people have kept politics out of the forum. *I can recall only one or two incidents in the past 3 years,* which is BLISS compared to the rest of the internet.


This tells me that Matt doesn't wander very far from his (superb) HvK thread...


----------



## Shaughnessy

Surprises... surprises... Let me see...

That the subtraction of three members could do so much to alter the tone and tenor - the genial civility - of the threads under discussion.

That all it took for peace, love, and understanding to reign supreme was the exile of one member who apparently couldn't resist appending "and Hitler" to every composer under discussion... even Hildegard of Bingen, Duke Ellington and the guy who wrote the theme song to the Lone Ranger.

That there are still people who will enter a thread on a subject that they have no interest in for the express purpose of telling you that they have no interest in the subject under discussion. 

That I lack the administrative power to immediately delete all threads that begin with the words "I Really Hate..." 

That people continue to tell us more about who they dislike than about who they do like - and they do so as if somehow we've given them the impression that we actually care... We don't... and we're never going to despite however many times you find a way to write the exact same thing six different ways.

That there hasn't been a change to the Terms of Service officially banning the word "Subjective"...

That there hasn't been a change to the Terms of Service officially banning a member who uses the word "subjective" as if it were a synonym for the word "objective".

That a copy and paste photo of an album cover from a CD that someone is only pretending to be currently listening to will receive 15 "Likes" while well-written deeply insightful threads and posts may as well be written in invisible ink for all that they accomplish.

That writing "Wilhelm Furtwängler was a philosopher at rehearsals and a poet during performances" wasn't enough to explain the fascination with Furtwängler - It took 116 pages and 1726 posts to do what I just did with one sentence and that thread came back to life more times than Christopher Lee playing Dracula in those vintage 70's Hammer horror films.

That people throw "Likes" around as if they were manhole covers...

That STEM programs don't get the respect here that they deserve - STEM = Science, Technology, whatever the E stands for, and math.

And lastly... That I'm going to have to return to explain at least one and possibly two of the jokes contained within this post.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Sunburst Finish said:


> This tells me that Matt doesn't wander very far from his (superb) HvK thread...


Oh, certainly political posts happen, but I think perhaps the mods do a great job of getting to them before I see them, and people generally seem to respect this as a respite from the baloney that has completely overtaken other parts of the internet. I can recall actually reporting only one post.

The worst I generally see is stuff like "the "Left" are a bunch of relativists and therefore can't appreciate great art" which isn't enough to trip my trigger, because it's just vague dross.


----------



## mbhaub

How narrow our interests have become. A lot of interesting threads just sit dormant. Some topics that should, could, generate interesting discussions are moot. And how many people like endless lists (10 Favorite Adagios...).


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

Surprised? Not so much. Maybe what happens when you start a contemporary music thread...


----------



## Enthusiast

The attitude to avant garde and contemporary music of many. They advance proof that such music is awful (often it comes down to popularity) but what surprises me is that they are really worried that some people actually like it. I'm not sure why. It got so bad at one point that many people with a passionate interest and good knowledge of the newer music gave up and left. Things are much better now.

I was also a bit surprised that so many who have a sound grasp of music theory use this knowledge to trash music that they should surely recognise is revered by many others. Schubert was a big target of this for a while - with the detractors apparently desperate to convince the rest of us that we are wrong and our taste is suspect.


----------



## Simon Moon

Enthusiast said:


> *The attitude to avant garde and contemporary music of many. They advance proof that such music is awful (often it comes down to popularity) but what surprises me is that they are really worried that some people actually like it. I'm not sure why. It got so bad at one point that many people with a passionate interest and good knowledge of the newer music gave up and left. Things are much better now*.
> 
> I was also a bit surprised that so many who have a sound grasp of music theory use this knowledge to trash music that they should surely recognise is revered by many others. Schubert was a big target of this for a while - with the detractors apparently desperate to convince the rest of us that we are wrong and our taste is suspect.


You beat me to it.

Before I joined TC, I was a member of some other music forums (jazz and progressive music), where the vast majority of listeners always seem open to boundary pushing, innovative or even challenging music. Most prog fans are also big fans of classical music, and over on the Progressiveears.org forum, there has been a long, ongoing thread on classical music, where the majority of the composers and music mentioned are, decidedly, modern, avant-garde and contemporary. Almost the opposite of here on TC.

Coming from the mindset of being open and receptive to new music, and posting on other forums where most felt the same way, I was originally a bit surprised that most people here did not feel the same way. But even more surprised at the contempt many had for post 1950's classical, modernism, and contemporary classical music. So much so, that many have stated that they would be happy if these never existed (as if they are forced to listen), or even not considering them classical music.

But as you mention, things have seemed to have gotten a lot better recently.


----------



## Manxfeeder

Sunburst Finish said:


> That people throw "Likes" around as if they were manhole covers...


Oops. I guess that's one button I won't be pushing.


----------



## Manxfeeder

What surprised me is how unhesitant I am to post here. Before this, I was on an old Compuserve forum where everyone was so erudite and sophisticated that I was afraid to breathe when they were online. From there I went to another one where if you didn't think Handel was the greatest composer of all time, you would be berated. Well, for just about anything you were berated. So I'm amazed that my post count is over 15,000.


----------



## Shaughnessy

Manxfeeder said:


> Oops. I guess that's one button I won't be pushing.


15 sentences and _that's_ the one you focus on? - One of the jokes?

Did I not predict in my last sentence that I would have to return to explain at least one and possibly two of the jokes?

Although it is kind of funny that you got a "Like" - I have to admit that kind of cracked me up.

If I hurt your feelings because I made the crack - _"That a copy and paste photo of an album cover from a CD that someone is only pretending to be currently listening to will receive 15 "Likes" while well-written deeply insightful threads and posts may as well be written in invisible ink for all that they accomplish."_ - let me just say this - I don't care - honestly I don't - If I genuinely cared about "Likes" I would spend more time in "Current Listening" posting pictures of album covers of CDs that I'm only actually pretending to listen to while I'm searching for other album covers of CDs that I'm only going to actually pretend to listen to tomorrow.... and the day after... and the day after that.


----------



## Malx

Maybe thats kinda 'like' humour


----------



## elgar's ghost

Manxfeeder said:


> What surprised me is how unhesitant I am to post here. _Before this, I was on an old Compuserve forum where everyone was so erudite and sophisticated that I was afraid to breathe when they were online._


'...erudite and sophisticated...' - is that a polite way of saying smug and up their own bugles?


----------



## Kiki

I thought I was an obsessive collector and I kind of felt guilty about it; but since joining TC, it's been a (nice) surprise that I am in fact pretty ordinary (and that's a soothing thought). There are people whose conditions are much more serious than mine, but I salute you people for your obsessiveness.

A not so nice surprises is that, perhaps a larger than expected number of members tend to be reluctant to explore new performances/works. Given that we are living in a time of free streaming, this is really surprising.


----------



## fbjim

There are more fans of early music than I thought. I always considered it a niche among niches but there do seem to be many more people who love listening to it than I assumed.


----------



## Shaughnessy

Becca said:


> The obsessive collectors.


I don't mind "obsessive collectors"...

as long as they don't actually talk about whatever it is that they're obsessively collecting.


----------



## fbjim

Enthusiast said:


> The attitude to avant garde and contemporary music of many. They advance proof that such music is awful (often it comes down to popularity) but what surprises me is that they are really worried that some people actually like it. I'm not sure why. It got so bad at one point that many people with a passionate interest and good knowledge of the newer music gave up and left. Things are much better now.
> 
> I was also a bit surprised that so many who have a sound grasp of music theory use this knowledge to trash music that they should surely recognise is revered by many others. Schubert was a big target of this for a while - with the detractors apparently desperate to convince the rest of us that we are wrong and our taste is suspect.


If I could ban one thing it'd be the use of "con artist" and the like. There's a big difference in saying "I hate this composer" and the statements that people only listen to certain composers to look clever, or that they've been conned, or etc etc etc.

Like, one is a statement of differing taste, the other is an accusation of bad faith. If you say "I love James Joyce", what's going to be more toxic to discusssion- someone saying "I hate James Joyce", or "You only pretend to like James Joyce to look smart"?

Also the bizarre obsession with Our Tax Dollars. As if the government slices out a huge chunk of tax income for "atonal music" or whatever.


----------



## mmsbls

Enthusiast said:


> The attitude to avant garde and contemporary music of many. They advance proof that such music is awful (often it comes down to popularity) but what surprises me is that they are really worried that some people actually like it. I'm not sure why. It got so bad at one point that many people with a passionate interest and good knowledge of the newer music gave up and left. Things are much better now.


Several members commented on negative attitudes towards avant-garde and contemporary music. I was not surprised that so many disliked the music, but I was and am surprised that people will work so hard to make sure others know how awful the music is. The situation was significantly worse in the past, and some members did leave. In some sense it's a shame because shortly after many of those members left, the forum seemed to swing towards a much more positive view of this music. There are many threads on new music that have no or few negative comments. I think that's wonderful.


----------



## mmsbls

Manxfeeder said:


> _What surprised me is how unhesitant I am to post here._ Before this, I was on an old Compuserve forum where everyone was so erudite and sophisticated that I was afraid to breathe when they were online. From there I went to another one where if you didn't think Handel was the greatest composer of all time, you would be berated. Well, for just about anything you were berated. So I'm amazed that my post count is over 15,000.


As a moderator, possibly my main concern is that people do feel free to post and are not worried that others will comment negatively on what they write. I'm quite happy to see you are unhesitant.


----------



## fbjim

Sunburst Finish said:


> I don't mind "obsessive collectors"...
> 
> as long as they don't actually talk about whatever it is that they're obsessively collecting.


im not *that* obsessive about classical LPs...

just a bit


----------



## 59540

Enthusiast said:


> The attitude to avant garde and contemporary music of many. They advance proof that such music is awful (often it comes down to popularity) but what surprises me is that they are really worried that some people actually like it. I'm not sure why. ...
> ...


But conversely there's also the hurt, indignation and defensiveness on the part of new music advocates when people do say they don't like avant garde/new music. It's taken as a personal affront.


mmsbls said:


> ...There are many threads on new music that have no or few negative comments. I think that's wonderful.


Why is that wonderful? That makes an echo chamber in which people feel they can either say they like such and such or else be polite and keep quiet lest someone's feelings are hurt. So what if someone excoriates music that you may like? Even Bach, Beethoven and Mozart have their critics. The surprising thing may be the thin skins on the trailblazers.


----------



## mmsbls

Sunburst Finish said:


> That there are still people who will enter a thread on a subject that they have no interest in for the express purpose of telling you that they have no interest in the subject under discussion.


Yes, I do find this tendency rather odd. I have always viewed this as similar to going to a party, listening to a group of people discussing poetry, and then poking one's head into the mix announcing how poetry is dumb/uninteresting/harmful to society/impossible to like/etc..


----------



## Manxfeeder

Sunburst Finish said:


> . . . If I hurt your feelings because I made the crack - .


I'm sorry; I was just trying to be funny. No hurt feelings here. I should have put a smiley face after my comment.


----------



## Manxfeeder

mmsbls said:


> As a moderator, possibly my main concern is that people do feel free to post and are not worried that others will comment negatively on what they write. I'm quite happy to see you are unhesitant.


Wow, I've sure been sticking my foot in my mouth on this thread. Maybe I should go back to being hesitant.


----------



## fbjim

dissident said:


> But conversely there's also the hurt, indignation and defensiveness on the part of new music advocates when people do say they don't like avant garde/new music. It's taken as a personal affront.
> 
> Why is that wonderful? That makes an echo chamber. So what if someone excoriates music that you may like? Even Bach, Beethoven and Mozart have their critics.


An enormous amount of ink spilled about modern music is not "I hate it" but goes beyond to places like "the composers are con artists stealing my tax dollars", "nobody actually likes it, they just want to look smart", all the way to outright accusing it of the downfall of western civilization (this has actually gotten worse in recent years). There is a big difference between expressing differing opinions on artistic merit, and discussions that the music is a con job on taxpayers which has no right to exist, or is directly contributing to the decline of society.


----------



## Shaughnessy

A genuine surprise... Seriously... 

The "New Members - Introductions" section - People write these elaborate incredibly detailed deeply heartfelt biographical posts...

They're so grateful - so (almost) pathetically grateful - to have found a "home" - a long-lost home - To have found the wandering-in-the-wilderness members of their long-sought tribe... that you can sense that tears - deep dark mascara black tears - are gently falling down their downy soft freshly shaven cheeks...

They're warmly and genuinely welcomed (mostly) by the resident "Welcoming Committee".

And then they disappear... Never to be heard from again.

I never wrote a "New Member - Introductions" elaborate incredibly detailed deeply heartfelt biographical post.

Aside from the fact that I'm just too lazy to do so - and honestly, who cares, right?

If I'm to disappear from the forum never to be heard from again I want it done the old-fashioned way... by getting permanently banned.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> An enormous amount of ink spilled about modern music is not "I hate it" but goes beyond to places like "the composers are con artists stealing my tax dollars", "nobody actually likes it, they just want to look smart", all the way to outright accusing it of the downfall of western civilization (this has actually gotten worse in recent years). There is a big difference between expressing differing opinions on artistic merit, and discussions that the music is a con job on taxpayers which has no right to exist, or is directly contributing to the decline of society.


Well, those are opinions. If you can prove these opinions are wrong, do it. If not, say you love the music and go on.


----------



## 59540

Sunburst Finish said:


> A genuine surprise... Seriously...
> 
> The "New Members - Introductions" section - People write these elaborate incredibly detailed deeply biographical posts...
> 
> They're so grateful - so pathetically grateful - to have found a "home" - a long-lost home - To have found the wandering in the wilderness members of their long-sought tribe... that you can sense that tears - deep dark mascara black tears - are gently falling down their downy soft freshly shaven cheeks...
> 
> They're warmly and genuinely (mostly) welcomed by the resident "Welcoming Committee".
> 
> And then they disappear... Never to be heard from again.
> 
> I never wrote a "New Member - Introductions" elaborate incredibly detailed deeply biographical post.
> 
> If I'm to disappear from the forum never to be heard from again I want it done the old-fashioned way... by getting permanently banned.


Many times on a forum like this your enthusiasm for participating is shot down by the first pedantic contradiction thrown at you.


----------



## Portamento

The amount of people here who continue to claim that classical music is superior to other genres always surprises me.


----------



## pianozach

Sunburst Finish said:


> Surprises... surprises... Let me see...
> 
> That people throw "Likes" around as if they were manhole covers...


I can only assume that you're getting no likes.

Well, people from around _here_ simply don't throw manhole covers around. Ever.


----------



## fbjim

Would there be any interest in a more "content"-y version of the "what are you listening to" thread? Sometimes you really do just want to say "hey check this out" but more active discussion about things that caught your ear could be nice.


----------



## pianozach

I have a pretty good grasp of music from many different genres.

I have been surprised by how many here have vastly superior grasps of every subject, musical style, artists, conductors, etc.

Oh, yes, threads about conductors, and threads comparing the same works as conducted by different conductors. I'm astonished that there are people that have actually listened to enough different versions of works to be able to confidently compare them all.

So, yeah, I'm surprised.

But I've heard the door is alarmed.


----------



## 59540

Portamento said:


> The amount of people here who continue to claim that classical music is superior to other genres always surprises me.


And on a classical music forum no less. Imagine that.


----------



## Shaughnessy

dissident said:


> Many times on a forum like this your enthusiasm for participating is shot down by the first pedantic contradiction thrown at you.


That would be a valid point except for the fact that most of them post only once - the introduction - and then leave.

A few stay for anywhere from 3 to 5 to 7 posts but I've checked their last posts against the the context of the thread that they're participating in and I don't see a connection.

All forums have members who are kind of a piece of work (I know, I know, like me) but I'm not certain that even the most evil - the most vile - of members is going to carve up a newbie like a roast turkey.

I've worked my way through about a hundred of these introductions - Don't even ask, not even I know why - and I can't see anything related to cause and effect - People here make of point of being generous with their advice and guidance for newcomers... The knives only come out once you hit the 100 post mark.

The members who really made a point out of making everyone's life miserable and this a place to be avoided at all costs are gone. as far as I can tell.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Most of the surprises have all been very pleasant. I wouldn’t be nearly as knowledgable about CM from all periods if I hadn’t joined here, so I’m incredibly grateful that this forum has expanded my horizons so much. Compared to other fora and social media platforms, the skirmishes here seem to be relatively tame (with the occasional whopper whenever any one of a handful of surefire subjects comes up...) and for the most part this is a very civil community. I’d say one thing that has surprised me is how many people here listen to popular music. I can definitely see a love for jazz and world music coinciding with a love for Western classical (I like some music in those categories as well), but the fact that so many love rock, pop, and rap too is at odds with what I would have expected.


----------



## Shaughnessy

pianozach said:


> *I can only assume that you're getting no likes.*
> 
> Well, people from around _here_ simply don't throw manhole covers around. Ever.


Thanks for bringing that to everyone's attention, Zach - Not being "Liked" literally or figuratively was my last secret - I'm no longer a "man of mystery"... Thanks for nothing.


----------



## Ethereality

Sunburst Finish said:


> That there are still people who will enter a thread on a subject that they have no interest in for the express purpose of telling you that they have no interest in the subject under discussion.


*This is terrible* still unfortunately. I wish people felt more comfortable creating threads, that's how forums are designed.

I find it unusual that some members never create threads or pose new theoretical questions/subject matters, but respond to lots of posts. Who does that? :lol: Some are just perpetually comfortable with what they know I guess.


----------



## Barbebleu

Sunburst Finish said:


> Surprises... surprises... Let me see...
> 
> That the subtraction of three members could do so much to alter the tone and tenor - the genial civility - of the threads under discussion.
> 
> That all it took for peace, love, and understanding to reign supreme was the exile of one member who apparently couldn't resist appending "and Hitler" to every composer under discussion... even Hildegard of Bingen, Duke Ellington and the guy who wrote the theme song to the Lone Ranger.
> 
> That there are still people who will enter a thread on a subject that they have no interest in for the express purpose of telling you that they have no interest in the subject under discussion.
> 
> That I lack the administrative power to immediately delete all threads that begin with the words "I Really Hate..."
> 
> That people continue to tell us more about who they dislike than about who they do like - and they do so as if somehow we've given them the impression that we actually care... We don't... and we're never going to despite however many times you find a way to write the exact same thing six different ways.
> 
> That there hasn't been a change to the Terms of Service officially banning the word "Subjective"...
> 
> That there hasn't been a change to the Terms of Service officially banning a member who uses the word "subjective" as if it were a synonym for the word "objective".
> 
> That a copy and paste photo of an album cover from a CD that someone is only pretending to be currently listening to will receive 15 "Likes" while well-written deeply insightful threads and posts may as well be written in invisible ink for all that they accomplish.
> 
> That writing "Wilhelm Furtwängler was a philosopher at rehearsals and a poet during performances" wasn't enough to explain the fascination with Furtwängler - It took 116 pages and 1726 posts to do what I just did with one sentence and that thread came back to life more times than Christopher Lee playing Dracula in those vintage 70's Hammer horror films.
> 
> That people throw "Likes" around as if they were manhole covers...
> 
> That STEM programs don't get the respect here that they deserve - STEM = Science, Technology, whatever the E stands for, and math.
> 
> And lastly... That I'm going to have to return to explain at least one and possibly two of the jokes contained within this post.


Nice post - only because it saved me the trouble of writing something similar!


----------



## starthrower

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Most of the surprises have all been very pleasant. I wouldn't be nearly as knowledgable about CM from all periods if I hadn't joined here, so I'm incredibly grateful that this forum has expanded my horizons so much.


This was the reason I sought out a classical music forum eleven years ago. I can't remember why I choose TC but I usually have a hunch about these things. Although I had been listening occasionally to a number of 19th and 20th century composers over the years, they were mostly the famous names and I wanted to learn about others. I was surprised at how many new and interesting composers I was exposed to in a short period of time. And most of these were from the 20th century which is where my interest lies for the most part.

But I stuck around long enough to see my tastes broaden to where I got more interested in Bach, and Wagner, and several other opera composers. And many composers of string quartets. For a time I got sucked in to the collecting frenzy but I've backed off on that in the past year. I don't need to own ten recordings of anything. And I realize that is a very modest number for many here. I've got other fish to fry.


----------



## 59540

Ethereality said:


> *This is terrible* still unfortunately. I wish people felt more comfortable creating threads, that's how forums are designed.
> 
> I find it unusual that some members never create threads or pose new theoretical questions/subject matters, but respond to lots of posts. Who does that? :lol: Some are just perpetually comfortable with what they know I guess.


Probably out of fear of being told "if you'll do a search you'll find we had a long discussion of that back in 2009..."


----------



## Portamento

dissident said:


> And on a classical music forum no less. Imagine that.


You're right - it's not so surprising. Fans of classical music can often be a curmudgeonly bunch.


----------



## Shaughnessy

dissident said:


> Probably out of fear of being told "if you'll do a search you'll find we had a long discussion of that back in 2009..."


The following is true - I know, I know - every time I'm about to make something completely up I start off with "The following is true..." but this actually is true - and richly, deeply ironic to boot.

There is one member who continually "patrols" the forum and when a new thread on a subject that may have been discussed previously appears, this member lists 2, 3, 4 links to each of the threads which appeared previously (some of them only tangentially relevant) and does so in this kind of snippy sighing eye-rolling exasperated beyond human endurance manner... This, despite the fact that the member in question literally posts nothing but videos... thousands of 'em...

And so... If you click on the links, some of these discussions took place so long ago that they have "Buy War Bonds" banners running across the top of the thread and ads for "The Tommy Dorsey Band Featuring Frank Sinatra".

The last entry on the thread is dated like "October 1, 2011" and almost no one who took part in said discussion has been in the forum for at least five years and yet, as mentioned, the thread starter feels chastened and that's pretty much the end of that unless a member of the forum overrides the unofficial "veto" and helps to kick off the thread.

And so... If someone starts a thread that is pretty much just a variation on a previous theme and you're interested - take part with genuine enthusiasm and try to find something unique to add to the discussion and if someone starts a thread that you have literally no interest in whatsoever try to resist the temptation to enter said thread to grandly announce that you have literally no interest in this particular subject whatsoever because every time that you do so the rest of us mentally subtract points from your IQ and consequently, as a result, some of you have virtually negative IQ scores.... so knock it off.


----------



## 59540

Portamento said:


> You're right - it's not so surprising. Fans of classical music can often be a curmudgeonly bunch.


Yeah, well, in fairness I wonder if you'd go to a hip hop or jazz forum and berate them for thinking their favored genre is "the best" or "superior".


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

I’m just here to post on how dumb I think this whole topic is. (kidding)

Things that have surprised me the most:

- This will shock many: how similar we are. Yes, there are varied tastes and opinions, but you expect that. I’m surprised by how often people have the same impressions of works or recordings. We’re not all as crazy or strange as we may think.

- How many times we have to explain that our opinion represents an opinion and not fact. And yes, this is just my opinion. Someone else may disagree. 

- I had no idea people were so fascinated by Furtwängler! It gives me hope for the future.


----------



## hammeredklavier

mmsbls said:


> Probably my greatest surprise was learning that more than a very few people did not like Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart. I assumed that almost everyone would place them in their top 3 or at least close to the top. Obviously, that's far from true.
> A related surprise was discovering that most people do not like many composers. Nereffid did a series of polls asking if people liked various composers. Only 35 composers were liked by more than 2/3 of the participants. I assumed many composers would be liked by a much higher percentage of listeners.


One of the reasons is that on this forum there are plenty of contemporary music enthusiasts who don't care about common practice music. But they're all put "under the same roof" with classical music enthusiasts just cause some people are insecure about being "segregated" and the administration is too careful not to hurt their feelings. But the truth is that Xenakis, for instance, is more different from Handel than jazz is to rock. 
I think a lot of unnecessary conflicts between the different enthusiast groups of TC could have been avoided if the administration was a bit more flexible in thinking and action. (ie. Create a subforum for "contemporary art music").
To me, what you're saying is like complaining "How come not everyone here likes Miles Davies, Duke Ellington" in a forum where jazz and rock enthusiasts coexist. 
Some things just don't mix, like oil and water.


----------



## janxharris

hammeredklavier said:


> One of the reasons is that on this forum there are plenty of contemporary music enthusiasts who don't care about common practice music. But they're all put "under the same roof" with classical music enthusiasts just cause some people are insecure about being "segregated" and the administration is too careful not to hurt their feelings. But the truth is that Xenakis, for instance, is more different from Handel than jazz is to rock.
> I think a lot of unnecessary conflicts between the different enthusiast groups of TC could have been avoided if the administration was a bit more flexible in thinking and action. (ie. Create a subforum for "contemporary art music").
> To me, what you're saying is like complaining "How come not everyone here likes Miles Davies, Duke Ellington" in a forum where jazz and rock enthusiasts coexist.
> Some things just don't mix, like oil and water.


Why does contemporary classical music share the stage with older classical music?


----------



## mmsbls

hammeredklavier said:


> One of the reasons is that on this forum there are plenty of contemporary music enthusiasts who don't care about common practice music. But they're all put "under the same roof" with classical music enthusiasts just cause some people are insecure about being "segregated" and the administration is too careful not to hurt their feelings. But the truth is that Xenakis, for instance, is more different from Handel than jazz is to rock.


If I understand you correctly, you believe that TC members who like modern and contemporary music care less about Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart than TC members who dislike modern and contemporary music. I tested that hypothesis using data from Nereffid's composer polls. There were 24 members who voted in all the Stockhausen, Xenakis, Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart polls and who liked both Stockhausen and Xenakis. There were 59 members who voted in all the Stockhausen, Xenakis, Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart polls and who disliked both Stockhausen and Xenakis. The average Stockhausen and Xenakis fan liked 2.79 of the 3 (Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart). The average Stockhausen and Xenakis anti-fan liked 2.76 of the 3. So the two groups essentially enjoy Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart equally, and your hypothesis seems likely not to be true.



hammeredklavier said:


> To me, what you're saying is like complaining "How come not everyone here likes Miles Davies, Duke Ellington" in a forum where jazz and rock enthusiasts coexist.
> Some things just don't mix, like oil and water.


I'm hardly complaining. I was simply surprised, and enjoyed learning about the tastes of TC members.


----------



## pianozach

Sunburst Finish said:


> Thanks for bringing that to everyone's attention, Zach - Not being "Liked" literally or figuratively was my last secret - I'm no longer a "man of mystery"... Thanks for nothing.


You're welcome for the nothing: It came pretty cheap. :lol:

:devil: BTW, what's the most useless talent you have?


----------



## Nereffid

mmsbls said:


> If I understand you correctly, you believe that TC members who like modern and contemporary music care less about Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart than TC members who dislike modern and contemporary music. I tested that hypothesis using data from Nereffid's composer polls. ... your hypothesis seems likely not to be true.


I know I should wait until you've said my name _three _times before appearing in the thread, but... !

I wouldn't quite describe the results of my composer polls as "surprising" to me, because I had a feeling (hope, even) that TC wasn't anywhere near as divided as some people claimed at the time. I think one thing that did surprise me was that I ended up on the receiving end of one those "somebody is wrong on the Internet" situations. I would apply that experience more generally and say that I have been surprised by how invested some people get in being negative - as someone who tends to think "this isn't for me" and move on, it still fascinates me that people genuinely _hate_ various composers or kinds of music.


----------



## Shaughnessy

pianozach said:


> *BTW, what's the most useless talent you have?*


Probably... getting on my wife's nerves... There's rarely, if ever, much call for that.

Second most useless talent and the best example of why getting on my wife's nerves is my most useless talent is this -

It's called the "Cups Song" - I can actually do this - True story and unlike most of my "True Stories" I'm not actually just making this one up - I can sing the song and hit and tap the cup exactly - and I do mean exactly - like Anna Kendrick does in the video... Except I think that I may be slightly better at it... Slightly...

This is not a skill that came naturally - I had to work at it - non-stop - sometimes 24/7 for hours and by "hours" I actually mean "days"... and by "days" I actually mean "weeks"... and by "weeks" I actually mean "months".

This upcoming December with be our 40th wedding anniversary... Nothing strained our marriage during the course of four decades more seriously than my determination to master the "cups game"

When it reached the point where she was actually auditioning divorce attorneys and I was faced with a future which consisted solely of being homeless - unshaven, unwashed - shambling about muttering incoherently to myself about Wagner, Nietzsche, and Sgt. Preston of the Yukon - whilst pushing all of my worldly possessions around in a shopping cart that I stole from "Pete's Fresh Market" - God answered my wife's prayers and I nailed it - just completely nailed it- I could sing the tune and tap and hit that cup better than Anna Kendrick could on her best day.... Almost... I had to slightly embellish that last line to make the story more "dramatic".

And so I invite - and encourage - you to watch this video - and better yet - try to actually do what she does - It's a humbling experience...


----------



## SanAntone

> I think a lot of unnecessary conflicts between the different enthusiast groups of TC could have been avoided if the administration was a bit more flexible in thinking and action. (ie. Create a subforum for "contemporary art music").


I think a lot of unnecessary conflicts between the different enthusiast groups of TC could have been avoided if those who do not enjoy contemporary music would just *get over it.*


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> I think a lot of unnecessary conflicts between the different enthusiast groups of TC could have been avoided if those who do not enjoy contemporary music would just *get over it.*


Getting over it is probably something that both sides in the debate could try. Some people are going to hate the music you love. Get over it.


----------



## Shaughnessy

I would be greatly surprised if a red-letter warning from a mod doesn't appear within the hour...


----------



## wkasimer

dissident said:


> Probably out of fear of being told "if you'll do a search you'll find we had a long discussion of that back in 2009..."


...by someone who can't do the math and understand how many new TC participants with new opinions have joined during the previous decade.


----------



## Bulldog

hammeredklavier said:


> One of the reasons is that on this forum there are plenty of contemporary music enthusiasts who don't care about common practice music. But they're all put "under the same roof" with classical music enthusiasts just cause some people are insecure about being "segregated" and the administration is too careful not to hurt their feelings. But the truth is that Xenakis, for instance, is more different from Handel than jazz is to rock.
> I think a lot of unnecessary conflicts between the different enthusiast groups of TC could have been avoided if the administration was a bit more flexible in thinking and action. (ie. Create a subforum for "contemporary art music").
> To me, what you're saying is like complaining "How come not everyone here likes Miles Davies, Duke Ellington" in a forum where jazz and rock enthusiasts coexist.
> Some things just don't mix, like oil and water.


You don't mix well with contemporary art music, so you want to shove it into a subforum. It isn't all about you and your preferences.


----------



## fbjim

dissident said:


> Getting over it is probably something that both sides in the debate could try. Some people are going to hate the music you love. Get over it.


Being told "you only like the music you claim to because you want to appear smart and/or push an ideology" isn't a difference of opinion. It's being called a liar. That's why it's so toxic to discussion.

This is not to mention that we have demonstrable evidence of what happens when people get tired of having to defend not the aesthetic merits of the music they like, but the right of the music itself to exist. They get fed up and leave.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

SanAntone said:


> I think a lot of unnecessary conflicts between the different enthusiast groups of TC could have been avoided if those who do not enjoy contemporary music would just *get over it.*


Could be if the people who like contemporary music could get over that most people do not like contemporary. If the first classical music I heard was contemporary I would have stopped then.


----------



## mikeh375

What's surprised me is that people just can't seem to give it a rest.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Bulldog said:


> You don't mix well with contemporary art music, so you want to shove it into a subforum. It isn't all about you and your preferences.


There is a subforum for opera, why not one for contemporary.


----------



## Bulldog

There's plenty of blame on both sides. Over the years, plenty of traditionalists have accused modernists of faking their appreciation of modern music, and modernists have dumped on traditionalists for having no curiosity and generally being stuck in the mud. The lack of respect at both ends is garbage talk and needs to go.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> Being told "you only like the music you claim to because you want to appear smart and/or push an ideology" isn't a difference of opinion. It's being called a liar. That's why it's so toxic to discussion.


Come on. We're also told from time to time that we who love Bach and Beethoven do so because of pressures from various parts of the Establishment. Same thing. I couldn't care less.


----------



## Bulldog

Johnnie Burgess said:


> There is a subforum for opera, why not one for contemporary.


There is a major difference. Opera lovers wanted a separate subforum. Contemporary art music enthusiasts have not expressed a desire for a separate subforum; it's only been pushed by anti-modernists.


----------



## Art Rock

We have separate forums for the various genres (like orchestral, vocal, ballet, chamber. opera). We do not have separate forums for periods (like baroque, classical, romantic, contemporary etc).


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Bulldog said:


> There is a major difference. Opera lovers wanted a separate subforum. Contemporary art music enthusiasts have not expressed a desire for a separate subforum; it's only been pushed by anti-modernists.


So only the lovers of a kind of music can call for a subforum? In the opera subforum the haters of videos called for and got a subforum for videos.


----------



## Shaughnessy

Johnnie Burgess said:


> So only the lovers of a kind of music can call for a subforum? In the opera subforum the haters of videos called for and got a subforum for videos.


It wasn't so much the actual videos that everyone hated...


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> This is not to mention that we have demonstrable evidence of what happens when people get tired of having to defend not the aesthetic merits of the music they like, but the right of the music itself to exist. They get fed up and leave.


Are there links to posts where it was said that such music doesn't have a right to exist, or should never be played? I'd be willing to bet that if there are such comments they came from commenters who were some time thereafter banned. I don't feel I have to "defend" the music I love, or prove that I'm not a white supremacist if I feel that J. S. Bach is the greatest composer ever. And that has been said, too.


----------



## SanAntone

Johnnie Burgess said:


> Could be if the people who like contemporary music could get over that most people do not like contemporary. If the first classical music I heard was contemporary I would have stopped then.


What makes you think contemporary music lovers go around complaining about traditional classical music? Often we enjoy both kinds of classical music. What I have seen are attacks on contemporary music and their fans, and calls to remove references to new music from the general discussion.

I don't care how many people like or dislike the music I enjoy, but the regular sniping from traditional classical fans has become tedious.


----------



## fbjim

In all fairness and to prevent this from becoming too much of a complaint thread it does seem much better than when I started lurking here like a year ago.


----------



## Barbebleu

Sunburst Finish said:


> The following is true - I know, I know - every time I'm about to make something completely up I start off with "The following is true..." but this actually is true - and richly, deeply ironic to boot.
> 
> There is one member who continually "patrols" the forum and when a new thread on a subject that may have been discussed previously appears, this member lists 2, 3, 4 links to each of the threads which appeared previously (some of them only tangentially relevant) and does so in this kind of snippy sighing eye-rolling exasperated beyond human endurance manner... This, despite the fact that the member in question literally posts nothing but videos... thousands of 'em...
> 
> And so... If you click on the links, some of these discussions took place so long ago that they have "Buy War Bonds" banners running across the top of the thread and ads for "The Tommy Dorsey Band Featuring Frank Sinatra".
> 
> The last entry on the thread is dated like "October 1, 2011" and almost no one who took part in said discussion has been in the forum for at least five years and yet, as mentioned, the thread starter feels chastened and that's pretty much the end of that unless a member of the forum overrides the unofficial "veto" and helps to kick off the thread.
> 
> And so... If someone starts a thread that is pretty much just a variation on a previous theme and you're interested - take part with genuine enthusiasm and try to find something unique to add to the discussion and if someone starts a thread that you have literally no interest in whatsoever try to resist the temptation to enter said thread to grandly announce that you have literally no interest in this particular subject whatsoever because every time that you do so the rest of us mentally subtract points from your IQ and consequently, as a result, some of you have virtually negative IQ scores.... so knock it off.


Roger that!xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:devil:


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> What makes you think contemporary music lovers go around complaining about traditional classical music? Often we enjoy both kinds of classical music. What I have seen are attacks on contemporary music and their fans, and calls to remove references to new music from the general discussion.
> 
> I don't care how many people like or dislike the music I enjoy, but the regular sniping from traditional classical fans has become tedious.


I see quite a few contemporary music threads here and have looked through them, and I notice that in most of them fans of contemporary music are pretty much left alone.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ Yes. True. Things are so much better these days.


----------



## 59540

Enthusiast said:


> ^ Yes. True. Things are so much better these days.


However, if someone starts a thread on Bach's St John Passion I guarantee a side discussion on Bach's religious "fanaticism" or antisemitism in the text. Same in a way for Wagner. And it would be regarded as totally fair criticism. I don't get this idea that some music is beyond criticism and the only response if you don't like it is to shut up. If someone says contemporary music is just noise, that's seen as a personal "attack".


----------



## Coach G

"What has surprised you the most on TC?"

That there are others out there like me. Before the internet came along, I thought that my obsession and addiction to learning about, collecting, and listening to classical records (later CDs) was unique. It's almost like being in a science fiction movie and having certain powers and visions and not knowing that you are are alien from another planet until you meet up with others who have had the same experiences. 

There are lots of people I've met offline who say they like classical music. For most, that means light classics, Pops music, or the stuff they hear on classical radio: the classical radio "brunch" fare of pleasant Baroque. For a few others, there may be a superficial knowledge of a few heavy-hitters, Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, or whatever they learned in that "Musical Appreciation" course they took as a college elective. But there are very few like me and others on this forum who listen to a steady diet of classical music, have immersed themselves in it, and are willing to challenge themselves into trying to understand works that are often mystifying even after the second or third hearing.

That said, if I too much classical music is an addiction or type of psychopathology, then I DON'T want the cure for it!


----------



## Nereffid

Sunburst Finish said:


> I would be greatly surprised if a red-letter warning from a mod doesn't appear within the hour...


I'm not doing this in red letters, but it would be nice if this thread stayed on topic.

By the way, there is a year-old thread in Area 51 about creating a contemporary music subforum, which would be a better venue for some of the comments made here.


----------



## Woodduck

Johnnie Burgess said:


> There is a subforum for opera, why not one for contemporary.


Because there is such a thing as opera. There is no such thing as "contemporary music." You will get no arguments over whether _Nixon in China_ is an opera, but you will still get arguments over whether it's "contemporary music." And then there's Alma Deutscher, bless her heart...


----------



## wkasimer

Johnnie Burgess said:


> There is a subforum for opera, why not one for contemporary.


Try to define "contemporary", and you'll see why.

The solution to the (non)problem is for those who aren't interested in "contemporary music" (whatever that is) to move on and find something else to do with their time.


----------



## Coach G

dissident said:


> However, if someone starts a thread on Bach's St John Passion I guarantee a side discussion on Bach's religious "fanaticism" or antisemitism in the text. Same in a way for Wagner. And it would be regarded as totally fair criticism. I don't get this idea that some music is beyond criticism and the only response if you don't like it is to shut up. If someone says contemporary music is just noise, that's seen as a personal "attack".


I agree with your sentiment. I think that when people hear Beethoven and clasp their chest saying "Ah...Beethoven!" or see a painting by Van Gogh and say "Ah...Van Gogh!"; or hear the words of Shakespeare and say "Ah...Shakespeare!"; as if every musing and shading has come directly from God's brain to the artist's pen or paint brush; it detracts from the humanity of the artist. When we discuss the merits as well as the limitations of the artist we then experience the artist's struggle to find the truth.


----------



## Enthusiast

dissident said:


> However, if someone starts a thread on Bach's St John Passion I guarantee a side discussion on Bach's religious "fanaticism" or antisemitism in the text. Same in a way for Wagner. And it would be regarded as totally fair criticism. I don't get this idea that some music is beyond criticism and the only response if you don't like it is to shut up. If someone says contemporary music is just noise, that's seen as a personal "attack".


I don't think that is how it was. The attacks on those advocating avant garde music was often aimed at them rather than the music. And even when it was also about trashing the music it usually went on for pages with lots of others spotting the new fight and joining in. It was plain silly.

But, of course, it is also silly to criticise a Bach passion on the grounds that Bach took his religion too seriously. Not that I had noticed this happening but as you guarantee it I'll accept it must have been the case somewhere on the forum. But I am baffled by your apparent aggrievement (in your last sentence) at contemporary fans allegedly getting away with claiming that a reasoned argument against their music is a personal attack on them. No-one has complained about reasoned argument in this thread ... just so long as it doesn't get repeated ad nauseam for thread after thread.


----------



## Enthusiast

wkasimer said:


> Try to define "contemporary", and you'll see why.
> 
> The solution to the (non)problem is for those who aren't interested in "contemporary music" (whatever that is) to move on and find something else to do with their time.


In any case there is a sub-forum for orchestral/symphonic music but most threads on this subject still tend to be pitched in the main forum. I have no problem with that but it is a bit confused. Anyway, I don't see what a contemporary sub-forum would offer us. I suppose the idea is to stop posts referring to such music appearing in places where those who dislike it may see it and perhaps have a heart attack! There would be no more contemporary posts in any of the existing sub-forums (opera, ballet, chamber music, orchestral). But we should not downplay our understanding that the new is rooted in the classical tradition. And if contemporary music threads and posts were hidden away then probably many would miss the opportunity to grow and explore. So many members - and I include myself - have expanded their listener's repertoire as a result of this forum.


----------



## Red Terror

OP: All I can say is that I've looked into the abyss and seen nothing but darkness. :lol:


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Coach G said:


> I agree with your sentiment. I think that when people hear Beethoven and clasp their chest saying "Ah...Beethoven!" or see a painting by Van Gogh and say "Ah...Van Gogh!"; or hear the words of Shakespeare and say "Ah...Shakespeare!"; as if every musing and shading has come directly from God's brain to the artist's pen or paint brush; it detracts from the humanity of the artist. When we discuss the merits as well as the limitations of the artist we then experience the artist's struggle to find the truth.


If you find them to be limited artists, just say so and leave it at that. I think this is the issue people are mentioning here on this thread. Too much policing of others' opinions. If people think Beethoven and Shakespeare walk on water, why are they not entitled to believe that?


----------



## MusicSybarite

Sunburst Finish said:


> That a copy and paste photo of an album cover from a CD that someone is only pretending to be currently listening to will receive 15 "Likes" while well-written deeply insightful threads and posts may as well be written in invisible ink for all that they accomplish.
> 
> That people throw "Likes" around as if they were manhole covers...


Amen to this, especially the first claim. Posts like that where some people only show a cover art and repeat information that is shown in the cover art already is absolutely pointless and inane.


----------



## Coach G

Brahmsianhorn said:


> If you find them to be limited artists, just say so and leave it at that. I think this is the issue people are mentioning here on this thread. Too much policing of others' opinions. If people think Beethoven and Shakespeare walk on water, why are they not entitled to believe that?


As long as people don't make it into a contest and remain civil, and don't start making it personal; sharing divergent opinions on a certain artist's output can make the experience of classical music more fun and interesting, in my view.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Sunburst Finish said:


> 15 sentences and _that's_ the one you focus on? - One of the jokes?
> 
> Did I not predict in my last sentence that I would have to return to explain at least one and possibly two of the jokes?
> 
> Although it is kind of funny that you got a "Like" - I have to admit that kind of cracked me up.
> 
> If I hurt your feelings because I made the crack - _"That a copy and paste photo of an album cover from a CD that someone is only pretending to be currently listening to will receive 15 "Likes" while well-written deeply insightful threads and posts may as well be written in invisible ink for all that they accomplish."_ - let me just say this - I don't care - honestly I don't - If I genuinely cared about "Likes" I would spend more time in "Current Listening" posting pictures of album covers of CDs that I'm only actually pretending to listen to while I'm searching for other album covers of CDs that I'm only going to actually pretend to listen to tomorrow.... and the day after... and the day after that.


How do you know they are pretending to be listening to something?


----------



## Becca

Johnnie Burgess said:


> How do you know they are pretending to be listening to something?


When there are 25+ hours of CDs and, at least the last time I checked, there are only 24 hours in a day :lol:


----------



## allaroundmusicenthusiast

Welp, the games and how well they're run -and how well this forum is run in general. In more broad terms, absolutely nothing. This site fulfills its role, it's a place to connect with people who share your interests, there are some very knowledgeable folks, and discussions are mostly enriching. On the negative side of things, people here are just as strong opinionated as mostly anywhere else, both in the digital and analog world. Reaching agreements is also just as hard as anywhere else, and bashing and trashing are also not inherent to this forum, that's just humanity. We can't just all get along, and we can't just all agree on everything, how boring that would be. Also saying to just simply let it go, or don't get to hung up on it is pointless. I can do that, I see nothing here as a personal attack, because I'm not me here, it's just a part of me. But I understand that some others are incapable of that, or simply unwilling, so it's of no use. Sometimes when things do get nasty, the mods step in. And that's that.

Also, I don't understand why some of the comments here directed to certain members have been written in veiled terms. I'm talking here mostly about Sunburst Finish's complaints. To a certain extent, I agree with these complaints, but just come out and say it, man. 
I also don't understand just posting a picture of a cd without saying anything, when I do occasionally post on the Currently Listening thread, I always try to write something about the work or the performance, to explain a bit why I was inspired to do so, or why that work or performance is special. And I'm always _currently_ listening or have _just_ finished listening. But I'm not demanding everyone else to do the same, I just hold my "Likes" for the people who put in a little more effort.

Lastly, as a lover of all periods of music, and a supporter of contemporary and modern music, I do *not* want a separate subforum for it.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Coach G said:


> As long as people don't make it into a contest and remain civil, and don't start making it personal; sharing divergent opinions on a certain artist's output can make the experience of classical music more fun and interesting, in my view.


I would not know what I know today without the benefit of hearing the opinions of others. I am against anything that seeks to inhibit the sharing of opinions by shaming or moralizing, often done in attempt to preserve the feeling of superiority in one's own opinion. That does nothing to expand our knowledge.

I adore Barbirolli's Mahler, my favorite interpreter. A poster once commented that he can't stand it but would rather not say why for fear of backlash. I pressed him on it. I was sincerely curious. If someone listens to my beloved Furty and has a negative reaction, I am also curious. I always want to hear different angles. How else do you learn?


----------



## 59540

Enthusiast said:


> I don't think that is how it was. The attacks on those advocating avant garde music was often aimed at them rather than the music.


Can you show some examples of that? It seems to me that criticism of the whole genre and its composers is deemed to be a personal attack on those who enjoy it/them.



> But, of course, it is also silly to criticise a Bach passion on the grounds that Bach took his religion too seriously. Not that I had noticed this happening but as you guarantee it I'll accept it must have been the case somewhere on the forum.


Whenever Bach's religious choral music is discussed you'll usually see a "as an agnostic/atheist/Jew/Muslim/Hindu/Buddhist I really can't stand Bach's religious music" comment, and that happens at least as often as any "attack" on modern music. Now when that happens is the proper response of a Bach fan to take it as a personal attack, or to simply shrug and say "well, listen to something else"?


> But I am baffled by your apparent aggrievement (in your last sentence) at contemporary fans allegedly getting away with claiming that a reasoned argument against their music is a personal attack on them. No-one has complained about reasoned argument in this thread ... just so long as it doesn't get repeated ad nauseam for thread after thread.


So what would be an acceptably reasoned argument against new music?


----------



## Coach G

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I would not know what I know today without the benefit of hearing the opinions of others. I am against anything that seeks to inhibit the sharing of opinions by shaming or moralizing, often done in attempt to preserve the feeling of superiority in one's own opinion. That does nothing to expand our knowledge.
> 
> I adore Barbirolli's Mahler, my favorite interpreter. A poster once commented that he can't stand it but would rather not say why for fear of backlash. I pressed him on it. I was sincerely curious. If someone listens to my beloved Furty and has a negative reaction, I am also curious. I always want to hear different angles. How else do you learn?


Yeah, I can see where that would be frustrating. If someone is going to criticize they should at least back it up with a cogent argument.


----------



## fbjim

To an extent Wagner threads used to be derailed but I believe the people responsible for that are largely no longer with us.

I can't say I can recall many cases of people attacking sacred music in religious grounds. I mean, I don't particularly like most sacred music but that's because it mostly doesn't really appeal to me unless it's the highly dramatic and romantic kind, ie Berlioz/Verdi.


----------



## Shaughnessy

Becca said:


> When there are 25+ hours of CDs and, at least the last time I checked, there are only 24 hours in a day :lol:


And 18 of those 24 are spent here posting...


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> To an extent Wagner threads used to be derailed but I believe the people responsible for that are largely no longer with us.
> 
> I can't say I can recall many cases of people attacking sacred music in religious grounds. I mean, I don't particularly like most sacred music but that's because it mostly doesn't really appeal to me unless it's the highly dramatic and romantic kind, ie Berlioz/Verdi.


I'd have to see some examples of personal attacks on new music advocates. Now I do know that those who object to new music or even hold to "artistic" hierarchies have been called white supremacists/fascists/Roger Scruton!!!!!! etc etc.


----------



## fbjim

I think it's fine to have a "low content zone" thread, as long as that kind of posting doesn't spread. 

I do wish there was a sort of general thread for classical discussion that wasn't specifically related to recent listening, though giant general discussion threads are sometimes prone to clique syndrome and also suppressing threads other people make. I do like that middle ground between deep long form discussion and just posting record covers.


----------



## SanAntone

I enjoy the Listening thread precisely because it is simply album covers: it often reminds me of something I haven't listened to in a long time. Quickly scanning a page of images is easy and fast.

What has surprised me about TC? The number of people who wish to describe film scores as classical music.


----------



## hammeredklavier

mmsbls said:


> If I understand you correctly, you believe that TC members who like modern and contemporary music care less about Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart than TC members who dislike modern and contemporary music. I tested that hypothesis using data from Nereffid's composer polls....


It's just the impression I get from people like Simon Moon, norman bates, Bluecrab, etc, whom I know for a fact are contemporary music enthusiasts. The more you're interested in contemporary music, the less likely you'll be interested in the "more neat-sounding old stuff".

"I listened to some Mozart this morning, symphonies conducted by Peter Maag -- 28, 34,32. What rubbish music. This isn't music for grown ups, it's for the primary school. If the rest of his stuff is like this then I think you Mozart lovers are completely bonkers." -Mandryka
"I too think Mozart is overrated. Imv, he is too easy to listen to with 21stC hindsight and I feel that music these days has more traits worth exploring than immediacy of appeal." -mikeh375
"In my case I have often the impression listening to his music that I'm i world of face powder, wigs, bows, confetti, lace curtains, pink and light blue satin and and I'm completely out of place. Sort of living inside Marie Antoinette" -norman bates
"there has been a real intolerance here for criticism of Mozart. I had a post deleted that merely referred to the recurring Mozart hagiography that fouls this forum regularly, as did Woodduck." -Bluecrab

There are even threads from the past, like 
Mozart vs. Modernism
Always Praising the Same Music/The Dinosaurs are Among Us
boring pieces by Mr. Mozart
"For every ****** Mozart cd you buy because it has his name on it (apart from the wonderful stuff he made also) you could also buy interesting music by a lesser known composer that is probably underrated and - if he's still living - might deserve your support and keep music alive." -Casebearer

It's never a bad thing that these people appreciate contemporary music more, and their views should be respected, but I feel that if there are too many of them in a classical music forum, it'll no longer be a true "classical music community".


----------



## Malx

MusicSybarite said:


> Amen to this, especially the first claim.* Posts like that where some people only show a cover art and repeat information that is shown in the cover art already is absolutely pointless and inane*.


I seem to recall when new to posting I read somewhere that it was wise to post the content along with the artwork as sometimes the link to the image may disappear - leaving a totally information free post.

Or am I wrong admin??


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Maybe a certain poster was right about "Tall Poppy" syndrome, because I can guarantee you that if Wolfie was an unknown composer named Hans Borschfelt, the same ones who criticize him now would be patting themselves on the back for single-handedly resurrecting the memory of this unjustly forgotten genius, and everyone who recognized the name Borschfelt would be part of the cool club.

People put way too much energy into discussions around reputation. Who cares? What is YOUR opinion?


----------



## Becca

Other surprises...

- That there can be 4,550 (and counting) posts about "Most beautiful soprano aria?"
...and even more...
- That there can be 7,688 (and counting) posts about "Most beautiful operatic duet"

I'm not even sure that there are over 7600 operatic duets let alone 'most beautiful'.


----------



## Chilham

Malx said:


> I seem to recall when new to posting I read somewhere that it was wise to post the content along with the artwork as sometimes the link to the image may disappear - leaving a totally information free post.
> 
> Or am I wrong admin??


Page one of the Current Listening Vol. VII is a case in point. Picture of Handel's Israel in Egypt gone. Detail remains.


----------



## Phil loves classical

hammeredklavier said:


> It's just the impression I get from people like Simon Moon, norman bates, Bluecrab, etc, whom I know for a fact are contemporary music enthusiasts. The more you're interested in contemporary music, the less likely you'll be interested in the "more neat-sounding old stuff".
> 
> "I listened to some Mozart this morning, symphonies conducted by Peter Maag -- 28, 34,32. What rubbish music. This isn't music for grown ups, it's for the primary school. If the rest of his stuff is like this then I think you Mozart lovers are completely bonkers." -Mandryka
> "I too think Mozart is overrated. Imv, he is too easy to listen to with 21stC hindsight and I feel that music these days has more traits worth exploring than immediacy of appeal." -mikeh375
> "In my case I have often the impression listening to his music that I'm i world of face powder, wigs, bows, confetti, lace curtains, pink and light blue satin and and I'm completely out of place. Sort of living inside Marie Antoinette" -norman bates
> "there has been a real intolerance here for criticism of Mozart. I had a post deleted that merely referred to the recurring Mozart hagiography that fouls this forum regularly, as did Woodduck." -Bluecrab
> 
> There are even threads from the past, like
> Mozart vs. Modernism
> Always Praising the Same Music/The Dinosaurs are Among Us
> boring pieces by Mr. Mozart
> "For every ****** Mozart cd you buy because it has his name on it (apart from the wonderful stuff he made also) you could also buy interesting music by a lesser known composer that is probably underrated and - if he's still living - might deserve your support and keep music alive." -Casebearer
> 
> It's never a bad thing that these people appreciate contemporary music more, and their views should be respected, but I feel that if there are too many of them in a classical music forum, it'll be "problematic". It'll no longer be a true "classical music community".


Mozart is not the only composer around before contemporary times. How about Bach, and others? You can't judge all contemporary music by only a few of its fans' preferences only.


----------



## Chilham

MusicSybarite said:


> ... Posts like that where some people only show a cover art and repeat information that is shown in the cover art already is absolutely pointless and inane.


Why does it bother you so much?


----------



## 59540

Becca said:


> Other surprises...
> 
> - That there can be 4,550 (and counting) posts about "Most beautiful soprano aria?"
> ...and even more...
> - That there can be 7,688 (and counting) posts about "Most beautiful operatic duet"
> 
> I'm not even sure that there are over 7600 operatic duets let alone 'most beautiful'.


Well most of that might've been going in circles in arguments. "How do you define 'beautiful'? What is 'beauty' and is it something that exists in our temporal plane or is it a totally abstract and subjective socio-political construct foisted on The Masses along with the so-called canonical composers?"


----------



## fbjim

Phil loves classical said:


> Mozart is not the only composer around before contemporary times. How about Bach, and others? You can't judge all contemporary music by only a few of its fans' preferences only.


I'm also very curious about the idea of what happens if there are "too many of them". What should the admins do, start randomly banning people who don't like Mozart?

I mean, really, if you want an example of toxicity it's that. The idea that people who like contemporary music will ruin your classical music forum is ridiculous.


----------



## Phil loves classical

dissident said:


> Well most of that might've been going in circles in arguments. "How do you define 'beautiful'? What is 'beauty' and is it something that exists in our temporal plane or is it a totally abstract and subjective socio-political construct foisted on The Masses along with the so-called canonical composers?"


It's not in the arguments, if there were any. Haha.


----------



## fbjim

You'd think they would have figured out the most beautiful aria by now. Ive been holding off on listening to opera until they solve that. Why listen to second best?


(I like that one at the end of the first act of La Traviata)


----------



## Becca

dissident said:


> Well most of that might've been going in circles in arguments. "How do you define 'beautiful'? What is 'beauty' and is it something that exists in our temporal plane or is it a totally abstract and subjective socio-political construct foisted on The Masses along with the so-called canonical composers?"


It might, but then again...


----------



## fbjim

Oh a pleasant surprise: the "politics in religion in classical music" move seems to have been relatively good despite some misgivings I had. It doesn't get that much traffic (which may be a blessing in disguise) but it let's the people who actually like discussing that stuff do so without the high traffic levels of the general forum swamping it.


----------



## Bulldog

hammeredklavier said:


> It's never a bad thing that these people appreciate contemporary music more, and their views should be respected, but I feel that if there are too many of them in a classical music forum, it'll no longer be a true "classical music community".


Fortunately, TC does not place an upper limit on the number of modernist or traditionalist members. Your above comment is a an unhealthy attempt to create a wedge between them - not cool.


----------



## 59540

Becca said:


> It might, but then again...


Or "Kirsten Flagstad RULEZ!" "No, Kiri Te Kanawa, to whom I listen while sipping some nice Hennessy XO..." "Hennessy is glorified urine, I drink Courvoisier..." "As a moderator I must insist we stay on topic...I'll close this thread if I must..."


----------



## hammeredklavier

Phil loves classical said:


> Mozart is not the only composer around before contemporary times. How about Bach, and others? You can't judge all contemporary music by only a few of its fans' preferences only.


Strangely, it seems that "Mozart vs Modernism" was a hot issue on the forum in the past. I just hope it doesn't happen again.
A Thread for People who Don't Like Mozart
"No arguments here PLEASE. Just a nice thread where we can discuss all the music that is so much better than most of the stuff Mozart wrote. I really can't stand the Mozart-Modern conflict on TC, I don't want any more civil wars. " -ComposerOfAvantGarde


----------



## Sid James

mmsbls said:


> Before joining TC, everyone had certain views of classical music, composers, and classical listeners. After joining TC, did you become aware of something(s) that greatly surprised you? The surprise could involve a composer, a body of work, a particular work, or it could be something you learned about people's views on music, listening habits, likes/dislikes, etc..


The biggest surprise was how certain debates live on here as if they where current. After joining, I was surprised by how these sparked the sort of controversy that they did in previous centuries. The two biggest, and more or less ongoing ones, are these:

- the Wagner versus Brahms (aka representational versus pure music, new versus old German schools of 19th cent.) debate
- various debates around modernism, more or less set in a timewarp of the 1950's (e.g. as if postmodernism is yet to happen)

Previously I never gave a thought to these issues, other than them being of historical interest. For example, I'm currently reading a book on Janacek and it mentions how he, like other composers of his generation (born mid 19th century), had to consider their position on the Wagner versus Brahms debate. I'm not sure why anybody would need to do that now, at least to the extent of arguing about the same sorts of issues 150 years later as if reinventing the wheel.

Same goes with modernism. When that debate started reaching its peak on TC in about 2013, I honestly thought that some of the most forthright participants where likely to be in their eighties. In other words, they might have been around when modernism as an ideology was still going. Turns out I was wrong, by their own admission most where either in their twenties or sixties.

I think that participating in some of those debates has at least made me refine my approach to contributing here. I've raised the bar to the point that I either reply to a topic thoroughly or not at all. I want to convey a sense of critical thinking, a bit of nuance, and avoid setting up dichotomies. It's hard because it takes time, patience and I'm not getting paid for it! Nevertheless, applying this higher standard has led to some fruitful conversations which are more like a true meeting of minds (although I realise that online communication isn't the same as conversation in real life).


----------



## Shaughnessy

Deleted post - there comes a time when it's just piling on... I would like to think that I'm better than that... I'm not... I just like thinking that I am.


----------



## Fabulin

I would take fonts of all colours of the wind over those rather narcissistic internal monologues...


----------



## Shaughnessy

fbjim said:


> You'd think they would have figured out the most beautiful aria by now. Ive been holding off on listening to opera until they solve that. Why listen to second best?
> 
> (I like that one at the end of the first act of La Traviata)


Solved - start here -


----------



## 59540

Sid James said:


> ...Same goes with modernism. When that debate started reaching its peak on TC in about 2013, I honestly thought that some of the most forthright participants where likely to be in their eighties. In other words, they might have been around when modernism as an ideology was still going. Turns out I was wrong, by their own admission most where either in their twenties or sixties. ...


I don't think the debate such as it is is over "modernism" -- I mean, nobody's really going to get riled up over The Rite of Spring anymore -- but over the postmodernist mindset. *That* is most definitely current and has nothing to do with 100-year-olds fighting the Brahms vs Wagner battle. It's political at its core and it spills over into a lot of areas.

A surprise about this forum is that some people have been participating so long, which isn't a put-down. I just haven't seen that much on the discussion sites I've been familiar with.


----------



## senza sordino

Here's what has surprised me here on TC:

Before I joined I thought I had a lot of CDs, a few hundred. Now I know some people here have a few thousand. Where do you put them all?

The level of vitriol and anger some have when stating their opinion and responding to other posts has surprised me the most. It's only music. 

I thought I knew a lot about classical music before I joined. I was quickly humbled. I now know my knowledge is very limited. 

I didn't think it was even possible to listen to that much music in one day, every day of the year.


----------



## SanAntone

Malx said:


> I seem to recall when new to posting I read somewhere that it was wise to post the content along with the artwork as sometimes the link to the image may disappear - leaving a totally information free post.
> 
> Or am I wrong admin??


Sometimes the cover art is too small or blurry to read. And, trying out the composer/work/performer also makes it possible to copy/paste the info if you wish to find the recording to purchase or stream or find a review. Yeah, I could type it our myself, but I'm all for convenience.


----------



## Simon Moon

hammeredklavier said:


> One of the reasons is that on this forum there are plenty of contemporary music enthusiasts who don't care about common practice music. But they're all put "under the same roof" with classical music enthusiasts just cause some people are insecure about being "segregated" and the administration is too careful not to hurt their feelings. But the truth is that Xenakis, for instance, is more different from Handel than jazz is to rock.
> I think a lot of unnecessary conflicts between the different enthusiast groups of TC could have been avoided if the administration was a bit more flexible in thinking and action. (ie. Create a subforum for "contemporary art music").
> To me, what you're saying is like complaining "How come not everyone here likes Miles Davies, Duke Ellington" in a forum where jazz and rock enthusiasts coexist.
> Some things just don't mix, like oil and water.


How do we go about discerning that those of us that do not like CM, are insecure about not wanting to be segregated from the broad umbrella known as classical music, and those of you that don't like modernism, avant-garde, and contemporary classical music, are just letting your dislike prejudice your opinions?

Of course Xenakis doesn't sound like Handel! There's 2 centuries, and a lot of musical evolution between the 2 composers.

The question is, can a line be drawn, from Handel, through 2 centuries of composers (and all their innovations), to Xenakis? I say, it is pretty obvious, that it can. Xenakis did not pop out of nowhere, fully formed. He stands on the backs of all the greats that came before him. And so do all the rest of the modernists. It's not like Carter, Berio, Ades, Perle, etc, etc, did not study CM, and are well versed in it.

And one last thing, please draw an exact line, or name an specific composer, or an specific piece, where the music stopped being classical, and became 'western art music'.

I mean, Elliott Carter's earliest pieces, seemed to me, to be pretty steeped in CM. His main influences then were Copeland, Sibelius Stravinsky, after all. He was even considered a neo-classical composer at the time. Was he a classical composer then, but stopped being one when he became experimental and avant-garde?

What about composers like Ned Rorem? He composed in a lyrical Franco-American style, but also wrote a couple of modernist pieces. Did he switch back and forth between classical composer, and a composer of nonclassical music?


----------



## 59540

Simon Moon said:


> The question is, can a line be drawn, from Handel, through 2 centuries of composers (and all their innovations), to Xenakis?


I'm not so sure. I think Schoenberg and the Second Viennese School and Stravinsky in many ways represent a break in that tradition. Which isn't to say that those composers and those that followed them didn't write interesting, artistic music. But Xenakis is not the heir of Bach or Handel, to my mind. If he is, please demonstrate.


----------



## fbjim

One thing I notice a bit in postmodern music is (to be really reductive) deliberate mixing between classical and modernist forms. Perhaps we could make abridged versions which cut out all the modern bits.


----------



## 59540

Well I think modernism, postmodernism whatever is a reaction to and sometimes against Common Practice, and so I don't see any reason to segregate it from "classical music". In a sense it's still connected to that tradition even in the act of departing from it.


----------



## pianozach

allaroundmusicenthusiast said:


> Welp, the games and how well they're run -and how well this forum is run in general. In more broad terms, absolutely nothing. This site fulfills its role, it's a place to connect with people who share your interests, there are some very knowledgeable folks, and discussions are mostly enriching. On the negative side of things, people here are just as strong opinionated as mostly anywhere else, both in the digital and analog world. Reaching agreements is also just as hard as anywhere else, and bashing and trashing are also not inherent to this forum, that's just humanity. We can't just all get along, and we can't just all agree on everything, how boring that would be. Also saying to just simply let it go, or don't get to hung up on it is pointless. I can do that, I see nothing here as a personal attack, because I'm not me here, it's just a part of me. But I understand that some others are incapable of that, or simply unwilling, so it's of no use. Sometimes when things do get nasty, the mods step in. And that's that.
> 
> Also, I don't understand why some of the comments here directed to certain members have been written in veiled terms. I'm talking here mostly about Sunburst Finish's complaints. To a certain extent, I agree with these complaints, but just come out and say it, man.
> *I also don't understand just posting a picture of a cd without saying anything, when I do occasionally post on the Currently Listening thread, I always try to write something about the work or the performance, to explain a bit why I was inspired to do so, or why that work or performance is special. And I'm always currently listening or have just finished listening.* But I'm not demanding everyone else to do the same, I just hold my "Likes" for the people who put in a little more effort.
> 
> Lastly, as a lover of all periods of music, and a supporter of contemporary and modern music, I do *not* want a separate subforum for it.


This. I mean, like, this makes sense, at least for most.

If it's just a "I'm listening to THIS", that's OK, but if it's your SONG OF THE DAY, then tell us a little about it, and what you find special about it.

ASSOCIATED GRIPE: If a member posts more than ONE "Song of the Day", then all of that member's "Songs of the Day" sort of lose their specialness, don't they?


----------



## Fabulin

dissident said:


> it's still connected to that tradition even in the act of departing from it.


See, gentlemen? Apparently one can eat one's cake and have it too.

Btw. this thread's title should be "Come and complain about something"


----------



## pianozach

Fabulin said:


> See, gentlemen? Apparently one can eat one's cake and have it too.
> 
> Btw. this thread's title should be "Come and complain about something"


Gripe of the Day thread.


----------



## Nereffid

Fabulin said:


> Btw. this thread's title should be "Come and complain about something"


Yes indeed.

We don't need another round of the modern-music wars here.

Also, if members have complaints about other members or their posting behaviour, please report the relevant posts or contact a moderator.

Thread closed for the moment.


----------



## mmsbls

I've opened the thread, but please see the above post. This thread concerns what has surprised members about TC. Please don't make references to other specific members, veiled or not, unless clearly positive.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

I love you man!
I'm actually surprised that I have learned about composers that I wouldn't find out on my own. Even though I like to surf the net on my own, there is always something to learn here on TC.


----------



## hammeredklavier

AbsolutelyBaching and his profound knowledge of the Bach cantatas; I want him Bach these days.
I once tested him with 50 ten-second clips from 50 randomly-selected Bach cantatas; he got a score of 46/50. Isn't that amazing?


----------



## science

I've been on TC so long that I can't remember what originally surprised me about it. 

At this time, the most surprising thing is how addictive it is, at least to me. 

The turnover among active members and the variety of people and attitudes also surprise me. I expected something like a cocktail party full of Ivy Leaguers, but it's really more like a coffee shop in a Southern town not quite big enough to have two coffee shops. I'm quite familiar with a coffee shop like that, and the variety of people that it attracts -- everyone in the area who's interested in being "cultural," who doesn't feel quite at home in the other local social institutions because they're interested in things like foreign food, chess, philosophy, and classical music -- regardless of their age or education level or anything else. Not that our situation is anything like that, but the variety of people reminds me of a situation like that.


----------



## Neo Romanza

I guess what I’m most surprised about is the moderators aren’t as ‘in your face’ as they used to be, which is a great thing. I mean if someone is way out of line that’s a different story as I realize some members need to be reeled back in, but there was a time where it seemed like everyone and their mother was getting banned and some deserved it, but some didn’t. I’m not naming any names as I don’t want to get into any of that, but I just wanted to express that I’m glad to see things have loosened up around here.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Neo Romanza said:


> I guess what I'm most surprised about is the moderators aren't as 'in your face' as they used to be, which is a great thing.


Bruh the mods here are insane. Can't have no fun.


----------



## Pat Fairlea

senza sordino said:


> Here's what has surprised me here on TC:
> 
> Before I joined I thought I had a lot of CDs, a few hundred. Now I know some people here have a few thousand. Where do you put them all?
> 
> The level of vitriol and anger some have when stating their opinion and responding to other posts has surprised me the most. It's only music.
> 
> I thought I knew a lot about classical music before I joined. I was quickly humbled. I now know my knowledge is very limited.
> 
> I didn't think it was even possible to listen to that much music in one day, every day of the year.


Yes, me too, on each of the above.
The thing that most surprises me is how willing, even eager, some folks are to be adamant about highly subjective issues. I can't be doing with Wagner's interminable, overblown chromaticism, but I'm not going to pick a fight over it. Some people love it. Fair enough.


----------



## Xisten267

The musical knowledge of it's members. Prior to joining TC, I thought that I knew a lot about classical music. Now I'm aware that there's a lifetime of discoveries for me in it, and that my own knowledge of this genre at the moment is very limited.


----------



## Neo Romanza

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Bruh the mods here are insane. Can't have no fun.


If your quest is to be vicious and rude to people, then perhaps there's a reason they interjected themselves into a conversation. I've been rude to a few people, but looking back on it, I've regretted it. I shouldn't take things so personally, but if you personally attack someone, then the mods have a right to send you to timeout.


----------



## EdwardBast

I'm surprised at how many people have lists of their fifty favorite composers in rank order, or their 20 favorite piano sonatas, and the like. Sounds like obsessive compulsive behavior to me. I'm also surprised at how many people think asking who or what is the greatest in whatever category is a meaningful question.


----------



## Bwv 1080

Some people dont like Elliott Carter’s music


----------



## Ethereality

I think if someone has a clear favorite, it should be easy for them to say who the 2nd favorite is, then 3rd, and so on. As long as they've listened to more than one composer.


----------



## pianozach

Neo Romanza said:


> I guess what I'm most surprised about is the moderators aren't as 'in your face' as they used to be, which is a great thing. I mean if someone is way out of line that's a different story as I realize some members need to be reeled back in, but there was a time where it seemed like everyone and their mother was getting banned and some deserved it, but some didn't. I'm not naming any names as I don't want to get into any of that, but I just wanted to express that I'm glad to see things have loosened up around here.





BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Bruh the mods here are insane. Can't have no fun.


Amusing.

I just got my first formal informal warning.

I'm fine with it. I went political and that's a no no. Funny though, in this case my little political tantrum wasn't even directly a logical step from what the discussion was about; it just came out of nowhere. I'm usually a bit more subtle than that. And the warning was exceedingly pleasant as well, almost apologetic.

The last four years have been wearying, and then the last COVID year was enough to make even normally patient people get snarky with puppies. I've been worn down.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Neo Romanza said:


> I've been rude to a few people, but looking back on it, I've regretted it.


In my case, it's more about being obsessive in raving about composers (and sometimes even getting personal with it), a bad habit I've grown from discussing on sites less moderated than TC. For instance;
Jacck: "there is also the sheep mentality effect. Everyone says that Mozart is great, and so must be great.", "Mozart is by far the most overrated composer of all the time."
hammeredklavier: "I think your preference for Schubert is "sheep-mentality"."
But come to think of it, there were always people who tried to guide me to the right path. Looking back, I sometimes wonder why I didn't listen to them sooner. (Woodduck was there to, in that thread. I find that the things I said in some threads were so ridiculous I must have been out of my mind.) 
Btw, speaking of Woodduck, he has good insight on various topics, and also comes across as "passionate" and "noble" in some things he says, making me want to "cheer him on" deep down. I was especially "touched" by this bit he said: "Why, I wonder, couldn't I have been captivated at age 15 by Howard Hanson or Georg Philip Telemann? It didn't happen. Wagner it is."


----------



## Phil loves classical

^ I think I've gotten in some more heated discussions, but still never have had a single warning or infraction. It's possible to state your opinion and argue another's no matter how wild yours or how you see anothers' is and still not cross the line.


----------



## mikeh375

I was heartened to see a lot of contemporary music fans here and not at all surprised by the amount of intolerance and hatred for modernity. Also, it was great to see that some folk here really know their onions.


----------



## science

science said:


> The turnover among active members and the variety of people and attitudes also surprise me. I expected something like a cocktail party full of Ivy Leaguers, but it's really more like a coffee shop in a Southern town not quite big enough to have two coffee shops. I'm quite familiar with a coffee shop like that, and the variety of people that it attracts -- everyone in the area who's interested in being "cultural," who doesn't feel quite at home in the other local social institutions because they're interested in things like foreign food, chess, philosophy, and classical music -- regardless of their age or education level or anything else. Not that our situation is anything like that, but the variety of people reminds me of a situation like that.


Expanding on this, I came here originally from the amazon boards, the first online discussion of classical music I'd experienced. One thing about my experience of TC in contrasts to amazon is that there seems to be less showing off here. More people here admit to being relative newbies.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

science said:


> More people here admit to being relative newbies.


Which is a perspective I value. You don't have to be a seasoned expert to "know" what you're talking about.


----------



## Sid James

science said:


> The turnover among active members and the variety of people and attitudes also surprise me. I expected something like a cocktail party full of Ivy Leaguers, but it's really more like a coffee shop in a Southern town not quite big enough to have two coffee shops. I'm quite familiar with a coffee shop like that, and the variety of people that it attracts -- everyone in the area who's interested in being "cultural," who doesn't feel quite at home in the other local social institutions because they're interested in things like foreign food, chess, philosophy, and classical music -- regardless of their age or education level or anything else. Not that our situation is anything like that, but the variety of people reminds me of a situation like that.


That's a great analogy, and a useful image to keep in mind about what this forum can be. The original meaning of forum in Roman times is useful too, if less related to our lives today. Its like a town square where you'll find the heart of a community - and we're like the people coming to get water at the well and shop in the marketplace.

There's much less pressure to conform here now than in previous years. I think that as far as music is concerned, fitting in is overrated anyway. There is no point in that, other than allowing this place to become less a cafe and more like another echo chamber on the net. As Oscar Wilde apparently said, "be yourself, everyone else is taken."


----------



## science

Sid James said:


> There's much less pressure to conform here now than in previous years.


I've notice this too. Perhaps it's in part the nature of my participation, so I don't see some of the things I used to see. But I also suspect the mods are a bit more battle-hardened than they once were. Anyway, it's a far more pleasant place to be, although I hope that somewhere on the internet the old guys are still shouting at each other.


----------



## MarkW

Mostly silly little useless factoids that I have to decide if they represent the CM universe as a whole, or just the TC corner of it -- like the expressed devotion a larger number than I would have thought have for Sibelius (whom I don't dislike -- just that I can often take or leave). 

(I also don't think I've ever consciously heard anything by Schnittke.)


----------



## science

MarkW said:


> Mostly silly little useless factoids that I have to decide if they represent the CM universe as a whole, or just the TC corner of it -- like the expressed devotion a larger number than I would have thought have for Sibelius (whom I don't dislike -- just that I can often take or leave).
> 
> (I also don't think I've ever consciously heard anything by Schnittke.)


The talkclassical project began years ago as a way for me to solve that problem. People say everything is great and essential.


----------



## Flamme

A certain politiness and a PROPER use of English language by most of users, both very rare on interwebs...As for the knowledge I found out so much about composers and music in general. Also most ''life advices'' I got here confirmed in real life...Not all but many...


----------



## 59540

How personally some people will take disagreements here. Also the almost-religious intensity with which "modern music" is defended by some. Say "I don't care too much for Baroque music" and it's "meh, no arguing with taste..." Say anything slighting about the modern era and you'll find yourself in a 100- comment Mexican standoff.


----------



## Simon Moon

dissident said:


> How personally some people will take disagreements here. Also the almost-religious intensity with which "modern music" is defended by some. Say "I don't care too much for Baroque music" and it's "meh, no arguing with taste..." *Say anything slighting about the modern era and you'll find yourself in a 100- comment Mexican standoff*.


The problems I've seen in my time here on TC, are not that many are not fans of contemporary and modernism. I expected it would not be everyone's cup of tea. But it is the absolutist language the haters use when criticizing it. Although I was expecting a bit higher percentage of people who liked it.

Way too often, the haters will state their purely subjective opinion, as if it is fact.

Also, many of the haters will go out of their way to interject their subjective opinions in threads where they are doing so, for no other reason than to show their contempt.

For example, there was a thread a few years ago, where a relatively new member created a thread with recommendations for people's favorite 12 tone pieces. He specifically stated that he was new to 12 tone music, and would like to explore it more. He wasn't asking for opinions on 12 tone music.

The thread started well enough, and there were plenty of good recommendations. But the thread went no more than 2 pages before the haters had to interject their sarcasm and derision.

The example above is not an exception, but the rule here on TC. That is why us fans of modernism and contemporary classical feel the need to defend it so often.

There have been people that have stated that they wish contemporary and modernism didn't even exist. As if they are somehow forced to listen to it. Yeah, "I wish my local grocery store would stop playing Carter's "Concert of Orchestra" so often while I shop".


----------



## 59540

Simon Moon said:


> The problems I've seen in my time here on TC, are not that many are not fans of contemporary and modernism. I expected it would not be everyone's cup of tea. But it is the absolutist language the haters use when criticizing it. Although I was expecting a bit higher percentage of people who liked it.
> 
> Way too often, the haters will state their purely subjective opinion, as if it is fact.
> 
> Also, many of the haters will go out of their way to interject their subjective opinions in threads where they are doing so, for no other reason than to show their contempt.
> 
> For example, there was a thread a few years ago, where a relatively new member created a thread with recommendations for people's favorite 12 tone pieces. He specifically stated that he was new to 12 tone music, and would like to explore it more. He wasn't asking for opinions on 12 tone music.
> 
> The example above is not an exception, but the rule here on TC. That is why us fans of modernism and contemporary classical feel the need to defend it so often.
> 
> There have been people that have stated that they wish contemporary and modernism didn't even exist. As if they are somehow forced to listen to it. Yeah, "I wish my local grocery store would stop playing Carter's "Concert of Orchestra" so often while I shop".


Well then isn't most of what you just posted an opinion stated as absolute fact? And I've seen anyone with anything critical to say about modern music described as a "hater". I haven't seen much real "hate" for modern music here, mostly indifference or maybe some slight bemusement. I may not be the biggest modern music fan but I certainly don't hate it. I find a lot of it fascinating.

Also I've seen various music by Bach, Mozart and Beethoven held up to derision. So what? They can take it.


----------



## Simon Moon

dissident said:


> Well then isn't most of what you just posted an opinion stated as absolute fact? And I've seen anyone with anything critical to say about modern music described as a "hater". I haven't seen much real "hate" for modern music here, mostly indifference or maybe some slight bemusement. I may not be the biggest modern music fan but I certainly don't hate it. I find a lot of it fascinating.


But I actually referenced a thread as an example. If I cared enough, I could find more.

I have never interjected a comment in a thread about, say, wanting an opinion on a Mozart piece, where I said something such as, "who cares, all Mozart's music bores me". But that kind of thing happens fairly often on threads about modernism.

And yes, maybe I should have used a different word than 'hater'. But I was using it in a colloquial way, not really being literal.



> Also I've seen various music by Bach, Mozart and Beethoven held up to derision. So what? They can take it.


First of all, those composers being held up to derision, are always by other CM fans that like common practice, they just don't like particular composers within the common practice eras.

With modernism and contemporary classical music, the derision, by those that are not fans, is usually to write off the entire scope of these musical forms. These comments by the non fans are not, say, being derisive of Luciano Berio, but praising Carter or Penderecki, they are being derisive of it all.

So, your point is a bit of apples to oranges...


----------



## 59540

> I have never interjected a comment in a thread about, say, wanting an opinion on a Mozart piece, where I said something such as, "who cares, all Mozart's music bores me". But that kind of thing happens fairly often on threads about modernism.


You may not have, but it happens. Are Mozart fans supposed to sob "leave Wolfie alone, haters!!!!"?


----------



## fbjim

This is a board with multiple incidences of toxicity and trolling getting bad enough to drive modern music fans off entirely. It is by far the classical music board with the largest track record of that kind of behavior, and this has only recently started to improve.

In other words this is by far the weirdest board to suggest that there are too many modern classical fans on. It's basically "live and let live" everywhere else I've seen.


E) like once again to avoid this becoming a complaint thread-it really has gotten much better, back from the days where people were basically taking victory laps of inflammatory posts and polls after a ton of members left. But it's still a weird board to accuse of being excessively pro-modern.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> This is a board with multiple incidences of toxicity and trolling getting bad enough to drive modern music fans off entirely. It is by far the classical music board with the largest track record of that kind of behavior, and this has only recently started to improve.
> 
> In other words this is by far the weirdest board to suggest that there are too many modern classical fans on. It's basically "live and let live" everywhere else I've seen.
> 
> E) like once again to avoid this becoming a complaint thread-it really has gotten much better, back from the days where people were basically taking victory laps of inflammatory posts and polls after a ton of members left. But it's still a weird board to accuse of being excessively pro-modern.


That's kind of a red herring. I was complaining about the defensiveness of some modern music fans. I never said the board is excessively "pro modern".


----------



## SanAntone

Usually a person gets defensive when they are under attack.


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> Usually a person gets defensive when they are under attack.


But if I'm attacking *you*, that's one thing. If I'm attacking music or a composer that you like, that's another.


----------



## fbjim

Historically, a lot of the attacks were on ideological grounds, which is personal since nobody likes to be told they have directly supported the decline of all that is great in Western Civilization- or accusing listeners of anything newer than Bartok of bad faith, and basically calling them liars. 

Or accusing the composers of bad faith, which isn't calling listeners liars, but is calling them dupes and marks. 

Or simply arguing against the music's right to exist in the same room as Beethoven or Mahler or Bach. I recall a long argument where someone repeatedly argued that programming Webern with something he wanted to see constituted "modernists shoving the music down my throat" or something.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Neo Romanza said:


> If your quest is to be vicious and rude to people, then perhaps there's a reason they interjected themselves into a conversation. I've been rude to a few people, but looking back on it, I've regretted it. I shouldn't take things so personally, but if you personally attack someone, then the mods have a right to send you to timeout.


I haven't been rude to anyone. The issue is that the intense moderation inhibits the natural flow of conservation / connections to tangential topics. If it isn't "I like it" or "I don't like it", the mods don't like it.

Personally I have no problem with people getting political discussing music. Sure, threads get derailed. But there is also much interesting discussion to be had. Music doesn't exist in a vacuum.


----------



## fbjim

This is probably more area 51 but I do agree that while discouraging explicit political debates is perfectly legitimate, all art is part of a social context that makes it difficult to separate from "politics".


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Anyway, the thing about TC that's surprised me most is the level of affinity for rankings and games. I was obsessed with that kind of thing when I was 13. Didn't think many others shared that obsession.


----------



## fbjim

At the top of Mazlow's heirarcy of needs is the need to know that Carl Maria von Weber wrote precisely the third best clarinet concerto ever.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

fbjim said:


> This is probably more area 51 but I do agree that while discouraging explicit political debates is perfectly legitimate, all art is part of a social context that makes it difficult to separate from "politics".


Shhhhh..... dangerous words, fbjim.


----------



## fbjim

I like posting here so I don't want to really complain. I've been on enough boards to know that you either ban political talk as much as possible, or else the moderators end up accused of taking political sides (which has happened multiple times here, in fact). And nobody wants that.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

fbjim said:


> At the top of Mazlow's heirarcy of needs is the need to know that Carl Maria von Weber wrote precisely the third best clarinet concerto ever.


Yeah, I wonder why. I'm a very obsessive person naturally, and so I sort of chock it up to a compulsive personality in my own case, but I've been really surprised to see here just how many people also monitor their own judgements to the Nth degree. It's not something you see nearly as often with - for instance - literature, or even visual art (even among laymen). Perhaps it is because music is so abstract, that people who lack the technical knowledge or musical intuition simply do not have the competence to make more intricate or nuanced contributions and instead resort to, uh, more prosaic explications of their judgements. But, even so, you'd think people would be more willing to discuss the specifics of their induced emotional reactions without turning it into a competition.

Of course this is a generalization. There are many members whose posts are meaty and stimulating despite being (usually) non-technical in nature. People who are willing to put themselves out there. Mandryka comes to mind.


----------



## fbjim

It's some kind of inherent behavior. Every news website knows that if you want people to click on a piece about a movie, you don't say "thoughts about this movie", you say "the ten most incredible moments in this movie" or something. There are reams of ranked lists when it comes to art.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Yeah I get more and more annoyed by it the older I get.

In a similar vein, I begin to realize just how start an individual's diminishing marginal returns of maturity (on average) are. Until they become negative, which for some seems to happen as soon as the teenage years. Oh well. I suppose it makes sense; your fluid intelligence is said to peak at a very young age.

We're creatures of habit. The world around us, less so by the day.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

fbjim said:


> It's some kind of inherent behavior. Every news website knows that if you want people to click on a piece about a movie, you don't say "thoughts about this movie", you say "the ten most incredible moments in this movie" or something. There are reams of ranked lists when it comes to art.


I don't think it's only inherent. I think it's partially cultural as well. Especially for the classics".

Many want to know the best of the best, the cream of the crop.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> Historically, a lot of the attacks were on ideological grounds, which is personal since nobody likes to be told they have directly supported the decline of all that is great in Western Civilization- or accusing listeners of anything newer than Bartok of bad faith, and basically calling them liars.


Still a big yawn, no more terrible than the occasional subtle swipe at religion/the religious.



> Or accusing the composers of bad faith, which isn't calling listeners liars, but is calling them dupes and marks.


I have it on good authority from another thread that Bach and Mozart were really only in it for the money. Same thing.


fbjim said:


> It's some kind of inherent behavior. Every news website knows that if you want people to click on a piece about a movie, you don't say "thoughts about this movie", you say "the ten most incredible moments in this movie" or something. There are reams of ranked lists when it comes to art.


Yeah, artistic hierarchies and other types of hierarchies (not so good, good, better, best) is human nature. That's why it's a little jarring to be regularly confronted with "nothing's really better than anything else, and if you disagree you're a troglodyte". Yeah, I do kinda think the Goldberg Variations are better than Beyoncé. Unapologetically.


----------



## fbjim

Bad faith accusations weren't saying an artist had a lack of pure artistic intention, which is impossible to really define when art is a profession. It was a statement that large fields of music *generally* constituted some sort of conspiracy or con to fool people (usually implied to be an NEA grant or something) into making them rich, and that there were in fact no creative impulses behind the work whatsoever. 

This is not the kind of thing that lends itself to simple acknowledgement of differing tastes.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> Bad faith accusations weren't saying an artist had a lack of pure artistic intention, which is impossible to really define when art is a profession. It was a statement that large fields of music *generally* constituted some sort of conspiracy or con to fool people (usually implied to be an NEA grant or something) into making them rich, and that there were in fact no creative impulses behind the work whatsoever.
> 
> This is not the kind of thing that lends itself to simple acknowledgement of differing tastes.


If you think it's bullhockey, why does it bother you so much? Don't you have confidence in the music?


----------



## fbjim

dissident said:


> If you think it's bullhockey, why does it bother you so much? Don't you have confidence in the music?


What bothered me is that on a message board which is purportedly about listening to music and evaluating it on aesthetic grounds, this sort of thinking involved explicit disengagement from the work, on the grounds that it didn't count as art for ideological and political reasons.

This is besides the fact that statements about conspiracies of evil artists and "academics" being in league against good honest people can rapidly go to very ugly places.

I can get over it. A lot of members found defending the right of music they liked to exist (never mind discussions on artistic or aesthetic merit) to be exhausting and left. Some of the worst offenders (and there really were not many, it does not take many bad posters to spoil things for everyone else) were banned, and there's now more discussion on modern music than there was about a year ago.


----------



## EnescuCvartet

fbjim said:


> At the top of Mazlow's heirarcy of needs is the need to know that Carl Maria von Weber wrote precisely the third best clarinet concerto ever.


To which of Weber's clarinet concertos are you referring?


----------



## fbjim

I like the first one. They're both great, though, I have the Martin Frost disc of them.


----------



## fbjim

Crossover from the "50 years" thread: I'm surprised that lots of yall are a lot older than I had assumed!


----------



## Chilham

fbjim said:


> Crossover from the "50 years" thread: I'm surprised that lots of yall are a lot older than I had assumed!


Get off my lawn!


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> What bothered me is that on a message board which is purportedly about listening to music and evaluating it on aesthetic grounds, this sort of thinking involved explicit disengagement from the work, on the grounds that it didn't count as art for ideological and political reasons.
> 
> This is besides the fact that statements about conspiracies of evil artists and "academics" being in league against good honest people can rapidly go to very ugly places.
> 
> ...


You mean some people didn't like it? Maybe their aesthetic sensibilities aren't as politicized as yours. You start off with the assumption that everything is political, which is more of a politics-as-religion thing. Maybe to some people not every facet of existence is political.


----------



## SanAntone

dissident said:


> why it's a little jarring to be regularly confronted with "nothing's really better than anything else, and if you disagree you're a troglodyte". Yeah, I do kinda think the Goldberg Variations are better than Beyoncé. Unapologetically.


I think you are missing the point. "Yeah, I do kinda think the Goldberg Variations are better than Beyoncé." Great. You do you realize that someone else might feel just the opposite, don't you?


----------



## Kreisler jr

dissident said:


> You mean some people didn't like it? Maybe their aesthetic sensibilities aren't as politicized as yours. You start off with the assumption that everything is political, which is more of a politics-as-religion thing. Maybe to some people not every facet of existence is political.


This is actually worse than most religions because many religions recognize domains that are neutral wrt faith (adiaphora) or maxims like "render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar" etc.


----------



## fbjim

dissident said:


> You mean some people didn't like it? Maybe their aesthetic sensibilities aren't as politicized as yours. You start off with the assumption that everything is political, which is more of a politics-as-religion thing. Maybe to some people not every facet of existence is political.


no, it got pretty explicitly political lol. edit) I'm going to delete the example because politics rule but it was not exactly subtext, and it was extremely not a simple expression of aesthetic tastes.

edit2) I don't know if I was ambiguous but when I say "disliked for ideological or political reasons", that's not an accusation, I mean that some of the worst offenders explicitly politicized their own dislike for certain genres of music. I don't mean "you don't like this because politics".


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> no, it got pretty explicitly political lol. edit) I'm going to delete the example because politics rule but it was not exactly subtext, and it was extremely not a simple expression of aesthetic tastes.
> 
> edit2) I don't know if I was ambiguous but when I say "disliked for ideological or political reasons", that's not an accusation, I mean that some of the worst offenders explicitly politicized their own dislike for certain genres of music. I don't mean "you don't like this because politics".


But at the same time there is one commenter who posts lengthy extracts from critical theory that are thoroughly political. When that is introduced then the discussion is going to get political. I don't look at everything through a political lens. A criticism I have of this forum is that if you try to disagree with a critical theory stance, then *you* are the one bringing politics into it from the moderation viewpoint. Ain't necessarily so


----------



## Bulldog

I'm usually surprised at how quickly a thread can be derailed by folks who don't seem to know they are doing it.


----------



## Portamento

dissident said:


> But at the same time there is one commenter who posts lengthy extracts from critical theory that are thoroughly political. When that is introduced then the discussion is going to get political. I don't look at everything through a political lens. A criticism I have of this forum is that if you try to disagree with a critical theory stance, then *you* are the one bringing politics into it from the moderation viewpoint. Ain't necessarily so


The question of who first brings politics into a discussion is oftentimes tricky and ultimately pointless. Is it the person who declares that "classical music is superior to rap" or a subsequent poster who highlights the (undeniable, IMO) political overtones of that statement?


----------



## fbjim

Portamento said:


> The question of who first brings politics into a discussion is oftentimes tricky and ultimately pointless. Is it the person who declares that "classical music is superior to rap" or a subsequent poster who highlights the (undeniable, IMO) political overtones of that statement?


well, it's a bit easier when one of the parties posts a PragerU video, which happened about a hundred times in the past few years.

e) there's always going to be some ideological overtones when making strong statements on art, but prior to the politics ban, it was frequently explicit.


----------



## SanAntone

Portamento said:


> The question of who first brings politics into a discussion is oftentimes tricky and ultimately pointless. Is it the person who declares that "classical music is superior to rap" or a subsequent poster who highlights the (undeniable, IMO) political overtones of that statement?


While I strongly disagree with the statement, "classical music is superior to rap" (or any other genre) it could most likely be a statement of taste. That said, the speaker of that opinion might actually think that classical music is superior based on specific criteria. I also think that kind of thinking is specious, since it is based on comparing apples to oranges. I am a firm believer that all artistic judgments are subjective, and try not to cross swords with people on this field. I am not 100% in that effort. 

Of course it could also be evidence of covert racism (especially if the only music that is singled out as inferior is produced primarily by people of color), but that is not the first thing I think when I see that kind of comment.


----------



## fbjim

the entire subjectivity arguments (please, let's not bring those back) were depressing because it seemed nobody could actually look past the most extreme version of each other's arguments. 

we can use different frameworks of value when evaluating works in different genres- in a sense this is actually what "genre" as a concept is all about.




e) as the resident not-old guy in this forum (joking) if there's one thing I find depressing it's lamentations on the puerile tastes of youth. i'm friends with a quite a few amateur, self-taught musicians. they generally make harsh electronic music I find unlistenable, or are noise guitarists. never underestimate a young person's love to make an almighty din. I think Stockhausen would be thrilled.

(when I brought up to a few friends that I was listening more to classical music, the first thing that was said was "Oh, I love 'Black Angels'", which I think was at least a little amusing)


----------



## 59540

Portamento said:


> The question of who first brings politics into a discussion is oftentimes tricky and ultimately pointless. Is it the person who declares that "classical music is superior to rap" or a subsequent poster who highlights the (undeniable, IMO) political overtones of that statement?


What are the "political overtones" in that statement other than the ones that you superimpose on it? What about "hip hop is superior to classical"?


SanAntone said:


> Of course it could also be evidence of covert racism (especially if the only music that is singled out as inferior is produced primarily by people of color),


I honestly haven't seen that happen.


----------



## mossyembankment

Let's be honest, there are plenty of non-racist reasons to dislike rap, but there is a significant number of classical fans, and other people, who are bothered by rap and its popularity for reasons that go beyond musical/artistic reasons, and in my opinion anyone who denies that is either naive or dishonest.


----------



## SanAntone

dissident said:


> What about "hip hop is superior to classical"?


Fans of rap probably can tell you better than I, but they also might not like classical music for the very reasons that you like it.



> I honestly haven't seen that happen.


That is the covert part.


----------



## fbjim

Generally assuming good faith is part of being tactful. That said I find cross genre comparisons inherently silly.


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> Fans of rap probably can tell you better than I, but they also might not like classical music for the very reasons that you like it.


What would you think those reasons would be?


> That is the covert part.


No, I mean I've never come across anyone who singles out non-white music to dislike.


mossyembankment said:


> Let's be honest, there are plenty of non-racist reasons to dislike rap, but there is a significant number of classical fans, and other people, who are bothered by rap and its popularity for reasons that go beyond musical/artistic reasons, and in my opinion anyone who denies that is either naive or dishonest.


How do you know?


----------



## mossyembankment

dissident said:


> How do you know?


I live in the world.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> Generally assuming good faith is part of being tactful. ...


Assuming good faith is always easy with those we agree with.


----------



## 59540

mossyembankment said:


> I live in the world.


So do I. Question still stands.


----------



## mossyembankment

Not going to debate you - we just disagree.


----------



## 59540

mossyembankment said:


> Not going to debate you - we just disagree.


Wise move. I was just about to ask you what a "significant number" is and how you verify it.


----------



## mossyembankment

Come now, life is way too short :tiphat:


----------



## SanAntone

> No, I mean I've never come across anyone who singles out non-white music to dislike.


I've seen it expressed that classical music is more complex/sophisticated in reference to blues, rap, African drumming, and other genres developed by non-white cultures. Or it can take a slightly more subtler form, i.e. praising aspects of jazz that exhibit a European influence while ignoring or downplaying the importance of the uniquely Black elements.

Here's a thought exercise for you:

Do you think cultures which value literacy are more developed than those cultures which value memory and an oral tradition?

Is having a written tradition, e.g. music notation, for the transmission of literature and music an indicator of sophistication?

European colonialism was absolutely racist and genocidal towards African and indigenous native populations. The philosophical basis was a mandate to bring light (civilization) into the darkness. It was incomprehensible to the European colonists that a native culture was anything other than primitive. (It is true that eventually, White society worked to end slavery, and recognized Native American rights.)

European culture also created classical music, and a whiff of that same cultural supremacy has clung to it.


----------



## HenryPenfold

SanAntone said:


> Here's a thought exercise for you:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think cultures which value literacy are more developed than those cultures which value memory and an oral tradition?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is having a written tradition, e.g. music notation, for the transmission of literature and music an indicator of sophistication?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> European colonialism was absolutely racist and genocidal towards African and indigenous native populations. The philosophical basis was a mandate to bring light (civilization) into the darkness. It was incomprehensible to the European colonists that a native culture was anything other than primitive. (It is true that eventually, White society worked to end slavery, and recognized Native American rights.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true
> 
> 
> 
> 
> European culture also created classical music, and a whiff of that same cultural supremacy has clung to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who cares?
Click to expand...


----------



## mossyembankment

HenryPenfold said:


> SanAntone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a thought exercise for you:
> 
> Yes
> 
> Yes
> 
> Not true
> 
> Who cares?
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. Time to exit this thread.
Click to expand...


----------



## fbjim

really, blanket dismissals of hip-hop and pop just makes me think people are a bit square.

in scary cases they even like the squarest music of all, prog.


----------



## HenryPenfold

mossyembankment said:


> HenryPenfold said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. Time to exit this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> Why? I answered the questions as required honestly. What's wrong with that?
Click to expand...


----------



## mossyembankment

No offense, just didn't come on here to debate whether colonialism was a racist endeavor. Not my vibe, today...


----------



## HenryPenfold

mossyembankment said:


> No offense, just didn't come on here to debate whether colonialism was a racist endeavor. Not my vibe, today...


What are you talking about?

There's no debate going on here. Just a series of questions that ask for a yes or no answer.

There were also a couple of opinions that were presented as though they were facts that I commented on. 
I certainly don't want to debate any of this, so we're on the same page, winkle. :tiphat:


----------



## fbjim

It could be two sides of the same coin but these days I see classical with an inferiority complex more than anything.

Classical music is always being killed by something. It might be profit motive, serialism, pop music, the purportedly short attention spans of children, or a decline in moral standards. Nobody is sure exactly what, but it's definitely dying. I find this kind of thing depressing. Listening to new works is more rewarding than being a Cassandra.


----------



## mmsbls

OK, this thread asked what surprised people about TC. I was hoping people would comment either on things they learned when reading posts or on other TC members views of music. Before coming to TC I did not interact with a large number of general classical music listeners. Yes, I knew some, but those I knew were a bit different from those here. For example, everyone I knew well liked a lot of composers (e.g. essentially all composers in an average top 50 list). That is not close to the case here, and apparently not the case for general classical music listeners. That was interesting to me. I learned something about classical music listeners.

Many of the recent posts have nothing to do with surprise about TC and some don't even talk about classical music. What are people talking about? Why are people making these comments on a TC thread that specifically asked about what surprised them about TC? In general I have no problem with thread diversion, but usually it's to related topics.

Anyway, I'd be happy if people could get back to _what about TC surprised them_. Thanks.


----------



## HenryPenfold

mmsbls said:


> OK, this thread asked what surprised people about TC. I was hoping people would comment either on things they learned when reading posts or on other TC members views of music. Before coming to TC I did not interact with a large number of general classical music listeners. Yes, I knew some, but those I knew were a bit different from those here. For example, everyone I knew well liked a lot of composers (e.g. essentially all composers in an average top 50 list). That is not close to the case here, and apparently not the case for general classical music listeners. That was interesting to me. I learned something about classical music listeners.
> 
> Many of the recent posts have nothing to do with surprise about TC and some don't even talk about classical music. What are people talking about? Why are people making these comments on a TC thread that specifically asked about what surprised them about TC? In general I have no problem with thread diversion, but usually it's to related topics.
> 
> Anyway, I'd be happy if people could get back to _what about TC surprised them_. Thanks.


There's always going to be a little off-topic deviation - human nature. I don't understand why you're getting exercised about it.

Perhaps just a gentle nudge for people to get back on topic is all that's required.


----------



## fbjim

As someone who only knew Gershwin and Copland as recently as five or so years ago- I was stunned at how rich and varied American classical music was. This board led me to Feldman, Crumb, Ives, Reich, Rzewski, and even Subotnik.


----------



## fbjim

Gershwin and Copland are still great though.


----------



## HenryPenfold

fbjim said:


> As someone who only knew Gershwin and Copland as recently as five or so years ago- I was stunned at how rich and varied American classical music was. This board led me to Feldman, Crumb, Ives, Reich, Rzewski, and even Subotnik.


About five years ago Subotnik did a gig in my local church.

Nice bloke - hung around after and demonstrated all his little electronic gadgets and chatted away with us. I'll try and find the photos on my phone. Very interesting evening.


----------



## hammeredklavier

One thing that surprised me about TC is there is a "limit" on how much you can discuss certain composers. Let's say there is a very famous composer A, and an obscure composer B. You can make "analogies" or suggest "examples" or "recommendations" using A and his music in various threads limitlessly (ones that don't even mention A in the title or in the OP; especially topics of less-specific, general kind, such as "Objectively Great Composers"). If you do the same with B, there will be "complaints". 
There is also a limit on how much music of B you can post there. But think of it this way; if all those "works by B" were "obscure works by A", would there have been any "complaints"? Wouldn't the "fans of A" (which vastly outnumber those of B) instead have said: _"I didn't know A could be this expressive with harmony!", "I didn't know A could be this different in style!"_


----------



## Phil loves classical

hammeredklavier said:


> But think of it this way; if all those "works by B" were "obscure works by A", would there have been any "complaints"? Wouldn't the "fans of A" (which vastly outnumber those of B) instead have said: _"I didn't know A could be this expressive with harmony!", "I didn't know A could be this different in style!"_


We keep meeting up around the same time in the morning. You in the same time zone as me?

I don't see any complaints. The complaints are more on "famous composer A is nothing like obscure composer B in this and this. There is nothing that elevates A over B. It all stems from higher exposure. Anyone who is familiar with both should acknowledge B's superiority over A".


----------



## Merl

One thing that has surprised me over the last few years I've been at TC is how less volatile it is these days. There's still rows and the odd flame-war on a random thread but compared to the often hostile warzone that existed predominantly in the first year I was here, these days its more like a teddy bear's picnic. After moderating a rock forum for many years I did expect that over the years there would be more periods of hostility but this current period of relative calm has now lasted for a few years. Or do I now think of TC as a comfy pair of slippers? Lol. Time for a flounce.


----------



## JohnP

I'm glad the hostility has been toned down. Maybe that's why I observed from a distance for so long; don't remember. I've commented that the civility here is one of the things I appreciate most.

I'm surprised that I'm learning so much about music I never gave a second thought to. I must have had an inflated opinion of my own knowledge of classical music; that is changing by the day as I read enthusiastic posts about music (and recordings) I haven't heard. Many times I look them up and listen. I'm not likely to change my mind about atonal music, which I dislike intensely, but the people here who enjoy it really enjoy it--and they often give reasons for their appreciation. I respect that.


----------



## Sid James

Merl said:


> One thing that has surprised me over the last few years I've been at TC is how less volatile it is these days. There's still rows and the odd flame-war on a random thread but compared to the often hostile warzone that existed predominantly in the first year I was here, these days its more like a teddy bear's picnic. After moderating a rock forum for many years I did expect that over the years there would be more periods of hostility but this current period of relative calm has now lasted for a few years. Or do I now think of TC as a comfy pair of slippers? Lol. Time for a flounce.


I agree its better but let's not take that for granted. I'm cautiously optimistic but also fairly vigilant, given what we experienced here in the past. At one point, people where saying _if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen_. They where wrong, because the whole house was on fire, not just the kitchen.

I think that a good forum atmosphere is based upon an agreement, taken into practice, between members and moderators. We shouldn't forget that dispersed though we may be, as a collective group we members make a huge impact on forum culture. Its not only the rules here that guide us, its also common sense. This is clear to me now although it wasn't so obvious in the past.


----------



## Portamento

not worth it...


----------



## Phil loves classical

30,000 post count deleted overnight for former posting champ Rogerx. Wonder what happened. Saving server space?


----------



## mikeh375

Phil loves classical said:


> 30,000 post count deleted overnight for former posting champ Rogerx. Wonder what happened. Saving server space?


wow................


----------



## Art Rock

The ever popular Currently Listening thread. Especially since most posts are just a cover and info.

A thread to wish dead composers (or performers) a happy birthday. I find the whole idea surreal, but I'm sure that's just me. 

:tiphat:


----------



## Bulldog

Phil loves classical said:


> 30,000 post count deleted overnight for former posting champ Rogerx. Wonder what happened. Saving server space?


Rogerx is now below me in post count. That won't last long; he/she can spit out postings at a supersonic pace. Then again, maybe I'm next on the chopping block. :lol:


----------



## Dan Ante

Quality over quantity any day


----------



## strawa

The number of people who listen to Villa-Lobos.


----------



## wkasimer

Art Rock said:


> A thread to wish dead composers (or performers) a happy birthday. I find the whole idea surreal, but I'm sure that's just me.


I find those posting useful - often a reminder about a performer or composer I've recently neglected, and it helps me to decide what I'm going to listen to on a given day.


----------



## fbjim

The weirdest thing is like, when a label decides to use a death anniversary as a big event. Isn't that kind of morbid?


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

*What has surprised you the most on TC?*

The strict restrictions on "speech".


----------



## mmsbls

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> *What has surprised you the most on TC?*
> 
> The strict restrictions on "speech".


What would you prefer to see?


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

mmsbls said:


> What would you prefer to see?


Less restrictions on speech. Not acting so quickly to close threads.

Its seems to me if one or two start crying they can easily get things closed down.


----------



## Celloman

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> Its seems to me if one or two start crying they can easily get things closed down.


*Celloman bursts into tears*


----------



## Barbebleu

Phil loves classical said:


> 30,000 post count deleted overnight for former posting champ Rogerx. Wonder what happened. Saving server space?


He will be back probably with the obligatory name change?:lol:


----------



## Enthusiast

Seeing the occasional veering towards the political in this thread came to mind when I read today's UK news. It seems that a judge trying a case of a young man, apparently a would be terrorist, who had downloaded huge amounts of white supremacist literature and instructions on bomb-making. The judge spared him prison on condition that he undertook to read literature - Hardy, Shakespeare, Dickens etc. The plan is that he will visit court every four months to be tested on his reading. I assume the judge believes that this reading will make him a better human being. I am not sure that great art can have that effect but I guess it won't do any harm. I wish he had required him to listen to Mozart, Beethoven and Boulez as well.


----------



## FrankinUsa

I’ve been reading talk classical for quite a while. I found it informative and interesting. I finally joined to be able to make coffee. My first comments were in a thread concerning a particular classical music critic. I will admit that I may have posted one comment that crossed the line. I did speak to the moderators and they were kind enough to not block me. I reread all the rules and decided to post any further comments that would stay well within the rules. I will say this. Certain threads become argumentative. I am not sure if that is the right word but be it as it may. In one of these “argumentative “ threads one person described it as “rams butting heads.” There are some threads that I would say fall into this description. There are usually hundreds of posts and most are repetitive and just start becoming tedious to read all the comments. In that same thread that I referred to above,one comment was “last man standing.” To me,this implies that,at least this one person,that they will continue to post not with the intent to add some informed comment but simply to outlast anyone who posts contrary to his opinion. After my “cross the line” comment I have become hesitant about posting comments. The only comments I have made have been in threads that I consider to be neutral. I definitely not post comments in threads that I consider exhibiting the “rams butting heads” dynamic. Beyond that,on practical terms,I am finds difficult to navigate the site because of the sheer number of threads. I will certainly say that the wide range of threads can be informative and shows that this group here on Talkclassical are very interested and motivated discussing classical music. One particular issue. I try to keep abreast of new comments but when I hit the “What’s new” option it does not seem to post all the new comments across all threads so that I can pick and choose which thread I would like to read new comments. For example,I just posted a comment in a thread concerning streaming services. I went back to “what’s new” and my new comment in that thread did not appear. Maybe it takes time for new comments in threads to be processed. I had to look into the search option,enter key words and then it did bring me to the thread and I saw my comment. I will like to end this comment that I still feel very positive about this site and I may need to get more experience or practice maneuvering the site. Thank you.


----------



## Art Rock

FrankinUsa said:


> One particular issue. I try to keep abreast of new comments but when I hit the "What's new" option it does not seem to post all the new comments across all threads so that I can pick and choose which thread I would like to read new comments. For example,I just posted a comment in a thread concerning streaming services. I went back to "what's new" and my new comment in that thread did not appear. Maybe it takes time for new comments in threads to be processed. I had to look into the search option,enter key words and then it did bring me to the thread and I saw my comment. .


The "What's new" lists those posts you have not looked at yet - your own posts by definition do not show up there. If you're looking for a post you made recently, the simplest is to access your profile (top right corner) and click "find latest posts" in the left column.


----------



## SanAntone

*What has surprised you the most on TC?*

The number of threads that trash contemporary music (even this one), which is somewhat related to the other surprising obsession with debating objective/subjective assessment of music/art.

I may have made this observation in this thread already.


----------



## fluteman

What surprises me here is despite the well-educated, well-informed standard that obviously applies to most members, how little interest there is in some (not all, of course), to keep an open mind and ears to music they haven't heard before, especially unfamiliar genres and styles. I never thought of myself as a contemporary music enthusiast. I'm just willing to give almost anything a try to see if there is something worthwhile about it. In particular, though trained and educated to a fair degree in traditional pre-20th century European classical music, I'm able to acknowledge and listen for other ideas, whether from non-western cultures, or contemporary composers. Maybe it's because I have this background I understand the assumptions and premises underlying traditional western music well enough to realize they aren't inevitable and required for music to be worthwhile, and certainly not for music to be understandable.

Then there are the brigades, usually led by a few alpha posters supported by their flock of faithful followers, assuring each other of the inherent objective superiority of whatever niche they favor. Often they have impressively deep knowledge of this niche, and often I agree it includes some great music. But the dogmatic narrowmindedness with which they celebrate and promote their niche spoils the party and makes their comments less useful. That's why I so much appreciate the comments of SanAntone, for example. His musical tastes and mine are far from identical, but he too is willing to keep and open mind and listen to a broad variety of music. No amount of browbeating is going to intimidate him into accepting a narrower approach.

In that regard, I was surprised at the banning of a certain famous poster here, who admittedly had the irritating habit of making the same or similar points hundreds if not thousands of times. (Of course, one had the option of ignoring his posts, with or without the "ignore" function.) He had the delightful attribute of not caring one whit if anyone or everyone thought his opinions were ridiculous or outrageous. He also had a decent grasp of music theory, though perhaps a little too taken with Cartesian rationalism and obsessed with the mathematical symmetries of the equal tempered scale, the triad, and harmonic progressions based on the circle of fifths, as if that alone endowed western music with inherent supremacy. Alas, he let himself be drawn into acrimonious debate that strayed too far beyond the boundaries allowed here.

But he always was his own man, which for me, is better than parroting the received wisdom of someone else.


----------



## eljr

mmsbls said:


> What has surprised you the most on TC?


The arrogance.

(you asked )


----------



## Ethereality

fluteman said:


> What surprises me here is despite the well-educated, well-informed standard that obviously applies to most members, how little interest there is in some (not all, of course), to keep an open mind and ears to music they haven't heard before, especially unfamiliar genres and styles.


Open-mindedness is kind of overrated on this forum I think. What people really lack are better resources to find the music they really love. In fact this is why this place gets kind of samey after a while, there aren't the proper forums set up for people to express group favor, like the starting niche forums I identified here, nor the backbone to (like you say) move to an entirely different listening vision because it's pleasing to one's soul. 'Niche' is identified as favoritism ÷ popularity, in other words, forums shouldn't emphasize what's popular, they should identify what most effectively suits a different discussion or fanbase, explained here. Thus forums won't be effective to growth if they focus on what's popular, this is why Classical/Baroque should definitely just be one forum. They're too closely connected to waste other forum space.


----------



## fluteman

Ethereality said:


> Open-mindedness is kind of overrated on this forum I think. What people really lack are better resources to find the music they really love. In fact this is why this place gets kind of samey after a while, there aren't the proper forums set up for people to express group favor, like the starting niche forums I identified here, nor the backbone to (like you say) move to an entirely different listening vision because it's pleasing to one's soul. 'Niche' is identified as favoritism ÷ popularity, in other words, forums shouldn't emphasize what's popular, they should identify what most effectively suits a different discussion or fanbase, explained here. Thus forums won't be effective to growth if they focus on what's popular, this is why Classical/Baroque should definitely just be one forum. They're too closely connected to waste other forum space.


With respect, I think it impossible to overrate open mindedness. The resources to learn more about various kinds of music can always be found if one is willing to put in the effort. And what I would ask about forums is, are they just an opportunity for those with a niche interest to reassure each other of the validity of their tastes, or do they give anyone interested, including newcomers, the chance to learn more? Some seem to want a comfortable little club where no one questions basic premises or raises new ideas. That's not interesting to me, no matter how much I share the niche interest.


----------



## eljr

fluteman said:


> they just an opportunity for those with a niche interest to reassure each other of the validity of their tastes, or do they give anyone interested, including newcomers, the chance to learn more? .


It is not an either or. They can do both. The benefit is only to the open minded.

The open minded must then journey from forum to forum to learn from every group of self reassuring posters is all. 

We can't expect those looking to validate their tastes to change who they are to accommod the more progressive.


----------



## SanAntone

I prefer the word "curiosity" instead of "open-minded." For me, curiosity is the most important trait for discovery of music. 

That said, there is nothing wrong with people having spent considerable time finding the composers and recordings they enjoy being happy to listen to their collection and only occasionally add something to it if a new recording is of interest to them.


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> *What has surprised you the most on TC?*
> 
> The number of threads that trash contemporary music (even this one), which is somewhat related to the other surprising obsession with debating objective/subjective assessment of music/art.
> 
> I may have made this observation in this thread already.


The number of threads trashing contemporary music are about what you'd expect on a public forum of any kind. They're outnumbered by the number of threads praising or at least taking a favorable view of such music.


----------



## fluteman

SanAntone said:


> I prefer the word "curiosity" instead of "open-minded." For me, curiosity is the most important trait for discovery of music.
> 
> That said, there is nothing wrong with people having spent considerable time finding the composers and recordings they enjoy being happy to listen to their collection and only occasionally add something to it if a new recording is of interest to them.


That's completely sensible. In fact, it's probably a decent description of me. For example, the whole wide world of contemporary popular music is something I rarely listen to, but if something catches my ear as worthwhile, I'll investigate. A couple of years ago, I happened to hear a current hit song on my car radio that I happened to think was a cut above what one typically hears. I looked into who it was, and learned it was a British singer/songwriter named Ed Sheeran, an amiable young fellow sells zillions of records worldwide and fills Wembley Stadium (capacity 100,000+) as he stands onstage alone and sings while strumming an acoustic guitar.

Now, I'm not interested in an endless discussion about how inferior Mr. Sheeran's work is to Beethoven's 9th. Nobody else here need be interested in him. My point is, I was "curious" enough to learn about him, and I'm glad I was. I seldom find anything in today's 'hit parade' that interests me, but even there I'm willing to listen, and glad when I do find something worthwhile.


----------



## 1846

I've only been here two days. I'm still exploring and trying to decide if there's a place for me here or not. But I have been very surprised by the age of some of the threads, for example, a thread discussing the merits of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony that has been going for ten years. (Yeah, I did notice that the thread sat dormant for several years in the middle of its life before being revived, but still, that's a long time.) There are many very old threads, which is definitely surprising, and I don't plan to explore very many of them in depth.

I can see that I'm clearly in the minority in my love of contemporary classical music - I can live with that, that's no surprise, I'm often frustrated by classical music lovers who don't like contemporary masterpieces.

I have also noticed a general civility here that is refreshing and surprising. The classical music trolls on YouTube, for example, are often worse than political trolls, so congratulations to you for keeping things pleasant.

Those are some of the things that have surprised me after being here two days.


----------



## eljr

fluteman said:


> That's completely sensible. In fact, it's probably a decent description of me. For example, the whole wide world of contemporary popular music is something I rarely listen to, but if something catches my ear as worthwhile, I'll investigate. A couple of years ago, I happened to hear a current hit song on my car radio that I happened to think was a cut above what one typically hears. I looked into who it was, and learned it was a British singer/songwriter named Ed Sheeran, an amiable young fellow sells zillions of records worldwide and fills Wembley Stadium (capacity 100,000+) as he stands onstage alone and sings while strumming an acoustic guitar.
> 
> Now, I'm not interested in an endless discussion about how inferior Mr. Sheeran's work is to Beethoven's 9th. Nobody else here need be interested in him. My point is, I was "curious" enough to learn about him, and I'm glad I was. I seldom find anything in today's 'hit parade' that interests me, but even there I'm willing to listen, and glad when I do find something worthwhile.


I have heard Paul McCartney praise him ceaselessly.

I just can't enjoy his stuff. I have tried and tried figuring I must be missing something.


----------



## FrankinUsa

1846 said:


> I've only been here two days. I'm still exploring and trying to decide if there's a place for me here or not. But I have been very surprised by the age of some of the threads, for example, a thread discussing the merits of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony that has been going for ten years. (Yeah, I did notice that the thread sat dormant for several years in the middle of its life before being revived, but still, that's a long time.) There are many very old threads, which is definitely surprising, and I don't plan to explore very many of them in depth.
> 
> I can see that I'm clearly in the minority in my love of contemporary classical music - I can live with that, that's no surprise, I'm often frustrated by classical music lovers who don't like contemporary masterpieces.
> 
> I have also noticed a general civility here that is refreshing and surprising. The classical music trolls on YouTube, for example, are often worse than political trolls, so congratulations to you for keeping things pleasant.
> 
> Those are some of the things that have surprised me after being here two days.


Good points. Welcome to Talkclassical. I'm somewhat of a newbie my self and navigating the site seems to be on a learning curve for me. I've posted particular questions and moderators have answered and helped. I do find the sheer number of threads daunting and I wish there was some type of algorithms that grouped similar threads under one sub-group. For example,I am seeing couple of active threads about Bruckner but they are kept separate. It seems each thread exists on its own. Recently one of the moderators combined two threads(about streaming services). But to be constantly manually doing that would be a Herculean task. As I said before I wish there was an "automatic" way of grouping simply threads but I am a techno-Neanderthal and have no idea. So I just scroll around,see a thread title that I'm interested in and jump in. A lot of good info here and it would be certainly very difficult to find another internet place that has the quality and quantity of information


----------



## fluteman

eljr said:


> I have heard Paul McCartney praise him ceaselessly.
> 
> I just can't enjoy his stuff. I have tried and tried figuring I must be missing something.


Why the frown emoji? Who says you're missing anything? Who says you have to agree with Paul McCartney? He just doesn't do it for you, and that's OK.


----------



## elgar's ghost

eljr said:


> I just can't enjoy his stuff. _I have tried and tried figuring I must be missing something_.


No, you haven't missed a thing - Sheeran's music is irredeemably dull and unoriginal, like David Gray's before him.


----------



## Malx

elgars ghost said:


> No, you haven't missed a thing - Sheeran's music is irredeemably dull and unoriginal, like David Gray's before him.


The musical equivalent of comfort eating.


----------



## fluteman

Malx said:


> The musical equivalent of comfort eating.


Yours and eljr's reaction is exactly what I expected to see if I mentioned Ed Sheeran here. And it's not only unsurprising, it's reasonable. Although Sheeran is innovative (imo) in his use of single voice and acoustic guitar in this electronic age, he has found ways to imitate some of the characteristics of the more heavily-processed material that is the norm in today's mainstream pop despite being so minimally equipped. Nearly any classical music enthusiast, even contemporary enthusiasts other than perhaps a devoted Glass and Reilly minimalist, might well be unimpressed.

My intent was not to provoke a string of negative reactions towards establishing a TC consensus that Sheeran's music is a bore. To me, that itself is a bore. Instead, tell me about some contemporary pop music you find interesting, despite not having much interest in contemporary pop music generally.



eljr said:


> It is not an either or. They can do both. The benefit is only to the open minded.
> 
> The open minded must then journey from forum to forum to learn from every group of self reassuring posters is all.
> 
> We can't expect those looking to validate their tastes to change who they are to accommod the more progressive.


Maybe for each type of classical music we need a "lone wolf" forum for those who are secure enough to trust their own reactions to music, and a "sheep" forum for those who need to think what most others think. :lol:


----------



## Malx

I'm pleased that you get enjoyment from Sheeran's music after all as I have said often on various threads imo music should always be about finding pleasure in your listening, nothing more complicated.

I will accept that I never really got into 'pop' ie chart music, at any stage in my listening life after the age of about 12 (end of the sixties). I found even back then that a lot of what was produced was formulaic and catered for an audience that expected something predictable.

Getting back to my comment about Ed Sheeran's work, which I will confess to not knowing intimately but I have been aware of it as it has had great general exposure on radio, tv, etc, I haven't heard anything that makes him sound groundbreaking, revolutionary or in any way special imo. He is a singer songwriter of his time, thats fine, but it is easy listening to my mind which I regard as the equivalent of comfort eating. 

Just before I posted this I went to Spotify and listened to his 2021 track 'Bad Habits' to see if my thoughts were outdated and I found a track that was backed by what sounded to me like a drum machine with a beat and style that could have been any one of a number acts.

Each to their own when taste comes into play but I stand by my opinion and our right to differ.

FWIW - I have lined up King Crimson's - Radical Action To Unseat The Hold of Monkey Mind live CD for tonights listening that may show you one of my preferred non classical music choices.

Regards, Malx.


----------



## SanAntone

fluteman said:


> Although Sheeran is innovative (imo) in his use of single voice and acoustic guitar :


That is my favorite way to hear songs performed. That said, I am not a fan of Sheeran despite his guitar-vocal recordings.

De gustibus non disputandum est.


----------



## PuerAzaelis

As a TC newb I am not afraid of debate or disagreements, it keeps things interesting and it is inevitable especially when intelligent people are involved. Otherwise things devolve into an echo chamber.

I personally do not understand an awful loft of post-modern art and music but I have found some I do love. In the visual arts, I love Rothko, for example, and in music I do like some of the early Schoenberg.


----------



## HenryPenfold

elgars ghost said:


> No, you haven't missed a thing - Sheeran's music is irredeemably dull and unoriginal, like David Gray's before him.


I quite enjoy listening to 'Plus' now and again, and I think Ed Sheeran is very talented. But as you indicate, his music is highly derivative.

There was no need to mention David Gray, the least said about him the better.


----------



## fluteman

Malx said:


> I'm pleased that you get enjoyment from Sheeran's music after all as I have said often on various threads imo music should always be about finding pleasure in your listening, nothing more complicated.
> 
> I will accept that I never really got into 'pop' ie chart music, at any stage in my listening life after the age of about 12 (end of the sixties). I found even back then that a lot of what was produced was formulaic and catered for an audience that expected something predictable.
> 
> Getting back to my comment about Ed Sheeran's work, which I will confess to not knowing intimately but I have been aware of it as it has had great general exposure on radio, tv, etc, I haven't heard anything that makes him sound groundbreaking, revolutionary or in any way special imo. He is a singer songwriter of his time, thats fine, but it is easy listening to my mind which I regard as the equivalent of comfort eating.
> 
> Just before I posted this I went to Spotify and listened to his 2021 track 'Bad Habits' to see if my thoughts were outdated and I found a track that was backed by what sounded to me like a drum machine with a beat and style that could have been any one of a number acts.
> 
> Each to their own when taste comes into play but I stand by my opinion and our right to differ.
> 
> FWIW - I have lined up King Crimson's - Radical Action To Unseat The Hold of Monkey Mind live CD for tonights listening that may show you one of my preferred non classical music choices.
> 
> Regards, Malx.


King Crimson, The Red Hot Chili Peppers, Frank Zappa and the Mothers of Invention, and Robert Fripp (as soloist) all were among the favorites of a good friend of mine way back in my student days. I used to introduce him to classical music, and he would introduce me to his favorites, especially these. But that was many, long years ago. When I brought up the subject of current pop music, I very much did not have things like that in mind.

But, thumbs up, if it's important to say that. I also like the Beatles, Cream, The Greatful Dead, Hendrix, and the early Allman Brothers Band (before Duane's death). Before that, Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly and Ray Charles. Before that, Nat Cole, Edith Piaf, the Four Freshmen, Miles Davis and John Coltrane. Before that, the great blues guitarists, Duke Ellington and Billy Strayhorn, Ella Fitzgerald and Billie Holliday. Before that, the Gershwins, Jerome Kern, and Rodgers and Hammerstein. Before that, Gilbert & Sullivan operettas, nearly all of which I have seen live.

Before that, well, a series of still bright but lesser lights in the American popular music tradition until you reach Stephen Foster.


----------



## FrankinUsa

Lol….looks like we have gone into a Sheeran segue. I’m still curious about what all the other Talkclassical peeps think about the OT.


----------



## fluteman

FrankinUsa said:


> Lol….looks like we have gone into a Sheeran segue. I'm still curious about what all the other Talkclassical peeps think about the OT.


My fault, sorry. But it did illustrate the need to join the crowd and be part of an internet consensus that I was talking about.


----------



## mmsbls

I do wonder how much desire for consensus, following the hype, or echo chamber posting there is on TC. I've always felt that many people post views that most certainly do not simply follow the crowd. Even with top composers, while Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart might be considered TC's top 3, there are significant differences in works that people tout and stated areas of their expertise. I honestly feel there is more a desire to appear different than a desire to follow. There was a whole thread on unpopular opinions, but we often see such posts in many other threads as well.


----------



## tdc

mmsbls said:


> I do wonder how much desire for consensus, following the hype, or echo chamber posting there is on TC. I've always felt that many people post views that most certainly do not simply follow the crowd. Even with top composers, while Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart might be considered TC's top 3, there are significant differences in works that people tout and stated areas of their expertise. I honestly feel there is more a desire to appear different than a desire to follow. There was a whole thread on unpopular opinions, but we often see such posts in many other threads as well.


Your hypothesis seems to be that people form their opinions about music either out of a desire to follow other people, or a desire to appear different from other people. I think what you suggest does occur at times (mostly among adolescents). I'm not sure I understand your position clearly. Do you think that all of the ideas and opinions about music discussed on TC are merely posturing to appear this or that way? None of it being based on our genuine feelings or thoughts about music?


----------



## fluteman

mmsbls said:


> I do wonder how much desire for consensus, following the hype, or echo chamber posting there is on TC. I've always felt that many people post views that most certainly do not simply follow the crowd. Even with top composers, while Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart might be considered TC's top 3, there are significant differences in works that people tout and stated areas of their expertise. I honestly feel there is more a desire to appear different than a desire to follow. There was a whole thread on unpopular opinions, but we often see such posts in many other threads as well.


One would think so. After all, a more than passing interest in classical music alone should indicate a willingness to swim against the tide, so to speak. Instead, we have The Talk Classical Community's Favorite and Most Highly Recommended Works, an elaborate pyramid where Beethoven's 9th sits at the top in solitary splendor in tier 1, to tier 126, with a long and impressive list. This, and many other things here, is indicative of two consistent agendas at TC: A desire to rank musical works by relative merit, and a desire to establish a general consensus, whether of "The Talk Classical Community" or any willing subset thereof.

While such things are of interest, or at least entertainment value to some, to me both are minimal. I didn't find classical music in the first place by paying attention to overall favorites or the recommendations of a community. I'm interested in the opinions of others who have also found their own way, the more unusual or against the norm, the better. Fortunately, there are some of those here, who can take a little abuse in good humor and not fight back and get themselves banned.


----------



## Ethereality

Unfortunately the damage has been done when compared to this place 10 year ago, we need those niche forums ie. separate kingdoms where each can go in/out as they please and feel welcome. Down with the Classical deep state, this is art were talking about.

Some big niche names have been calculated (in my last post) such as Messiaen, Weinberg, Mahler, Wagner, Wolf, Mozart, we just look at the main styles and composers fans of these also put alongside in their subjectivist lists, to create the most enlightened definitions for separate forums. They will certianly overlap some.


----------



## mmsbls

tdc said:


> Your hypothesis seems to be that people form their opinions about music either out of a desire to follow other people, or a desire to appear different from other people. I think what you suggest does occur at times (mostly among adolescents). I'm not sure I understand your position clearly. Do you think that all of the ideas and opinions about music discussed on TC are merely posturing to appear this or that way? None of it being based on our genuine feelings or thoughts about music?


I wasn't as clear as I wished. People on TC have often posted how many TC members follow the pack and mostly want consensus. Some might, but I think many here do not follow the pack and do have their own ideas. I think very few are merely posturing, and I think the vast majority base their views on genuine feelings about music.


----------



## mmsbls

fluteman said:


> One would think so. After all, a more than passing interest in classical music alone should indicate a willingness to swim against the tide, so to speak. Instead, we have The Talk Classical Community's Favorite and Most Highly Recommended Works, an elaborate pyramid where Beethoven's 9th sits at the top in solitary splendor in tier 1, to tier 126, with a long and impressive list. This, and many other things here, is indicative of two consistent agendas at TC: A desire to rank musical works by relative merit, and a desire to establish a general consensus, whether of "The Talk Classical Community" or any willing subset thereof.
> 
> While such things are of interest, or at least entertainment value to some, to me both are minimal. I didn't find classical music in the first place by paying attention to overall favorites or the recommendations of a community. I'm interested in the opinions of others who have also found their own way, the more unusual or against the norm, the better. Fortunately, there are some of those here, who can take a little abuse in good humor and not fight back and get themselves banned.


I've been involved with the Talk Classical Community's Favorite and Most Highly Recommended Works for 10 years or so including earlier versions. I'm a bit surprised that anyone would view that project as a way to establish consensus. The project has over 6000 works. I would guess that very few TC members have ever heard most of the new works added. How could there be a consensus on 6000 works? Its one of the most individualistic, unusual threads on the forum.

You say you didn't find classical music by paying attention to overall favorites or recommendations of a community. What works or composers did you first listen to?


----------



## Enthusiast

eljr said:


> I have heard Paul McCartney praise him ceaselessly.
> 
> I just can't enjoy his stuff. I have tried and tried figuring I must be missing something.


One thing I do quite enjoy and do respect is Sheeran's role in the film, _Yesterday_, where he has to play himself coming up as a less good song writer than Lennon and McCartney. Big of him to play that role. His music, though, bores me and I am baffled by his huge popularity.


----------



## fluteman

mmsbls said:


> I've been involved with the Talk Classical Community's Favorite and Most Highly Recommended Works for 10 years or so including earlier versions. I'm a bit surprised that anyone would view that project as a way to establish consensus. The project has over 6000 works. I would guess that very few TC members have ever heard most of the new works added. How could there be a consensus on 6000 works? Its one of the most individualistic, unusual threads on the forum.
> 
> You say you didn't find classical music by paying attention to overall favorites or recommendations of a community. What works or composers did you first listen to?


I'd told my story here, but am happy to summarize it. Perhaps someone will produce the movie version? I started out delighted with Stravinsky in Disney's Fantasia, and sitting under the music stands while my father and his colleagues played Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven and Schubert string quartets. Then came piano lessons from the wife of a well-known contemporary composer, starting with Bartok's Mikrokosmos. Then music history, theory, and eventually flute lessons, bands, orchestras and choral and chamber music groups. I would listen to my father's collection of about 1,000 classical LPs, and go to the music library, take out a stack, and listen to more. I would stay up late listening to a great 24-hour (or as close to it as FCC regulations allowed) classical music station on my little plastic clock radio. Then came college, and a rather good orchestra conducted by a prominent contemporary composer. Several of my friends from that ensemble went on to professional careers as orchestra players or conductors. I thought it ironic that at one point I was playing Schubert's Marche Militaire in my HS concert band, and a few months later in college, Stravinsky's Circus Polka, with its famous quotation of Marche Militaire.

At one point in my adult life, I took a semi-sabbatical from the flute and concentrated on singing for a few years. But I returned to the flute more consistently after my children got older and no longer needed to be entertained by me. I've done some minor professional work, but don't much enjoy that. When you're being paid, suddenly what matters is delivering the product the customer wants rather than performing music that is meaningful to you. I had a chamber music group that went around doing mostly classical hits for paying jobs, but sometimes doing some challenging contemporary music when it was up to us. We once did that at a street fair, and a listener came up to me afterwards, very enthusiastic, with all sorts of questions. I had trouble getting rid of him. Later, I learned he was a well-known TV actor.

I'm lucky to have professional as well as good amateur classical musicians among my family and friends. I'm lucky to have been able to hear famous musicians and orchestras in person. But the important thing is, I set out on my own, pre-internet, to explore the world of classical music, which is almost all I listened to around the clock from ages 12 to 21. As an adult, I had to go back to popular music new and old, that I had never heard before and that is second nature to most people, and learn it from scratch, such as classic jazz and rock, including the Beatles. Alas, I can't play any of that, though I am able to improvise. And I can sing it, of course. And over the years, I've sung in barbershop quartets, at one point taking it seriously enough to fly to competitions. But I've put that aside, as classical music is my main thing.

So as you can imagine, I'm familiar with traditional classics. I can sit at the piano or flute and play large sections of Mozart or Beethoven symphonies and concertos by ear. (I'm not boasting, I've met people who can do that a lot better than I can.) It's so funny that people accuse me of being a contemporary music warrior. I have no agenda or pre-conceptions. If music comes my way, I'll listen to it. Even schlocky and over-processed contemporary pop, sometimes I hear something at least slightly above the norm. If others don't hear it the same, fine.

So tell me what YOU like, mmsbls. Especially something you think is great but everyone else here has no interest in whatsoever. Something where you completely disagree with The Talk Classical Community. Something that isn't ranked. Something where you hear what others don't. Fortunately, some here do just that.

It would help to follow SanAntone's suggestion that "Current Listening" be open to absolutely any genre or type of music, and, sorry to say it, not to follow the suggestions of Ethereality and hammeredklavier and others, and force everyone to retreat into their comfortable little subforums, where intruders are met with disdain and even outright hostility. We are already an embattled minority. We should get along amongst ourselves.


----------



## mmsbls

fluteman said:


> I'd told my story here, but am happy to summarize it. Perhaps someone will produce the movie version? I started out delighted with Stravinsky in Disney's Fantasia, and sitting under the music stands while my father and his colleagues played Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven and Schubert string quartets. Then came piano lessons from the wife of a well-known contemporary composer, starting with Bartok's Mikrokosmos. ...


I think I misunderstood what you meant when you said "I didn't find classical music in the first place by paying attention to overall favorites or the recommendations of a community." Disney's Fantasia and Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven and Schubert string quartets seem to me exactly to be overall favorites and would fall comfortably under the recommendations of a community. I generally assume everyone starts by listening to favorites of some sort. Did you mean that you _no longer_ pay special attention to favorites and the classical music community?



fluteman said:


> So tell me what YOU like, mmsbls. Especially something you think is great but everyone else here has no interest in whatsoever. Something where you completely disagree with The Talk Classical Community. Something that isn't ranked. Something where you hear what others don't. Fortunately, some here do just that.


I'm not sure if you are talking about classical music or any music. I can't imagine that anyone here likes a type music or a specific work of music that _everyone else has no interest in whatsoever_ even if it's not classical music. Also how would anyone know that no one else was interested? In my time on TC, I've seen discussions about a very wide range of music both within and outside classical. The two areas I have spent the vast amount of my listening time in the past few years are before Baroque and modern/contemporary. Both areas seem to less popular than CPT to TC members.



fluteman said:


> It would help to follow SanAntone's suggestion that "Current Listening" be open to absolutely any genre or type of music, and, sorry to say it, not to follow the suggestions of Ethereality and hammeredklavier and others, and force everyone to retreat into their comfortable little subforums, where intruders are met with disdain and even outright hostility. We are already an embattled minority. We should get along amongst ourselves.


We did a poll following SanAntone suggestion asking members if they wished to have a Current Listening thread where both classical and non-classical music could be posted. Of those expressing an opinion, 60 out of 68 wished to keep the threads separate. I don't know if merging would in some way be better, but it's hard to disregard such a high percentage of members.

I will say that when I started seriously listening to classical music, I worked through Gould's book, The 50 Greatest Composers.... Not long after I began using the Naxos Classical Music Library. I wanted to find new music so I started stepping through all the composers alphabetically (not quite random but close) and sampling some works. Some composers had only one or a few works so I would skip them. Having used various methods of finding new music I like, I would say that method was by far the worst. I have had vastly better success using recommendations from various parts of TC (The Talk Classical Community's Favorite and Most Highly Recommended Works, Trout's A Contemporary Music Repertoire, various threads on early music recommendations, the Composer Guestbooks, and many other threads with suggestions).


----------



## fluteman

mmsbls said:


> I think I misunderstood what you meant when you said "I didn't find classical music in the first place by paying attention to overall favorites or the recommendations of a community." Disney's Fantasia and Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven and Schubert string quartets seem to me exactly to be overall favorites and would fall comfortably under the recommendations of a community. I generally assume everyone starts by listening to favorites of some sort. Did you mean that you _no longer_ pay special attention to favorites and the classical music community?
> 
> I'm not sure if you are talking about classical music or any music. I can't imagine that anyone here likes a type music or a specific work of music that _everyone else has no interest in whatsoever_ even if it's not classical music. Also how would anyone know that no one else was interested? In my time on TC, I've seen discussions about a very wide range of music both within and outside classical. The two areas I have spent the vast amount of my listening time in the past few years are before Baroque and modern/contemporary. Both areas seem to less popular than CPT to TC members.
> 
> We did a poll following SanAntone suggestion asking members if they wished to have a Current Listening thread where both classical and non-classical music could be posted. Of those expressing an opinion, 60 out of 68 wished to keep the threads separate. I don't know if merging would in some way be better, but it's hard to disregard such a high percentage of members.
> 
> I will say that when I started seriously listening to classical music, I worked through Gould's book, The 50 Greatest Composers.... Not long after I began using the Naxos Classical Music Library. I wanted to find new music so I started stepping through all the composers alphabetically (not quite random but close) and sampling some works. Some composers had only one or a few works so I would skip them. Having used various methods of finding new music I like, I would say that method was by far the worst. I have had vastly better success using recommendations from various parts of TC (The Talk Classical Community's Favorite and Most Highly Recommended Works, Trout's A Contemporary Music Repertoire, various threads on early music recommendations, the Composer Guestbooks, and many other threads with suggestions).


No, I didn't start by listening to favorites of any sort. I've always listened to everything and anything musical that happened to be going on around me, whether at home, school, on the radio, or in the street, classical or otherwise. I've never read a book of anyone's 50 favorite composers of any kind of music, and likely never will. Yes, many of my classical favorites would indeed be widely acknowledged as great works by many classical music listeners, but many others would not. Doubtless many have never even been mentioned here. I'm a fan of classical music and many other genres of music I've never discussed here at TC, or seen discussed by others, wide-ranging though discussions here may be.

But you seem to have missed my point altogether, and that is I acquired my tastes in music mainly by wandering around and randomly listening to what was going on around me, at home, at school, on the radio, and in the street, though I'm always happy to hear from someone with ideas I haven't considered. I have never read a "50 best composers" book, and likely never will. My background and childhood weren't too much different from many others, but I chose to try to keep my ears open to everything I heard going on around me, where others did not. Ironically, one writer/composer with whom I am sympathetic with in this regard is John Cage, utterly misunderstood and widely ridiculed by many (but not all, of course) here.

I clearly remember sitting in the bleachers in Yankee Stadium in 1982 next to a teen boy with a boom box on his lap, listening to what turned out to be Buffalo Gals by Malcolm McLaren and the World's Famous Supreme Team, one of the earliest rap hits. Relentlessly repetitive and monotonous though it was (not to mention low-fi), I instantly realized there was something about it so compelling that this kind of music would have a major impact worldwide. For me, discovering Stravinsky was equally random. My parents happened to take me to the movies.

I'm always looking for that random moment of discovery. Alas, commercial radio, that I still listen to in the car, has become so relentlessly homogenized that discoveries are rare. So I prowl around here. I suppose you won't be of much help, as you don't seem to see where I'm coming from. That's OK. Thanks to those who are.


----------



## eljr

1846 said:


> I can see that I'm clearly in the minority in my love of contemporary classical music - I can live with that, that's no surprise, I'm often frustrated by classical music lovers who don't like contemporary masterpieces.
> 
> .


Minority yes, but you are not alone. :tiphat:


----------



## eljr

fluteman said:


> Nearly any classical music enthusiast, even contemporary enthusiasts other than perhaps a devoted Glass and Reilly minimalist, might well be unimpressed.
> 
> My intent was not to provoke a string of negative reactions towards establishing a TC consensus that Sheeran's music is a bore. To me, that itself is a bore. Instead, tell me about some contemporary pop music you find interesting, despite not having much interest in contemporary pop music generally.
> 
> Maybe for each type of classical music we need a "lone wolf" forum for those who are secure enough to trust their own reactions to music, and a "sheep" forum for those who need to think what most others think. :lol:


I am the resident minimalist "enthusiast extraordinaire" here and I don't "get" Sheeran. I may well be the least stereotypical poster here. It's not that I am unimpressed or impressed, Sheeran's often quoted genius eludes me. So it has nothing to do with being stuck in Classical or Romantic era's of one genre that you imply.

It is also false that I do not have an interest in pop music. I am very eclectic in my listening. (as you would expect from one that champions Mr. Glass)

I enjoy Bilie Ellish, Courtney Barnett, Eddie Vedder, Rhiannon Giddens...

I have never heard anything as compelling from Sheeran as from Vedder. For example.


----------



## eljr

fluteman said:


> Why the frown emoji? Who says you're missing anything? Who says you have to agree with Paul McCartney? He just doesn't do it for you, and that's OK.


Some music I don't favor I "get." I understand the allure. That being absent upsets me as it speaks to limitations within me.


----------



## eljr

Malx said:


> I'm pleased that you get enjoyment from Sheeran's music after all as I have said often on various threads imo music should always be about finding pleasure in your listening, nothing more complicated.
> 
> I will accept that I never really got into 'pop' ie chart music, at any stage in my listening life after the age of about 12 (end of the sixties). I found even back then that a lot of what was produced was formulaic and catered for an audience that expected something predictable.
> 
> Getting back to my comment about Ed Sheeran's work, which I will confess to not knowing intimately but I have been aware of it as it has had great general exposure on radio, tv, etc, I haven't heard anything that makes him sound groundbreaking, revolutionary or in any way special imo. He is a singer songwriter of his time, thats fine, but it is easy listening to my mind which I regard as the equivalent of comfort eating.
> 
> Just before I posted this I went to Spotify and listened to his 2021 track 'Bad Habits' to see if my thoughts were outdated and I found a track that was backed by what sounded to me like a drum machine with a beat and style that could have been any one of a number acts.
> 
> Each to their own when taste comes into play but I stand by my opinion and our right to differ.
> 
> FWIW - I have lined up King Crimson's - Radical Action To Unseat The Hold of Monkey Mind live CD for tonights listening that may show you one of my preferred non classical music choices.
> 
> Regards, Malx.


I am sure you have read my words on this before:

There is good music and there is great music, there is no bad music.

I never fault a music I do not favor or "get."

BTW, because of this post I just placed Radical Action To Unseat The Hold of Monkey Mind in my queue.


----------



## SanAntone

fluteman said:


> No, I didn't start by listening to favorites of any sort. I've always listened to everything and anything musical that happened to be going on around me, whether at home, school, on the radio, or in the street, classical or otherwise. I've never read a book of anyone's 50 favorite composers of any kind of music, and likely never will. Yes, many of my classical favorites would indeed be widely acknowledged as great works by many classical music listeners, but many others would not. Doubtless many have never even been mentioned here. I'm a fan of classical music and many other genres of music I've never discussed here at TC, or seen discussed by others, wide-ranging though discussions here may be.
> 
> But you seem to have missed my point altogether, and that is I acquired my tastes in music mainly by wandering around and randomly listening to what was going on around me, at home, at school, on the radio, and in the street, though I'm always happy to hear from someone with ideas I haven't considered. I have never read a "50 best composers" book, and likely never will. My background and childhood weren't too much different from many others, but I chose to try to keep my ears open to everything I heard going on around me, where others did not. Ironically, one writer/composer with whom I am sympathetic with in this regard is John Cage, utterly misunderstood and widely ridiculed by many (but not all, of course) here.
> 
> I clearly remember sitting in the bleachers in Yankee Stadium in 1982 next to a teen boy with a boom box on his lap, listening to what turned out to be Buffalo Gals by Malcolm McLaren and the World's Famous Supreme Team, one of the earliest rap hits. Relentlessly repetitive and monotonous though it was (not to mention low-fi), I instantly realized there was something about it so compelling that this kind of music would have a major impact worldwide. For me, discovering Stravinsky was equally random. My parents happened to take me to the movies.
> 
> I'm always looking for that random moment of discovery. Alas, commercial radio, that I still listen to in the car, has become so relentlessly homogenized that discoveries are rare. So I prowl around here. I suppose you won't be of much help, as you don't seem to see where I'm coming from. That's OK. Thanks to those who are.


I completely understand what you are describing because it mirrors my own journey.

What I think is that a lack of judgment is crucial to appreciating a wide variety of music, to accept something without trying to rank it, starting with Classical music at the top of the mountain.

I am a Yankee fan and was in NYC in 1982, so we might have been at the same game.


----------



## eljr

SanAntone said:


> That is my favorite way to hear songs performed.


There is an intimacy, heightened emotion, in an artist alone in performance.

I have long favored this myself.


----------



## SanAntone

eljr said:


> There is an intimacy, heightened emotion, in an artist alone in performance.
> 
> I have long favored this myself.


It also strips the song down to the essentials: no production candy, no studio flash - a good song remains good while mediocre songs are exposed. This is why in Nashville songs are first heard as guitar-vocals by your publisher and only the ones that stand up under that kind of scrutiny are then demoed with a full band in order to pitch to producers, artists and studio A&R.


----------



## eljr

PuerAzaelis said:


> As a TC newb I am not afraid of debate or disagreements, it keeps things interesting and it is inevitable especially when intelligent people are involved. Otherwise things devolve into an echo chamber.
> 
> I personally do not understand an awful loft of post-modern art and music but I have found some I do love. In the visual arts, I love Rothko, for example, and in music I do like some of the early Schoenberg.


I found you on soundcloud, I particularly enjoyed 020 Orchestra F.


----------



## eljr

fluteman said:


> King Crimson, The Red Hot Chili Peppers, Frank Zappa and the Mothers of Invention, and Robert Fripp (as soloist) all were among the favorites of a good friend of mine way back in my student days. I used to introduce him to classical music, and he would introduce me to his favorites, especially these. But that was many, long years ago. When I brought up the subject of current pop music, I very much did not have things like that in mind.
> 
> But, thumbs up, if it's important to say that. I also like the Beatles, Cream, The Greatful Dead, Hendrix, and the early Allman Brothers Band (before Duane's death). Before that, Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly and Ray Charles. Before that, Nat Cole, Edith Piaf, the Four Freshmen, Miles Davis and John Coltrane. Before that, the great blues guitarists, Duke Ellington and Billy Strayhorn, Ella Fitzgerald and Billie Holliday. Before that, the Gershwins, Jerome Kern, and Rodgers and Hammerstein. Before that, Gilbert & Sullivan operettas, nearly all of which I have seen live.
> 
> Before that, well, a series of still bright but lesser lights in the American popular music tradition until you reach Stephen Foster.


I would have sited most these same names myself.

I was sure if I had, no one else would admit to enjoying the Grateful Dead. Holiday, Cole Ellington all wonderful.


----------



## eljr

mmsbls said:


> I do wonder how much desire for consensus, following the hype, or echo chamber posting there is on TC. I've always felt that many people post views that most certainly do not simply follow the crowd. Even with top composers, while Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart might be considered TC's top 3, there are significant differences in works that people tout and stated areas of their expertise. I honestly feel there is more a desire to appear different than a desire to follow. There was a whole thread on unpopular opinions, but we often see such posts in many other threads as well.


People are rather convinced of their own views and do not repel from voicing them. I agree with you.


----------



## fluteman

SanAntone said:


> I completely understand what you are describing because it mirrors my own journey.
> 
> What I think is that a lack of judgment is crucial to appreciating a wide variety of music, to accept something without trying to rank it, starting with Classical music at the top of the mountain.
> 
> I am a Yankee fan and was in NYC in 1982, so we might have been at the same game.


Yes, indeed. I was living in the Bronx then (oops, politically incorrect), edit: I was living in Bronx then, and it was the age of the boom box. At Orchard Beach in Pelham Bay Park, Hispanic teens staked out their territories with the biggest, baddest boxes, each trying to drown out his neighbors who were doing the same, creating a massive, pervasive noise that would put Xenakis or Penderecki to shame.

That was just a small part of the enormous soundtrack of New York City. Glad to hear I have a fellow listener here. 



SanAntone said:


> It also strips the song down to the essentials: no production candy, no studio flash - a good song remains good while mediocre songs are exposed. This is why in Nashville songs are first heard as guitar-vocals by your publisher and only the ones that stand up under that kind of scrutiny are then demoed with a full band in order to pitch to producers, artists and studio A&R.


No doubt you were a fan, as I was, of MTV Unplugged. One of the ways my traditional classical music background shows is in my general preference for acoustic instruments. As you say, it is quite revealing to have top pop stars play some of their top hits with all acoustic instruments.


----------



## fluteman

eljr said:


> , Sheeran's often quoted genius eludes me.


Thanks for your whole post, good stuff. The funny thing about all this stuff you all are saying about Ed Sheeran, I had no idea so many were calling him a genius when I first heard him on the car radio. I certainly had no idea Paul McCartney was a big fan of his. And I didn't know he was such a big star.

I was impressed with his acting performance in the hilarious movie Yesterday. There is a long history of musicians playing themselves in movies. Stokowski did it, as did Artie Shaw. When they perform their music, it's great, but when they try to act, usually less so, even though they are playing themselves. Sheeran nails it.


----------



## mmsbls

fluteman said:


> No, I didn't start by listening to favorites of any sort. I've always listened to everything and anything musical that happened to be going on around me, whether at home, school, on the radio, or in the street, classical or otherwise. ...


Thanks. I wasn't sure I understood your post, but I think I have a much better sense now. I think you meant that you didn't start by _intentionally_ listening to favorites. As you say, you listen to everything and anything musical, and probably equally importantly, you listen with an open mind (i.e. just because music may sound different or unusual, you try to hear it for what it is rather than what you want it to be). I think that is relatively unusual. I worked hard to try to have an open mind about new music. I think it comes more naturally to you.

I did intentionally listen to favorites, but that music was just as new to me as any music you heard. I participate in the The Talk Classical Community's Favorite and Most Highly Recommended Works project not because I think it's important to rank and certainly not to find consensus, but to expose myself to new classical music. I find it a wonderful and fun tool to explore classical music.

I wasn't at Yankee games in 1982, but as a native New Yorker, I've been to many games at Yankee stadium. There are several New Yorkers on this thread. I also understand your experience of hearing new music from a boom box at sporting events. When I was young, I heard the Jackson 5's first song at a CCNY basketball game blaring from a boom box. It was quite new to me, and I was fascinated.


----------



## Sondersdorf

What surprised me most about talkclassical.com? How much time people spend typing. I suspect that often there is music playing and people are engaged more with typing than the music. They might be patting themselves on the back for being the type of person who listens to a lot of classical music, too. I might be wrong.

All the polls and games surprise me. One post like the one where someone said they heard Dvorak's Piano Quintet No. 2, Op. 81, B. 155: II. Dumka. Andante con moto in a record store and it opened a new world of music to them is more valuable to me than all the polls.


----------



## 59540

Sondersdorf said:


> What surprised me most about talkclassical.com? How much time people spend typing. I suspect that often there is music playing and people are engaged more with typing than the music. They might be patting themselves on the back for being the type of person who listens to a lot of classical music, too. I might be wrong. ...


Well if true it's probably better than patting yourself on the back for being the type that lives on Twitter or TikTok. I don't think this takes up all that much time for many of us. Maybe half an hour a day total. Big deal.


----------



## fbjim

fluteman said:


> Yes, indeed. I was living in the Bronx then (oops, politically incorrect), edit: I was living in Bronx then, and it was the age of the boom box. At Orchard Beach in Pelham Bay Park, Hispanic teens staked out their territories with the biggest, baddest boxes, each trying to drown out his neighbors who were doing the same, creating a massive, pervasive noise that would put Xenakis or Penderecki to shame.


I go on deep dives of old electro/hip-hop/dance and bass music on occasion - one of the few good uses of the Youtube algorithm- exactly the type of stuff which used to get called "noise" and "jungle music" derisively. Now it comes across as just fun- practically skating rink music.

I can imagine why you had such an explosion of creativity there - not only was the music relatively accessible to cut to record, but you kind of lived immersed in it if you grew up in New York, Detroit, or Chicago during that time.


----------



## fluteman

mmsbls said:


> Thanks. I wasn't sure I understood your post, but I think I have a much better sense now. I think you meant that you didn't start by _intentionally_ listening to favorites. As you say, you listen to everything and anything musical, and probably equally importantly, you listen with an open mind (i.e. just because music may sound different or unusual, you try to hear it for what it is rather than what you want it to be). I think that is relatively unusual. I worked hard to try to have an open mind about new music. I think it comes more naturally to you.
> 
> I did intentionally listen to favorites, but that music was just as new to me as any music you heard. I participate in the The Talk Classical Community's Favorite and Most Highly Recommended Works project not because I think it's important to rank and certainly not to find consensus, but to expose myself to new classical music. I find it a wonderful and fun tool to explore classical music.
> 
> I wasn't at Yankee games in 1982, but as a native New Yorker, I've been to many games at Yankee stadium. There are several New Yorkers on this thread. I also understand your experience of hearing new music from a boom box at sporting events. When I was young, I heard the Jackson 5's first song at a CCNY basketball game blaring from a boom box. It was quite new to me, and I was fascinated.


Great story about Michael Jackson. And it illustrates what is, for me, a fundamental, if not the fundamental, shortcoming with commercial popular music and the "top 40" hits system. A major star like Michael Jackson comes along (rarely), and for literally decades afterwards, there is an endless stream of imitators. He in particular may be the most influential pop music star in my lifetime. Talk about a flock of sheep. The music industry encourages if not demands that phenomenon.

Look at the great traditional classical music composers, and you see a lot of lone wolves. Well respected in their own lifetimes, but not necessarily the most popular or imitated. Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, Schumann, Brahms, Liszt, Wagner, Debussy and Stravinsky -- their music is instantly recognizable as theirs alone (OK, in some contexts it takes practice to distinguish Mozart and Haydn, let's not do that again), and no follower or disciple was willing or able to do anything remotely similar.

Many posters here ask, What's the big deal with originality and uniqueness? Yet, originality and uniqueness are the defining characteristics of these and imo all the greatest artists whose work stands the test of time, centuries, even.

That is the trump card that gives classical music, art and literature such a leg up on whatever is popular at the moment. Notice, I mention one of today's biggest pop stars, Ed Sheeran (though I had never heard of him when I first heard his song a couple of years ago) and immediately there is a chorus of: Boring! Dull! Repetitive! Same old stuff! Can't understand why people call him a genius! Those comments say a lot more about the posters who made them than about Sheeran. It shows what matters to classical music fans in terms of aesthetic values.

So admit it to yourselves, people. What you're after is finding out about something new, unique and original, even a little edgy. Not comfortable little clubs where people endlessly congratulate each other for having the same tastes and listening to the same predictable things over and over.

You say we have bold mavericks here, mmsbls, yet in the next breath you say these supposed mavericks voted overwhelmingly against opening Current Listening to whatever might come along. Well, that's surprising, to get back to the OT, and more than a little disappointing.


----------



## eljr

Sondersdorf said:


> time people spend typing. I suspect that often there is music playing


bad? 

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


----------



## hammeredklavier

fluteman said:


> Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, Schumann, Brahms, Liszt, Wagner, Debussy and Stravinsky -- their music is instantly recognizable as theirs alone (OK, in some contexts it takes practice to distinguish Mozart and Haydn, let's not do that again)


For me, it doesn't take that much more practice than cases of certain other composers. The thing about the Classical composers is that they tend to use certain "signature" techniques across works (especially when they recycle material), and they "sound clear" everytime they do, so the pattern is easy to pick up. 

















It's the "lesser" composers, even those from the later periods, especially the ones with "hazy sounds", that I would have harder time trying to distinguish (Ex. César Franck , Carl Nielsen).


----------



## eljr

fluteman said:


> Yes, indeed. I was living in the Bronx then (oops, politically incorrect), edit: I was living in Bronx then, and it was the age of the boom box. At Orchard Beach in Pelham Bay Park, Hispanic teens staked out their territories with the biggest, baddest boxes, each trying to drown out his neighbors who were doing the same, creating a massive, pervasive noise that would put Xenakis or Penderecki to shame.
> 
> That was just a small part of the enormous soundtrack of New York City. Glad to hear I have a fellow listener here.
> 
> No doubt you were a fan, as I was, of MTV Unplugged. One of the ways my traditional classical music background shows is in my general preference for acoustic instruments. As you say, it is quite revealing to have top pop stars play some of their top hits with all acoustic instruments.


How about Coney Island, Brighton and Manhattan beaches? 
Coney was the best, anything you wanted was being sold on the beach, you never needed to leave your blanket. 
Wanted a photo, someone was taking Polaroids for $1. They would even do creative, artist double exposes on them. A beer, same dollar. Every 10 minutes someone with a cooler walked by trying to make a buck. At the beach late? Hungry? About 4 pm the Hispanic women would sent up a tent and fire pit and start dinner for sale.

Great times. Late 80's early 90's for me.


----------



## mmsbls

fluteman said:


> ...Many posters here ask, What's the big deal with originality and uniqueness? Yet, originality and uniqueness are the defining characteristics of these and imo all the greatest artists whose work stands the test of time, centuries, even.
> 
> That is the trump card that gives classical music, art and literature such a leg up on whatever is popular at the moment. ...


One thing that has surprised me is the incredible variety of modern and contemporary music. I believe there's more variety within one decade of contemporary music than in all pre-20th century classical. A composer friend of mine felt that modern/contemporary music was difficult to assimilate because almost every composer has her own style. It's almost as though one has to learn a new language for each composer. I think that's clearly one of the reasons I spend so much time listening to modern/contemporary music - partly to learn the language but also to hear the remarkable diversity of sounds. I still have a lot to learn and explore, but so far it's been fun.

And I agree that we view the great composers as great in large part due to their originality.



fluteman said:


> You say we have bold mavericks here, mmsbls, yet in the next breath you say these supposed mavericks voted overwhelmingly against opening Current Listening to whatever might come along. Well, that's surprising, to get back to the OT, and more than a little disappointing.


To be fair, this is a classical music site, and I suspect most people simply wanted just classical music in the Current Listening thread. Also I think there's a lot of territory between bold mavericks and pure followers.


----------



## SanAntone

mmsbls said:


> One thing that has surprised me is the incredible variety of modern and contemporary music. I believe there's more variety within one decade of contemporary music than in all pre-20th century classical.


This is why it is unsupportable to paint modern music with a broad brush, as is the case with so many of the anti-contemporary music crowd. For every Xenakis there's a Glass; for every Boulez there's a Feldman. John Luther Adams is very different from John Adams.

I've always been curious about the music being written today (throughout my 60 year music listening period), and there are a number of YouTube channels devoted solely to new music. I regularly find works which are impressive precisely because of their uniqueness and creativity (they are found in the threads I've created on 21st century works).


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

TC has rarely suprised me, more like dissapointed me.


----------



## fluteman

mmsbls said:


> Also I think there's a lot of territory between bold mavericks and pure followers.


There you go. And you notice me trying to nudge people a little closer to the former attitude. Artistic creativity involves a continuous tension between the original and the conventional, the unexpected and the predictable, the new and the traditional. In each case, it's fun to hear from others about the former; with the latter, I don't need much help.


----------



## 59540

mmsbls said:


> One thing that has surprised me is the incredible variety of modern and contemporary music. I believe there's more variety within one decade of contemporary music than in all pre-20th century classical. A composer friend of mine felt that modern/contemporary music was difficult to assimilate because almost every composer has her own style. It's almost as though one has to learn a new language for each composer. I think that's clearly one of the reasons I spend so much time listening to modern/contemporary music - partly to learn the language but also to hear the remarkable diversity of sounds. ...


Yes it's very diverse, and there's certainly a lot there that's interesting, but that's also led to the genre's having a certain lack of character overall. It's like wearing pajama pants, cowboy boots, a tweed jacket and a top hat.


----------



## eljr

Richannes Wrahms said:


> TC has rarely suprised me, more like dissapointed me.


Not me, not me at all. I love this place. Learned tons.


----------



## hammeredklavier

mmsbls said:


> One thing that has surprised me is the incredible variety of modern and contemporary music. I believe there's more variety within one decade of contemporary music than in all pre-20th century classical. A composer friend of mine felt that modern/contemporary music was difficult to assimilate because almost every composer has her own style. It's almost as though one has to learn a new language for each composer. I think that's clearly one of the reasons I spend so much time listening to modern/contemporary music - partly to learn the language but also to hear the remarkable diversity of sounds. I still have a lot to learn and explore, but so far it's been fun.







I would say it's more about how you "market" it. All the things you've used to describe modern/contemporary music can also be said about heavy metal, for instance -its alleged "variety" and "relationship to classical music". (I'm not trying to disparage modern/contemporary music with this comment; I just think the treatment of both genres (modern/contemporary music and non-classical music) by certain people on this forum isn't fair).








"Robert Walser stated that, alongside blues and R&B, the "assemblage of disparate musical styles known ... as 'classical music'" has been a major influence on heavy metal since the genre's earliest days. Also that metal's "most influential musicians have been guitar players who have also studied classical music. Their appropriation and adaptation of classical models sparked the development of a new kind of guitar virtuosity [and] changes in the harmonic and melodic language of heavy metal."
In an article written for Grove Music Online, Walser stated that the "1980s brought on ... the widespread adaptation of chord progressions and virtuosic practices from 18th-century European models, especially Bach and Antonio Vivaldi, by influential guitarists such as Ritchie Blackmore, Marty Friedman, Jason Becker, Uli Jon Roth, Eddie Van Halen, Randy Rhoads and Yngwie Malmsteen". Kurt Bachmann of Believer has stated that "If done correctly, metal and classical fit quite well together. Classical and metal are probably the two genres that have the most in common when it comes to feel, texture, creativity."
Although a number of metal musicians cite classical composers as inspiration, classical and metal are rooted in different cultural traditions and practices-classical in the art music tradition, metal in the popular music tradition. As musicologists Nicolas Cook and Nicola Dibben note, "Analyses of popular music also sometimes reveal the influence of 'art traditions'. An example is Walser's linkage of heavy metal music with the ideologies and even some of the performance practices of nineteenth-century Romanticism."" (wikipedia)


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

What you say is so metal \m/


----------



## mmsbls

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> Less restrictions on speech. Not acting so quickly to close threads.
> 
> Its seems to me if one or two start crying they can easily get things closed down.


Sorry, I forgot to follow up. We've had many discussions about closing threads. We may sometimes act too quickly, too slowly, or just right. It's a complex issue, and as far as I can tell, no one really knows how best to handle those type of situations.

But when you say, "less restrictions on speech", were you simply referring to thread closures or to other restrictions?


----------



## fluteman

hammeredklavier said:


> I would say it's more about how you "market" it. All the things you've used to describe modern/contemporary music can also be said about heavy metal, for instance -its alleged "variety" and "relationship to classical music". (I'm not trying to disparage modern/contemporary music with this comment; I just think the treatment of both genres (modern/contemporary music and non-classical music) by certain people on this forum isn't fair).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Robert Walser stated that, alongside blues and R&B, the "assemblage of disparate musical styles known ... as 'classical music'" has been a major influence on heavy metal since the genre's earliest days. Also that metal's "most influential musicians have been guitar players who have also studied classical music. Their appropriation and adaptation of classical models sparked the development of a new kind of guitar virtuosity [and] changes in the harmonic and melodic language of heavy metal."
> In an article written for Grove Music Online, Walser stated that the "1980s brought on ... the widespread adaptation of chord progressions and virtuosic practices from 18th-century European models, especially Bach and Antonio Vivaldi, by influential guitarists such as Ritchie Blackmore, Marty Friedman, Jason Becker, Uli Jon Roth, Eddie Van Halen, Randy Rhoads and Yngwie Malmsteen". Kurt Bachmann of Believer has stated that "If done correctly, metal and classical fit quite well together. Classical and metal are probably the two genres that have the most in common when it comes to feel, texture, creativity."
> Although a number of metal musicians cite classical composers as inspiration, classical and metal are rooted in different cultural traditions and practices-classical in the art music tradition, metal in the popular music tradition. As musicologists Nicolas Cook and Nicola Dibben note, "Analyses of popular music also sometimes reveal the influence of 'art traditions'. An example is Walser's linkage of heavy metal music with the ideologies and even some of the performance practices of nineteenth-century Romanticism."" (wikipedia)


OK, but as I believe I've already said here, I don't want to see what Technical Death Metal fans have stored in their basements.


----------



## SanAntone

But is there as much stylistic difference between, say, Pagan Metal and Black Metal and Death Metal as between Brian Ferneyhough and Gavin Bryars and Osvaldo Golijov?


----------



## HenryPenfold

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> Less restrictions on speech. Not acting so quickly to close threads.
> 
> Its seems to me if one or two start crying they can easily get things closed down.


Yes, that's what has surprised me about TC. I know there must be a back story concerning occasional 'meltdowns' on politics or religion, but I still feel the censorship could be more intelligent.

I thought the thread you started today was very interesting and I was about to follow it with interest (it was a little too intellectual for me to actually participate) and I was surprised to see it jailed with rubiric appearing about a ban on religious topics - and it wasn't even about religion, FFS!!!


----------



## fluteman

HenryPenfold said:


> Yes, that's what has surprised me about TC. I know there must be a back story concerning occasional 'meltdowns' on politics or religion, but I still feel the censorship could be more intelligent.
> 
> I thought the thread you started today was very interesting and I was about to follow it with interest (it was a little too intellectual for me to actually participate) and I was surprised to see it jailed with rubiric appearing about a ban on religious topics - and it wasn't even about religion, FFS!!!


I hear you, but in defense of the powers that be here, there have been posters who intentionally hijack legitimate threads for political and/or religious purposes, sometimes in a subtle way, sometimes more crudely. I think several of the worst offenders have now been banned. I, for one, thought having separate subforums for politics and religion in music was a great idea, and letting posters there explain why Wagner was a Nazi and John Cage was a Commie to their heart's content. But I suppose that stuff tends to spill out everywhere else. Posting whatever you want is one thing. Trying to force everyone to read it whether they want to or not is another.


----------



## HenryPenfold

fluteman said:


> I hear you, but in defense of the powers that be here, there have been posters who intentionally hijack legitimate threads for political and/or religious purposes, sometimes in a subtle way, sometimes more crudely. I think several of the worst offenders have now been banned. I, for one, thought having separate subforums for politics and religion in music was a great idea, and letting posters there explain why Wagner was a Nazi and John Cage was a Commie to their heart's content. But I suppose that stuff tends to spill out everywhere else. Posting whatever you want is one thing. Trying to force everyone to read it whether they want to or not is another.


Posting about Wagner being a Nazi (_sic_) or John Cage being a Communist are simply banal and should be banned on that basis!

As for the rest, I think there needs to be a little more trust between administrators of the forum and we, common or garden members.


----------



## mmsbls

HenryPenfold said:


> Posting about Wagner being a Nazi (_sic_) or John Cage being a Communist are simply banal and should be banned on that basis!
> 
> As for the rest, I think there needs to be a little more trust between administrators of the forum and we, common or garden members.


You joined the forum in 2018 and I'm guessing spent little time in the Political Groups area so I can understand feeling that we have acted too aggressively towards religious and political posting. There is a long and unpleasant history of purely political and religious posts on TC.

When I first came to TC there were many political and religious posts on TC. I joined many discussions, but I was quite disappointed when comments turned from politics or religion to insults and chiding. It was remarkable how often that happened. Moderators would place comments in the thread, delete posts that strongly violated our Terms and Conditions, issue warnings or infractions. No matter what was done, political and religious threads eventually turned to insults and chiding.

Eventually the moderation team decided to prohibit political and religious posts from the main forum and relegate them to the Groups. We told people we would moderate the Groups more leniently, and we did to some extent. The violations of the Terms of Service were worse in the Groups, and many posts were reported.

Even with our prohibition on political and religious posts in the main forum, threads in the community forum became political or religious. We had the same problem - repeatedly posting comments to refrain from such posts, sending PMs, issuing warnings. We even had to bar some people from the Community forum. There were several threads on the coronavirus that many members cared strongly about and wished to see continue. We tried very hard to prevent those threads from becoming too political but were simply unable to do so. Many people reported political posts. People hated the politics. We closed one thread but later opened another asking members to be respectful of other members and please refrain from politics. It simply didn't work. The insults and chiding drove many from the threads. I posted so many comments in threads trying everyway I could think of to get people to stop the politics, and subsequent insults and chiding, but to no avail.

In the Groups things progressively got worse. Again no amount of comments, PMs, warnings could prevent people from insulting and chiding other members. In this case many of the people involved were new members from those causing problems in the past. Finally I chose a roughly 2 week time period and counted the violations in a few threads. The results (not all but many) are posted here. Shortly afterwards, we prohibited politics from the entire forum.

The bottom line is that the moderation team has spent over 10 years trying just about everything we could think of to prevent the kind of posting that caused some people to leave the forum and many others to leave certain sections of the forum. Our only possibilities were to permanently ban more than several members for such posts or to ban politics and religion. We strongly felt that we should not ban members from a classical music forum for political or religious posts. So we chose to ban politics and religion.

In all honesty, my experience over the past 10 years has been that the moderation team repeatedly tried to trust the members not to abuse political and religious discussions. Obviously many are able to do so, but clearly a significant number cannot. Even if we banned people, new members would repeat the violations. We're convinced that allowing politics is simply a recipe for insults and chiding leading to some members leaving threads, some perhaps leaving TC, and others angry that politics has once again spoiled their TC experience.


----------



## HenryPenfold

mmsbls said:


> You joined the forum in 2018 and I'm guessing spent little time in the Political Groups area so I can understand feeling that we have acted too aggressively towards religious and political posting. There is a long and unpleasant history of purely political and religious posts on TC.
> 
> When I first came to TC there were many political and religious posts on TC. I joined many discussions, but I was quite disappointed when comments turned from politics or religion to insults and chiding. It was remarkable how often that happened. Moderators would place comments in the thread, delete posts that strongly violated our Terms and Conditions, issue warnings or infractions. No matter what was done, political and religious threads eventually turned to insults and chiding.
> 
> Eventually the moderation team decided to prohibit political and religious posts from the main forum and relegate them to the Groups. We told people we would moderate the Groups more leniently, and we did to some extent. The violations of the Terms of Service were worse in the Groups, and many posts were reported.
> 
> Even with our prohibition on political and religious posts in the main forum, threads in the community forum became political or religious. We had the same problem - repeatedly posting comments to refrain from such posts, sending PMs, issuing warnings. We even had to bar some people from the Community forum. There were several threads on the coronavirus that many members cared strongly about and wished to see continue. We tried very hard to prevent those threads from becoming too political but were simply unable to do so. Many people reported political posts. People hated the politics. We closed one thread but later opened another asking members to be respectful of other members and please refrain from politics. It simply didn't work. The insults and chiding drove many from the threads. I posted so many comments in threads trying everyway I could think of to get people to stop the politics, and subsequent insults and chiding, but to no avail.
> 
> In the Groups things progressively got worse. Again no amount of comments, PMs, warnings could prevent people from insulting and chiding other members. In this case many of the people involved were new members from those causing problems in the past. Finally I chose a roughly 2 week time period and counted the violations in a few threads. The results (not all but many) are posted here. Shortly afterwards, we prohibited politics from the entire forum.
> 
> The bottom line is that the moderation team has spent over 10 years trying just about everything we could think of to prevent the kind of posting that caused some people to leave the forum and many others to leave certain sections of the forum. Our only possibilities were to permanently ban more than several members for such posts or to ban politics and religion. We strongly felt that we should not ban members from a classical music forum for political or religious posts. So we chose to ban politics and religion.
> 
> In all honesty, my experience over the past 10 years has been that the moderation team repeatedly tried to trust the members not to abuse political and religious discussions. Obviously many are able to do so, but clearly a significant number cannot. Even if we banned people, new members would repeat the violations. We're convinced that allowing politics is simply a recipe for insults and chiding leading to some members leaving threads, some perhaps leaving TC, and others angry that politics has once again spoiled their TC experience.


Yes, I suspected something along those lines. Thanks for taking the trouble to explain. But sometimes, like today's example, it seems like the reasoning hasn't been thought through ............


----------



## hammeredklavier

HenryPenfold said:


> I thought the thread you started today was very interesting and I was about to follow it with interest (it was a little too intellectual for me to actually participate) and I was surprised to see it jailed with rubiric appearing about a ban on religious topics - and it wasn't even about religion, FFS!!!


You mean <Imago dei ("The fact that human beings produce such amazing and beautiful music is a proof we are made in the image of God.")>. I was also a bit surprised to see it closed just after 2 posts. 
Compare it with this <If Christ was a composer what would his music sound like?> by 1996D from January 2020, which had been moved to the Religion & Politics subforum and had gone on for about 20 pages before getting closed.


----------



## HenryPenfold

hammeredklavier said:


> You mean <Imago dei ("The fact that human beings produce such amazing and beautiful music is a proof we are made in the image of God.")>. I was also a bit surprised to see it closed just after 2 posts.
> Compare it with this <If Christ was a composer what would his music sound like?> by 1996D from January 2020, which had been moved to the Religion & Politics subforum and had gone on for about 20 pages before getting closed.


Yes, that's the one. A discussion around metaphysics and epistemology, with mankind's ability to make music indicating a divine provenance.


----------



## Bulldog

HenryPenfold said:


> I thought the thread you started today was very interesting and I was about to follow it with interest (it was a little too intellectual for me to actually participate) and I was surprised to see it jailed with rubiric appearing about a ban on religious topics - and it wasn't even about religion, FFS!!!


That thread had religion written all over it, and I support its having been closed.


----------



## HenryPenfold

Bulldog said:


> That thread had religion written all over it, and I support its having been closed.


This is the sort of post that causes threads to descend into silly squabbles, not the subject matter itself.


----------



## fluteman

HenryPenfold said:


> Posting about Wagner being a Nazi (_sic_) or John Cage being a Communist are simply banal and should be banned on that basis!


I can only respond to that by quoting an old Yiddish proverb: .פון דיין מויל צו גאָט ס אויערן That is, "Fun deyn moyl tsu got s aoyern", or, "From your mouth to God's ears."


----------



## 59540

fluteman said:


> I hear you, but in defense of the powers that be here, there have been posters who intentionally hijack legitimate threads for political and/or religious purposes, sometimes in a subtle way, sometimes more crudely. I think several of the worst offenders have now been banned. I, for one, thought having separate subforums for politics and religion in music was a great idea, and letting posters there explain why Wagner was a Nazi and John Cage was a Commie to their heart's content. But I suppose that stuff tends to spill out everywhere else. Posting whatever you want is one thing. Trying to force everyone to read it whether they want to or not is another.


But in fairness the same thing can be said about the frequent sociopolitical theorizing I see here. If one end of the spectrum is banned (and it should be), I don't know why the other shouldn't be. It's still political.


----------



## HenryPenfold

fluteman said:


> I can only respond to that by quoting an old Yiddish proverb: .פון דיין מויל צו גאָט ס אויערן That is, "Fun deyn moyl tsu got s aoyern", or, "From your mouth to God's ears."


I ain't got a Scooby-Doo what you're on about (even though I live just down the road from Stamford Hill :lol


----------



## hammeredklavier

fluteman said:


> I think several of the worst offenders have now been banned.


Only millionrainbows and 1996D; that's just two. It's not a bannable offense on this forum to discuss the relationship between Wagner and the Nazis, but the way they did wasn't civil. DavidA and NLAdriaan aren't banned; they just don't come to the forum anymore.


----------



## fluteman

HenryPenfold said:


> I ain't got a Scooby-Doo what you're on about (even though I live just down the road from Stamford Hill :lol


It means, roughly, "I hope what you are asking for becomes the universal norm."



hammeredklavier said:


> Only millionrainbows and 1996D; that's just two. It's not a bannable offense on this forum to discuss the relationship between Wagner and the Nazis, but the way they did wasn't civil. DavidA and NLAdriaan aren't banned; they just don't come to the forum anymore.


The trouble is, such topics quickly deteriorate into uncivil discourse. mmsbls is absolutely right about that. And a number of others have been banned for similar offenses.


----------



## eljr

Something else that has surprised me is how few classical music lovers demanded electronics and formats that are better at producing sounds. 

In other words, few are audiophiles.


----------



## fluteman

eljr said:


> Something else that has surprised me is how few classical music lovers demanded electronics and formats that are better at producing sounds.
> 
> In other words, few are audiophiles.


I am, or was. But it was based on musical industry developments. The vinyl LP and the analogue technology behind it developed impressively until the early 1980s. Then came the CD which was a major advance in some ways but came with digital "glare" and artifacts. The best LPs, beginning in the late 50s, were much better in many ways despite clicks and pops, high noise floor and limited dynamic and frequency ranges. So I kept my LPs and collected more, and suddenly, better turntables, electronics and speakers became worthwhile. That, imo, was the golden age of audiophilia: early 1960s, when stereo LPs began to prevail (though audiophiles then often had reel to reel tape machines), to early 2000s.

But eventually, things changed again. First, CDs improved considerably. Then, other digital formats came along that were even better. Then came downloads and streaming. And people's attics and basements got emptied out of the best LPs. Garbage LPs in terrible condition began to be sold in antique shops at laughable prices. I knew my LP collecting days were over when I went first thing on a Saturday morning to an "estate sale" in a wealthy neighborhood that supposedly included LPs. Well, the only LPs available were a set of Funk & Wagnall's Family Library of Great Music. The owner told me that they weren't selling their "good" LPs. Finally, audiophile reissue LPs came along, but mainly of the most famous LPs, and I already had copies of my favorites.

Then came DACs, which kept getting smaller, better and cheaper. Today, I do most of my music listening on a laptop with ultra-light Hifiman planar magnetic headphones and an Xtremepro DAC that is a cheaper and better clone of the AudioQuest DAC that I had before. I bought a headphone amp, too, but that was just another box that got in the way.

So am I an audiophile? I'm sure many here listen on far better equipment, though of course I still have my main system.


----------



## erki

The number of John Cage - or any form of out of the box(contemporary, avant-garde, abstract etc) music haters.


----------



## mmsbls

erki said:


> The number of John Cage - or any form of out of the box(contemporary, avant-garde, abstract etc) music haters.


I'm not so surprised that there are many who strongly dislike contemporary, avant-garde, abstract music, but I am a bit surprised how important it seems for them to express that view. Of course, this is an internet forum.


----------



## eljr

fluteman said:


> So am I an audiophile?


Depends on how one is defined.

Let's hit the dictionary:

a person who is enthusiastic about high-fidelity sound reproduction

now Wikipedia:

An audiophile is a person who is enthusiastic about high-fidelity sound reproduction.[1] An audiophile seeks to reproduce the sound of a live musical performance, typically in a room with good acoustics. It is widely agreed that reaching this goal is very difficult and that even the best-regarded recording and playback systems rarely, if ever, achieve it.[2][3]

Audiophile values may be applied at all stages of music reproduction: the initial audio recording, the production process, and the playback, which is usually in a home setting. In general, the values of an audiophile are seen to be antithetical to the growing popularity of more convenient but lower quality music, especially lossy digital file types like MP3, lower definition streaming services, and inexpensive headphones.[4]

The term high-end audio refers to playback equipment used by audiophiles, which may be bought at specialist shops and websites.[5] High-end components include turntables, digital-to-analog converters, equalization devices, preamplifiers and amplifiers (both solid-state and vacuum tube), loudspeakers (including horn, electrostatic and magnetostatic speakers), power conditioners, subwoofers, headphones, and acoustic room treatment in addition to room correction devices.[6][7]

Although many audiophile techniques are based on objective criteria that can be verified using techniques like ABX testing, perceived sound quality is necessarily subjective, leading to some more controversial audiophile techniques being based on pseudoscientific, magical or paranormal principles

Well, are you? You would know not us out here in cyber land. :tiphat:


----------



## 59540

mmsbls said:


> What would you prefer to see?


A more equitable definition of "trolling". Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it trolling. Conversely just because you *do* happen to agree with it doesn't make it *not* trolling or "bullying" or "political".


erki said:


> The number of John Cage - or any form of out of the box(contemporary, avant-garde, abstract etc) music haters.


Just because they don't love it as much as you, it doesn't make them "haters". I haven't seen many "haters" of "out of the box" stuff here. Those that are are usually banned pretty quickly.


----------



## fluteman

eljr said:


> Well, are you? You would know not us out here in cyber land. :tiphat:


:lol: No. I've spent far more time, money and effort on actual musical instruments, starting with a grand piano, than on that stuff. Music sounds best live.


----------



## eljr

fluteman said:


> :lol: No. I've spent far more time, money and effort on actual musical instruments, starting with a grand piano, than on that stuff. Music sounds best live.


Yes, a grand piano. How lovely!

I too bought one years back for my wife when were we in Brooklyn. . It went in the divorce as did the house in Istanbul. 

It's that I should not have know better having lost some investment grade art during my first divorce. Never give valuable presents when you to value the object. 

Some people are simply slow learners. This is my curse.


----------



## fbjim

eljr said:


> Something else that has surprised me is how few classical music lovers demanded electronics and formats that are better at producing sounds.
> 
> In other words, few are audiophiles.


Being able to pull up and instantly compare a billion different versions of the Goldberg Variations ended up beating slightly better sound quality.

That said I still get excited when I find an old Telarc or LSC LP.


----------



## fluteman

fbjim said:


> Being able to pull up and instantly compare a billion different versions of the Goldberg Variations ended up beating slightly better sound quality.
> 
> That said I still get excited when I find an old Telarc or LSC LP.


A tip from a veteran classical record collector: IMO the best sounding of the early stereo LPs came from a company called Everest, started in 1958 by Harry Belock, a missile system manufacturer, and Bert Whyte. One of their innovations was making master tapes using 35 mm film. Alas, they went out of business in 1960, selling most of their equipment to Mercury Records. Even worse, Everest ended up in the hands of its accountant, who turned it into a budget label, reissuing the original catalog on low quality pressings made with increasingly later generation master tapes. Look for the purple and gold and turquoise and silver labels of the original company. They weren't just a classical label, but they did release a small but choice classical catalog with some great recordings of interesting repertoire.

Now that I no longer collect LPs, I can happily give up such 'secrets'.


----------



## fbjim

fluteman said:


> A tip from a veteran classical record collector: IMO the best sounding of the early stereo LPs came from a company called Everest, started in 1958 by Harry Belock, a missile system manufacturer, and Bert Whyte. One of their innovations was making master tapes using 35 mm film. Alas, they went out of business in 1960, selling most of their equipment to Mercury Records. Even worse, Everest ended up in the hands of its accountant, who turned it into a budget label, reissuing the original catalog on low quality pressings made with increasingly later generation master tapes. Look for the purple and gold and turquoise and silver labels of the original company. They weren't just a classical label, but they did release a small but choice classical catalog with some great recordings of interesting repertoire.
> 
> Now that I no longer collect LPs, I can happily give up such 'secrets'.


Every time I find Everest it's a reissue, sadly. Already got fooled by a terrible repressing of the Stokowski Poem of Ecstasy. At least the cover art is worth framing.


----------



## fluteman

fbjim said:


> Every time I find Everest it's a reissue, sadly. Already got fooled by a terrible repressing of the Stokowski Poem of Ecstasy. At least the cover art is worth framing.


Some of the earliest reissues are still pretty good, on the all gold or all black labels. Maybe they were still using the original master tapes at first. But that's a gamble. If I found them for 50 cents or less, I'd bite.

I guess we could have a vintage classical LP forum here. There was a lot of bogus hype on this topic back when the market was hot. But as I mentioned, better digital audio and high quality reissues of many of the favorite LPs that audiophiles tend to collect (most people here are far more sophisticated about classical music than most audiophile LP collectors) has resulted in less interest in this area.


----------



## DaveM

I am quite familiar with the Everest label because the records sold for circa $1.99 back when I couldn’t afford anything more expensive. I don’t recall having a problem with the performances or engineering, but all of them used cheap vinyl and the surface noise was intrusive. Still, I was just happy to have anything in my limited price range in those days. (Another cheap label I bought along with Everest in those days was Remington and, of course, good old Vox!)


----------



## fluteman

DaveM said:


> I am quite familiar with the Everest label because the records sold for circa $1.99 back when I couldn't afford anything more expensive. I don't recall having a problem with the performances or engineering, but all of them used cheap vinyl and the surface noise was intrusive. Still, I was just happy to have anything in my limited price range in those days.


Yes, indeed. The classical budget LP labels -- Sine Qua Non, Nonesuch, Vox (all of which mainly reissued European recordings), and Everest, among others. MHS (Musical Heritage Society) also reissued European recordings but had a different distribution system. The major labels had them, too, such as RCA's Victrola.

I don't want to spoil things for you, but if you heard an original Everest from the 58-60 period and compared it to a later reissue of the same recording, you likely would hear quite a difference. Edit: And Everest was very much not a budget label at first, rather a spare-no-expense audiophile label, something the market apparently wasn't yet ready for at the time.


----------



## mmsbls

dissident said:


> A more equitable definition of "trolling". Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it trolling. Conversely just because you *do* happen to agree with it doesn't make it *not* trolling or "bullying" or "political".


The moderators consider many aspects of a post and the poster's history, but certainly agreeing or disagreeing with a post has nothing whatsoever to do with the determination of trolling or any other infraction.


----------



## Sid James

mmsbls said:


> I'm not so surprised that there are many who strongly dislike contemporary, avant-garde, abstract music, but I am a bit surprised how important it seems for them to express that view. Of course, this is an internet forum.


Same here. I no longer see much point in arguing about those types of music. They are just as much part of the classical scene as say the wigs, the Three B's or modern classics like Stravinsky, Schoenberg and Bartok. One can argue that Cage is just as institutionalized now as Beethoven.

I really think that the modernist nonsense we've experienced here is akin to shadow boxing. Looking back, I still can't understand the point of it all. To draw some line in the sand? Tit for tat or sour grapes? Invest logic in something totally lacking it? Your guess is as good as mine.

It seems like wasted passion on all fronts.


----------



## 59540

mmsbls said:


> The moderators consider many aspects of a post and the poster's history, but certainly agreeing or disagreeing with a post has nothing whatsoever to do with the determination of trolling or any other infraction.


My observations and personal experience say otherwise. But hey, it's "your" forum and isn't one of life's necessities, so c'est la vie.


Sid James said:


> I really think that the modernist nonsense we've experienced here is akin to shadow boxing. Looking back, I still can't understand the point of it all. To draw some line in the sand? Tit for tat or sour grapes? Invest logic in something totally lacking it? Your guess is as good as mine.


I think what rankles a little is that you have a group here that seem to be determined to spread the gospel of "classical music is no better than anything else" ad nauseam, whether the sermon is warranted or not.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Sid James said:


> Same here. I no longer see much point in arguing about those types of music.


I still stand by these points:


hammeredklavier said:


> I agree that the avant-gardist mindset has some negative effects on classical music. In some instances, it encourages and promotes the thinking that
> 1. composers such as Rachmaninoff, Brahms, Saint-Saëns did not contribute anything fresh to classical music;
> 2. every new generation of composers must create something that seems "new".
> 3. artists like John Williams aren't "classical music composers" even though they're writing "incidental music for the public" just like the masters of the past.
> The obsession sometimes seems extreme today. I want us to take a moment to ask why; "is it even necessary"?


----------



## Sid James

^ Re points 1 and 2, that kind of approach has been out of date for at least 40 years. Modernism wasn't amenable to composers who didn't fit into its grand narrative approach, because progress was inseparable from their concept of what was new.

As for 3, even though film music might not be universally accepted as being fully part of classical, its made inroads in that direction. Film music has increasingly featured in live performance, partly as a response to financial pressures on the classical music industry. Concerts featuring film music have proven successful while the traditional concert format has declined or at best remained static. Inevitably, reality on the ground sets the real trends. All theory can do is follow what's actually happening.



dissident said:


> I think what rankles a little is that you have a group here that seem to be determined to spread the gospel of "classical music is no better than anything else" ad nauseam, whether the sermon is warranted or not.


I'm not backing any horse in that particular race, but I generally think its good if we argue what we believe with a sense of conviction. What's important is that we are not simply being contrarian or reactive, but OWN the opinion we are stating. Trying to understand opposing opinions is preferable to privileging our own. Its also up to us to finish a conversation before it gets to the point of arguing about who is right or wrong.


----------



## Simon23

I was surprised (pleasantly surprised) the fact that there are very few "audiophiles" here. Which, for example, believe that the sound engineer is no less (or even more) important than the performer. That mono recordings cannot be listened to. That the more expensive your audio system is, the better you understand music. etc. I spent about 10 years on various audio forums and I have a strong belief that "audiophilia" greatly harms music. Especially the classic one.


----------



## fluteman

Simon23 said:


> I was surprised (pleasantly surprised) the fact that there are very few "audiophiles" here. Which, for example, believe that the sound engineer is no less (or even more) important than the performer. That mono recordings cannot be listened to. That the more expensive your audio system is, the better you understand music. etc. I spent about 10 years on various audio forums and I have a strong belief that "audiophilia" greatly harms music. Especially the classic one.


Good points, but I wouldn't go quite that far. The music industry has a habit of making consumer audio as low quality as it can get away with. Computer audio has been no better, in some ways worse, though some of the most serious current problems are mainly outside the realm of classical music (thank goodness). Audiophiles have played a useful role in making sure the technological potential for better audio is realized for those who can hear the difference and want it.

The reason I have to agree with you, despite what I just wrote, is that many audiophiles have the annoying habit of giving sound quality higher priority than even musical merit, when it should be well behind. Ultimately, audiophilia can become a fetish, with devotees seeking out expensive cures for non-existent problems and putting their faith in snake oil remedies. As I said above, the knowledge and sophistication of nearly everyone here regarding classical music leaves many of these audiophiles far behind. Once again, thank goodness.


----------



## SanAntone

fluteman said:


> Good points, but I wouldn't go quite that far. The music industry has a habit of making consumer audio as low quality as it can get away with. Computer audio has been no better, in some ways worse, though some of the most serious current problems are mainly outside the realm of classical music (thank goodness). Audiophiles have played a useful role in making sure the technological potential for better audio is realized for those who can hear the difference and want it.
> 
> The reason I have to agree with you, despite what I just wrote, is that many audiophiles have the annoying habit of giving sound quality higher priority than even musical merit, when it should be well behind. Ultimately, audiophilia can become a fetish, with devotees seeking out expensive cures for non-existent problems and putting their faith in snake oil remedies. As I said above, the knowledge and sophistication of nearly everyone here regarding classical music leaves many of these audiophiles far behind. Once again, thank goodness.


Early on I was interested in getting quality components and bought a MacIntosh Amp and Pre-amp/Tuner. This in the early 70s, so they were pretty good pieces. But when I moved I sold them - and have never invested money in hi-fi equipment since. As a musician my money went to buying good instruments, the tools of my trade.

For me, the music was the thing and I've listened on some pretty crude gear and enjoyed the music.


----------



## 59540

Sid James said:


> ^ Re points 1 and 2, that kind of approach has been out of date for at least 40 years. Modernism wasn't amenable to composers who didn't fit into its grand narrative approach, because progress was inseparable from their concept of what was new.
> 
> As for 3, even though film music might not be universally accepted as being fully part of classical, its made inroads in that direction. Film music has increasingly featured in live performance, partly as a response to financial pressures on the classical music industry. Concerts featuring film music have proven successful while the traditional concert format has declined or at best remained static. Inevitably, reality on the ground sets the real trends. All theory can do is follow what's actually happening.
> 
> I'm not backing any horse in that particular race, but I generally think its good if we argue what we believe with a sense of conviction. What's important is that we are not simply being contrarian or reactive, but OWN the opinion we are stating. Trying to understand opposing opinions is preferable to privileging our own. Its also up to us to finish a conversation before it gets to the point of arguing about who is right or wrong.


Good points, but "argue" implies "argument", not making a statement and then taking refuge in the moderation team and hitting that "report" button if your feelings get hurt by a little bit of blowback. The usual dynamic here is that one person will dissent from this or that "modernist" attitude, and then 4 or 5 more will pop out of nowhere to tag-team against that one, and that one will then be the one in the wrong. Which is cool. I've never reported anybody's comments.


----------



## mmsbls

hammeredklavier said:


> I still stand by these points:





hammeredklavier said:


> I agree that the avant-gardist mindset has some negative effects on classical music. In some instances, it encourages and promotes the thinking that
> 1. composers such as Rachmaninoff, Brahms, Saint-Saëns did not contribute anything fresh to classical music;
> 2. every new generation of composers must create something that seems "new".
> 3. artists like John Williams aren't "classical music composers" even though they're writing "incidental music for the public" just like the masters of the past.
> The obsession sometimes seems extreme today. I want us to take a moment to ask why; "is it even necessary"?


I'm not certain exactly what the avant-garde mindset is, but let's assume it has encouraged the above points.

1) The classical music community and TC clearly views Rachmaninoff, Brahms, and Saint-Saëns as important and excellent composers with wonderful contributions to classical music. They are frequently recorded, performed, and discussed. And maybe a small group might think they did not contribute any fresh music.

2) People frequently talk about a composer finding her own voice. Seemingly, creating music that is at least somewhat different has been viewed as important for a long time. I think just about everyone is thrilled that music has changed over time from early medieval times. If not with every generation, music changes because some composers do wish to push the envelope, but many composers still create music in at least modestly conservative styles without pushing the envelope.

3) Some view Williams as a classical music composer (he certainly did write classical music), and maybe some prefer to view him as a film composer.

Some may be obsessed with your first two points, but I don't see it having a strong influence on music. The third point is a matter of definition. Does it matter?


----------



## SanAntone

mmsbls said:


> I'm not certain exactly what the avant-garde mindset is, but let's assume it has encouraged the above points.
> 
> 1) The classical music community and TC clearly views Rachmaninoff, Brahms, and Saint-Saëns as important and excellent composers with wonderful contributions to classical music. They are frequently recorded, performed, and discussed. And maybe a small group might think they did not contribute any fresh music.
> 
> 2) People frequently talk about a composer finding her own voice. Seemingly, creating music that is at least somewhat different has been viewed as important for a long time. I think just about everyone is thrilled that music has changed over time from early medieval times. If not with every generation, music changes because some composers do wish to push the envelope, but many composers still create music in at least modestly conservative styles without pushing the envelope.
> 
> 3) Some view Williams as a classical music composer (he certainly did write classical music), and maybe some prefer to view him as a film composer.
> 
> Some may be obsessed with your first two points, but I don't see it having a strong influence on music. The third point is a matter of definition. Does it matter?


IMO the entire anti-modern music phenomenon on TC is a red herring.


----------



## eljr

SanAntone said:


> IMO the entire anti-modern music phenomenon on TC is a red herring.


Do you mean it's a meaningless distraction?

If so, I would disagree. I think it's more a self imposed limitation of music appreciation.


----------



## SanAntone

eljr said:


> Do you mean it's a meaningless distraction?
> 
> If so, I would disagree. I think it's more a self imposed limitation of music appreciation.


I mean it is much ado about nothing. In reality the "avant-garde" threatens nothing and no one, but to hear the outcry here one would think all of Classical music is under attack and losing the battle. Nothing could be further from the truth.

But I will say no more.


----------



## fluteman

SanAntone said:


> Early on I was interested in getting quality components and bought a MacIntosh Amp and Pre-amp/Tuner. This in the early 70s, so they were pretty good pieces. But when I moved I sold them - and have never invested money in hi-fi equipment since. As a musician my money went to buying good instruments, the tools of my trade.
> 
> For me, the music was the thing and I've listened on some pretty crude gear and enjoyed the music.


Yup. The 1960s through the 1990s was the golden age for that kind of thing, and MacIntosh was one of the most revered names. A long-time friend and college classmate (who tragically died in an accident recently) was one of the last audiophiles in my circle. One of his most prized possessions was a TEAC (iirc) 15 ips reel-to-reel tape machine that he bought in an antique shop for a few hundred and then spent a few hundred more restoring. He had two audiophile tapes to play on it that cost him $300 each. I see Acoustic Sounds now carries 37 titles in this format, of which 11 are classical. $450 each. But he was a corporate lawyer who retired early to be a full time artist (i.e., painter). No musician, no matter how heavily under the influence of hallucinogens, would get any of that. Sheesh.


----------



## eljr

SanAntone said:


> I mean it is much ado about nothing. In reality the "avant-garde" threatens nothing and no one, but to hear the outcry here one would think all of Classical music is under attack and losing the battle. Nothing could be further from the truth.
> 
> But I will say no more.


I don't know how modern classical affects "classic" classical. Maybe it is a gateway to the past? Maybe it helps keep it from dying?

I don't think you mean avant-garde, do you?

If so, who do list as such composers?


----------



## SanAntone

eljr said:


> I don't think you mean avant-garde, do you?
> 
> If so, who do list as such composers?


That is the term they usually use, and cite composers like John Cage and Pierre Boulez.


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> IMO the entire anti-modern music phenomenon on TC is a red herring.


I would agree. I wouldn't call it a "red herring" as much as "imaginary". There's not that much of it here. The only time I've seen anyone speak critically of modern music is in generalized threads.


----------



## fluteman

SanAntone said:


> IMO the entire anti-modern music phenomenon on TC is a red herring.


Yes, but like a bad disease it infects healthy topics and causes them to die, i.e., thread closures. It's a red herring because all music, modern or not, needs to prove its worth by generating and holding an audience over time. Our arguments for or against it matter very, very little.


----------



## SanAntone

fluteman said:


> Yes, but like a bad disease it infects healthy topics and causes them to die, i.e., thread closures. It's a red herring because all music, modern or not, needs to prove its worth by generating and holding an audience over time. Our arguments for or against it matter very, very little.


IMO, we should not take the bait. Let them say what they want, but if no discussion ensues, their comments will wither away and not poison any thread.


----------



## mmsbls

SanAntone said:


> IMO, we should not take the bait. Let them say what they want, but if no discussion ensues, their comments will wither away and not poison any thread.


Ideally, yes, but often it's hard not to respond to flagrant, provocative comments. In a recent thread there were several such comments. and a number of members replied. One problem is that many people here have seen these comments over and over. One could say that contemporary music fans should get used to them and simply ignore them, but many get sick and tired of seeing how modern/contemporary classical music is treated on a classical music forum.

But, yes, the best advice is to ignore them.


----------



## eljr

mmsbls said:


> But, yes, the best advice is to ignore them.


It's like water torture reading them. The first few are easy to ignore. After a while they drive you crazy.


----------



## SanAntone

mmsbls said:


> Ideally, yes, but often it's hard not to respond to flagrant, provocative comments. In a recent thread there were several such comments. and a number of members replied. One problem is that many people here have seen these comments over and over. One could say that contemporary music fans should get used to them and simply ignore them, but many get sick and tired of seeing how modern/contemporary classical music is treated on a classical music forum.
> 
> But, yes, the best advice is to ignore them.


Oh, I know - I have been one of the most active members regarding confronting these kinds of remarks against modern music. But, I have come to believe that, as you say, the same people repeat the same arguments, and confronting them accomplishes nothing other than to derail the thread.

So, my new approach going forward will be to ignore the anti-modern posts.


----------



## fluteman

SanAntone said:


> Oh, I know - I have been one of the most active members regarding confronting these kinds of remarks against modern music. But, I have come to believe that, as you say, the same people repeat the same arguments, and confronting them accomplishes nothing other than to derail the thread.
> 
> So, my new approach going forward will be to ignore the anti-modern posts.


I don't care if people like or dislike particular music, so long as they have something intelligent and enlightening to say about it. But these broad-brush put downs, as if "modern music", or contemporary music, is some monolithic phenomenon that can be dismissed as a whole (or championed as a whole), do nothing for me. I'm a traditional classical music guy by inclination, training and education, and even I can see how silly that is. There is as broad an array of music out there as there has ever been, much of which is mostly or completely tonal, even by the standard, strict definition of that word.


----------



## Ethereality

When I saw those 'favorite era' polls, it didn't surprise me at all to see Modern/Contemporary winning by a lot. Yes, Classical has the best composers, but Modern has the best music. A million grapes weigh more than 10 watermelons.


----------



## hammeredklavier

mmsbls said:


> 1) The classical music community and TC clearly views Rachmaninoff, Brahms, and Saint-Saëns as important and excellent composers with wonderful contributions to classical music. They are frequently recorded, performed, and discussed. And maybe a small group might think they did not contribute any fresh music.


But again, I find that it's usually the advocates of contemporary serial composition who undervalue the late Romantic tonal composers as lacking in "freshness". ie. Phil loves classical, Enthusiast, millionrainbows, etc. I think it's a somewhat similar phenomenon to the one I talked about in [Post#101].



mmsbls said:


> 3) Some view Williams as a classical music composer (he certainly did write classical music), and maybe some prefer to view him as a film composer.


I also think it's not a coincidence that SanAntone, an avid contemporary music enthusiast, is very critical/skeptical (probably more than anyone else on this forum) of John Williams regarding his status as a classical music composer.


----------



## Sid James

dissident said:


> Good points, but "argue" implies "argument"...The usual dynamic here is that one person will dissent from this or that "modernist" attitude, and then 4 or 5 more will pop out of nowhere to tag-team against that one, and that one will then be the one in the wrong...


I know what you mean, and I remember it being a regular occurrence around 2015 when the modernist situation was at its peak here. Each side had a few ringleaders, and once the thread got heated their minions would inevitably appear. Of course, this was the equivalent of pouring petrol onto the fire. Frequently, harassment and even bullying would ensue.

Tactics of that sort inevitably erode people's confidence in the forum as a place for open discussion. They lose trust in being able to state their opinion because of a fear of being attacked. It can also lead to unwritten rules being developed, which inevitably damage the forum culture.

A couple of decades ago, I did a course on aesthetics and it focused on modernism and postmodernism. I do remember some debates, particularly in relation to the "what next?" aspect of what was happening post-Cold War, since the Soviet Union dissolved in the early '90's. It was still fresh back then. Some where sympathetic to modernism, others more critical of it. Nevertheless, I never met anyone who embraced it without any reservations, nor anyone who would fully reject it to the extent of near denial.

So, in relation to my participation on TC early on, it came as a bit of a shock to discover that there where still people to whom the debates of half a century ago where still continuing. As I said, I'm not sure what exactly to make of this. I know many areas of culture are challenged in this era of increasing uncertainty, but why this on a classical forum? I haven't participated in any jazz forum, for example, but I can't imagine people there pulling daggers over something like Ornette Coleman and free jazz. He's the closest equivalent to Cage that I can think of.

Its history, done and dusted, so what's the point of all the rancour? Again, this is a rhetorical question.


----------



## fbjim

I've mentioned "toxic atmosphere" in the past, and the lack of confidence that certain discussions can be reasonably had here is sort of a better way to put it. The common accusation of "marytdom" and claiming "harassment" is wrong headed. The real complaint is lack of confidence that certain music can be discussed without the discussion becoming sidetracked by squabbling. Fans of Wagner may know what I'm talking about here. 

There are things this forum is great for- the composer guest books are invaluable, it's a great resource for finding less explored parts of the repitoire, from early music on, and the discussion tends to be good. But I would never use this forum to ask, for instance, where to start with John Cage's number pieces. There are other places for that. 

Maybe it's just part of the game - different discussion forums may have different strengths and weaknesses.


----------



## SanAntone

fbjim said:


> But I would never use this forum to ask, for instance, where to start with John Cage's number pieces. There are other places for that.


Where is that?  I'm interested.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Re: The Anti-Modernist Crowd

I say it’s easier to ignore them than confront them and this is because you’re not going to change their mind, so why bother? You’re wasting your time. It’s like arguing over politics or religion. No minds have ever been changed in the long-run. If anything, it has created an enemy instead of finding common ground to which both can agree to disagree and talk about something of mutual interest. I remember one time someone told me what I was listening to was garbage (I believe was listening to some Xenakis or something) and I could’ve easily given in and gave them a piece of my mind, but I soon realized that it’s not even worth the trouble.


----------



## fbjim

hammeredklavier said:


> But again, I find that it's usually the advocates of contemporary serial composition who undervalue the late Romantic tonal composers as lacking in "freshness". ie. Phil loves classical, Enthusiast, millionrainbows, etc. I think it's a somewhat similar phenomenon to the one I talked about in [Post#101].


Those seem to be about Mozart, and not late Romantic work. Actually I have noticed (and this should not be taken as a seriously rigurous observation) that people I know who like modern and contemporary classical music are more likely to dislike the classical era, rather than romantic music. (and specifically the classical era, they're more likely in my limited experience to like baroque/Renaissance/early music than classical)


----------



## mmsbls

hammeredklavier said:


> But again, I find that it's usually the advocates of contemporary serial composition who undervalue the late Romantic tonal composers as lacking in "freshness". ie. Phil loves classical, Enthusiast, millionrainbows, etc. I think it's a somewhat similar phenomenon to the one I talked about in [Post#101].
> 
> I also think it's not a coincidence that SanAntone, an avid contemporary music enthusiast, is very critical/skeptical (probably more than anyone else on this forum) of John Williams regarding his status as a classical music composer.


Fine, but does it matter? I just can't imagine their collective view has changed others views of Rachmaninov, Brahms, Saint-Saens, or Williams.


----------



## Portamento

hammeredklavier said:


> I also think it's not a coincidence that SanAntone, an avid contemporary music enthusiast, is very critical/skeptical (probably more than anyone else on this forum) of John Williams regarding his status as a classical music composer.


It was not John Williams' supposed lack of contemporary-ness that made people skeptical of calling his _film music_ "classical."


----------



## hammeredklavier

fbjim said:


> Those seem to be about Mozart, and not late Romantic work.


I said it's a _similar_ pattern; I remember numerous instances of the member [Phil loves classical] criticizing Brahms that "he would have sounded far better (and less bombastic) had he written in a newer idiom", and the member [Enthusiast] saying "it's _amazing_ was Saint-Saëns was still writing tonal music even in the 20th century", and I believe they haven't changed their views.



fbjim said:


> Actually I have noticed (and this should not be taken as a seriously rigurous observation) that people I know who like modern and contemporary classical music are more likely to dislike the classical era, rather than romantic music.


I recall certain modern music enthusiasts saying that they prefer the pre-Romantic periods for their lack of overt expressions of emotions. (I came across them in old threads; they had stopped coming to the forum long ago and I forgot their names)


----------



## Sid James

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


----------



## Simon23

fluteman said:


> Good points, but I wouldn't go quite that far. The music industry has a habit of making consumer audio as low quality as it can get away with. Computer audio has been no better, in some ways worse, though some of the most serious current problems are mainly outside the realm of classical music (thank goodness). Audiophiles have played a useful role in making sure the technological potential for better audio is realized for those who can hear the difference and want it.
> 
> The reason I have to agree with you, despite what I just wrote, is that many audiophiles have the annoying habit of giving sound quality higher priority than even musical merit, when it should be well behind. Ultimately, audiophilia can become a fetish, with devotees seeking out expensive cures for non-existent problems and putting their faith in snake oil remedies. As I said above, the knowledge and sophistication of nearly everyone here regarding classical music leaves many of these audiophiles far behind. Once again, thank goodness.


Thank you, I also agree with you in many ways. Indeed, the problem of serious deterioration in the quality of recordings is characteristic mainly for popular music. The classics are even now being recorded quite adequately. The main problem in modern classical recordings is another-a catastrophic drop in the level of performers compared to the analog era.
I want to clarify that criticizing "audiophilia", I do not encourage listening to classics in mp3 from a computer. High-quality sound is certainly important. But, as you have noticed, it should not be more important than music.


----------



## mikeh375

Simon23 said:


> I was surprised (pleasantly surprised) the fact that there are very few "audiophiles" here. Which, for example, believe that the sound engineer is no less (or even more) important than the performer. That mono recordings cannot be listened to. That the more expensive your audio system is, the better you understand music. etc. I spent about 10 years on various audio forums and I have a strong belief that "audiophilia" greatly harms music. Especially the classic one.


As an aside, some orchestral musicians do acknowledge the contribution to their sound that is created by a sound recordist who's ears are sensitive enough to capture the beauty, warmth and bloom that a hall might have to offer. I've mentioned this before, but I recently worked with a violinist who said that the quality of the recording plays a determining role in his overall sound - obvious really, but still appreciated and the the best possible methods are sought after.

Capturing a performance with a hall ambience well is an art.


----------



## Simon23

mikeh375 said:


> As an aside, some orchestral musicians do acknowledge the contribution to their sound that is created by a sound recordist who's ears are sensitive enough to capture the beauty, warmth and bloom that a hall might have to offer. I've mentioned this before, but I recently worked with a violinist who said that the quality of the recording plays a determining role in his overall sound - obvious really, but still appreciated and the the best possible methods are sought after.
> 
> Capturing a performance with a hall ambience well is an art.


Ок, I'll try to explain it from the other side. Let's take a hypothetical great violinist who was not very lucky with a sound engineer and a studio (or with a time epoch), and his recordings have a low dynamic range, and perhaps even mono or 78 rpm. Will you refuse to listen to it? And audiophiles do just that.


----------



## mikeh375

Simon23 said:


> Ок, I'll try to explain it from the other side. Let's take a hypothetical great violinist who was not very lucky with a sound engineer and a studio (or with a time epoch), and his recordings have a low dynamic range, and perhaps even mono or 78 rpm. Will you refuse to listen to it? And audiophiles do just that.


No, I wouldn't bother with such recordings apart from perhaps a curiosity to hear just once or twice maybe, interpretations from a famous name. Low quality recordings don't regularly make it to my ears. We are fortunate to have great technology and fine players these days, so for listening pleasure, I prefer high fidelity. However I'm not an audiophile nut in the sense you might mean but I was a professional composer working in studios. My DAW can record up to 96kHz but I never professionally went beyond 48kHz and even then, I struggled to hear the difference between that and 44.1kHz.


----------



## Kreisler jr

Simon23 said:


> Ок, I'll try to explain it from the other side. Let's take a hypothetical great violinist who was not very lucky with a sound engineer and a studio (or with a time epoch), and his recordings have a low dynamic range, and perhaps even mono or 78 rpm. Will you refuse to listen to it? And audiophiles do just that.


Their loss. I had a bit of contact with some people with audiophile leanings about 15 years ago and while I found a lot of their preferences a bit puzzling, I never had the impression that they this small community was powerful enough to "hurt" music, classical or otherwise.

I think I agree with you at the core but not in the details or implications. I am very far from an audiophile and consider myself rather tolerant towards historic recordings, e.g. I am usually fine with good mono sound from ca. 1950 and often also with 1930s recordings, but there are also some recordings where the poor (very historic, bootleg, other kinds of distortions) sound is so distracting that it seriously impairs my enjoyment of the music and I will hardly ever listen to such recordings. So while I also think that people who find e.g. early 60s stereo recordings not good enough for them, lose out, I can hardly demand that my personal (limited) tolerance for mediocre sound should hold for them.


----------



## eljr

Simon23 said:


> Ок, I'll try to explain it from the other side. Let's take a hypothetical great violinist who was not very lucky with a sound engineer and a studio (or with a time epoch), and his recordings have a* low dynamic range, and perhaps even mono or 78 rpm*. Will you* refuse to listen to* it? And *audiophiles do just that.*


The bolded statement is totally unacceptable.

It is clear that this "statement of fact" is not at all fact but rather a subjective appraisal based on bias. (you do not want me to explain the seed of that bias)

Statements like this I find even more objectionable than the pomp of the "dinosaurs" claiming their brand of classical superior to all other music.

That said, enjoy the day!


----------



## eljr

Simon23 said:


> Thank you, I also agree with you in many ways. Indeed, the problem of serious deterioration in the quality of recordings is characteristic mainly for popular music. The classics are even now being recorded quite adequately. The main problem in modern classical recordings is another-a catastrophic drop in the level of performers compared to the analog era.
> I want to clarify that criticizing "audiophilia", I do not encourage listening to classics in mp3 from a computer. High-quality sound is certainly important. But, as you have noticed, it should not be more important than music.


Mind blowing posts I find here this morning.

Please link me to the data driven reservoir of knowledge that supports the inane claim that "The main problem in modern classical recordings is another-a catastrophic drop in the level of performers."

BTW, I have never met an audiophile who favors high quality sound over music and I am willing to bet you haven't either.


----------



## eljr

Sid James said:


> Its history, done and dusted, so what's the point of all the rancour?


Ego

Way easy question.


----------



## Heck148

Simon23 said:


> I was surprised (pleasantly surprised) the fact that there are very few "audiophiles" here. Which, for example, believe that the sound engineer is no less (or even more) important than the performer. That mono recordings cannot be listened to. That the more expensive your audio system is, the better you understand music. etc. I spent about 10 years on various audio forums and I have a strong belief that "audiophilia" greatly harms music. Especially the classic one.


Agreed, it is puzzling to me that some people will only listen to, purchase, modern digital recordings in the latest hi-fidelity...the performances themselves may be deadly dull, pedestrian, mediocre performances but in the latest "hi-fi" sound....they miss out on so much great recorded repertoire by avoiding older recordings of great performances...
for me, I'll take a great performance in decently recorded version over a dull, stodgy one in the latest audiophile format.


----------



## mikeh375

I'll just clarify that I was talking earlier about scratchy 78's and the like
that do not capture the beauty and bloom of an orchestra. I'd also like to put in a shout for great performance and high fidelity not being mutually exclusive.


----------



## JohnP

Heck148 said:


> Agreed, it is puzzling to me that some people will only listen to, purchase, modern digital recordings in the latest hi-fidelity...the performances themselves may be deadly dull, pedestrian, mediocre performances but in the latest "hi-fi" sound....they miss out on so much great recorded repertoire by avoiding older recordings of great performances...
> for me, I'll take a great performance in decently recorded version over a dull, stodgy one in the latest audiophile format.


Heck148, I think that's due to some explainable factors.
1. Marketing, including reviews
2. Convenience: many of those you speak of listen with their phones. More power to them for listening at all, and who's to say that their level of appreciation isn't intense? But you're talking about truly great performances, not just handy downloads in good sound.
3. They've never heard a great recording on vinyl. Many people are put off by the pops and clicks--I was for a long time. But properly cleaned, well-engineered vinyl recordings are hard to beat--maybe impossible, digitally. Just my opinion.

(To Simon23.... I'm not the kind of audiophile you speak of. I know some of those guys, I'm not them, and I'm glad of it. But given my druthers, I'll take a great performance in great sound. That's thrilling. That increases the likelihood that I'll really listen and get involved. If I can only have one of those, give me the great performance every time, even if it's in mono, even on a radio. I guess that, for me, there are levels of enjoyment.

Good stereo systems or headphones help, of course, in achieving the best sound; and they can minimize the harm done by bad engineering. (Or they can reveal it in all its painful detail.))


----------



## fluteman

eljr said:


> Mind blowing posts I find here this morning.
> 
> Please link me to the data driven reservoir of knowledge that supports the inane claim that "The main problem in modern classical recordings is another-a catastrophic drop in the level of performers."
> 
> BTW, I have never met an audiophile who favors high quality sound over music and I am willing to bet you haven't either.


For your first statement, I agree that there has been no catastrophic drop in the level of performers, at least not in terms of technical capability. Quite the contrary. What has happened, imo, is that the gradual increase in importance of recordings as opposed to live performance has had an important impact on classical music performance overall.

For your second statement, you would lose that bet with me many times over. Among other things, classical vinyl LP audiophiles (I admit, a subset) focus inordinately on a tiny handful of classical LPs for sonic and/or rarity and not musical reasons, though many (not all) of these feature great musical performances as well. These LPs, in mint original condition, often sold for hundreds or even thousands before most were reissued by boutique audiophile labels, usually with much better sound than the originals, not to mention high-resolution digital reissues.

But the example I gave above of the 15 ips reel-to-reel tape audiophiles should suffice. Yes, these old, and imo obsolete, tape decks can be bought and restored, or bought already restored, for not too much money. But Acoustic Sounds, probably today's leading analog audio software dealer, has all of 37 titles for $450 each. And you won't find many more, for a much lower price, elsewhere. Yet there is an active market for this.

My main point is, at least TC members are interested first and foremost in music, other than a disingenuous few who seem more interested in their political and/or religious agendas.


----------



## fbjim

The drop in performance level is arguably true of opera but certainly not for instrumental technique, unless you just happen to prefer the styles of certain older orchestral or soloist playing.

I've heard some argue that playing and orchestral sonority has become more homogenous but I don't really have the experience to comment on that. I'll leave that to the people who can identify the Talich era Czech Philharmonic by ear.


----------



## fbjim

Also as someone who likes to trawl around thrift shops for RCA LSCs and refuses to buy American-made London Records-classical LPs are a subset of my listening that I enjoy for itself - I definitely do a lot of streaming and CD listening as well. And really, I do it because it's cheap. Have you seen the prices first pressings of rock and pop LPs go for these days? 

(that said, if anyone has an LSC copy of Otello....)


----------



## fluteman

fbjim said:


> Also as someone who likes to trawl around thrift shops for RCA LSCs and refuses to buy American-made London Records-classical LPs are a subset of my listening that I enjoy for itself - I definitely do a lot of streaming and CD listening as well. And really, I do it because it's cheap. Have you seen the prices first pressings of rock and pop LPs go for these days?
> 
> (that said, if anyone has an LSC copy of Otello....)


Ahh, the famous London - Decca controversy. But it has been proved, as conclusively as any such thing can be proved, that the early London and Decca LPs are identical, both made in England at the same factory and simultaneously. The American exports had to have a different label as English Decca no longer had the rights to the Decca name in the US. Later on, things changed on both sides of the pond.

As for RCA LSC LPs, don't get me started. Some great orchestras and soloists, and a great sound engineer in the American John Pfeiffer, and in a few instances legendary British Decca engineer Kenneth Wilkinson, though imo an over emphasis on "classical hits". But inferior technology to what was commonly available beginning in the late 60s. Their popularity with audiophiles mainly is down to the effective advocacy of two or three audio writers back in the day. Don't worry, I probably have about 30 of them, as I am a big Heifetz, Rubinstein and Munch fan.


----------



## fbjim

Don't forget Fiedler! I mean, based on what I see at shops, he might have been the best selling conductor of the era and despite it being pops, he's got some fabulous stuff, particularly the Gershwin album with Earl Wild.


----------



## Heck148

JohnP said:


> Heck148, I think that's due to some explainable factors.
> 2. Convenience: many of those you speak of listen with their phones. More power to them for listening at all, and who's to say that their level of appreciation isn't intense? But you're talking about truly great performances, not just handy downloads in good sound.


Exactly, a lackluster, mediocre performance in great sound is still lackluster and mediocre.



> (To Simon23.... I'm not the kind of audiophile you speak of. I know some of those guys, I'm not them, and I'm glad of it. But given my druthers, I'll take a great performance in great sound. That's thrilling. That increases the likelihood that I'll really listen and get involved. If I can only have one of those, give me the great performance every time, even if it's in mono, even on a radio. I guess that, for me, there are levels of enjoyment.


yes, same here....the performance is the key factor for me....great sounding poor performances just highlight the shortcomings that much more clearly.

Good stereo systems or headphones help, of course, in achieving the best sound; and they can minimize the harm done by bad engineering. (Or they can reveal it in all its painful detail.))[/QUOTE]


----------



## eljr

Heck148 said:


> for me, I'll take a great performance in decently recorded version over a dull, stodgy one in the latest audiophile format.


As I would expect anyone who regards themselves as an audiophile would.

My question, respectfully, where to do folks come up with their ideas on audiophiles? (rhetorical, I know where)


----------



## eljr

JohnP said:


> 2. Convenience: many of those you speak of listen with their phones. *More power to them for listening at all*, and who's to say that their level of appreciation isn't intense? But you're talking about truly great performances, not just handy downloads in good sound.


Yes, enjoy the music on whatever you fancy.

As to how intense is their enjoyment, when I had less refined audio equipment I enjoyed music every bit as much as I do today. 
Thing is, the poor sound I used to enjoy now bothers me. It's hard to go backwards is the bottom line.



JohnP said:


> (To Simon23.... I'm not the kind of audiophile you speak of. * I know some of those guys*,)


Where, how do you know them? I ask because I have never met a one as described in hate posts and being from NYC I would think I'd be more likely to. Heck, the old Sound by Singer in Union Square was know across the land for their arrogance. Whenever I was there, before I could even afford their stuff, I never felt any of it. 
Did they believe in magic wires? Yes. That is different.

My experience is that folks who do not have better equipment interpret things in very defensive posture which quickly becomes accusatory.

Just my experience. It really bugs me, obviously, to read posts that belittle people (not you of course, you have done no such thing) who's hobby is not only music but the pursuit of the best quality reproduction of it. I applaud them.


----------



## fluteman

eljr said:


> Heck, the old Sound by Singer in Union Square was know across the land for their arrogance. Whenever I was there, before I could even afford their stuff, I never felt any of it.


Andy Singer could be crabby. It seems he's still alive and kicking, so if he's reading this, Hi, Andy.:lol:



fbjim said:


> Don't forget Fiedler! I mean, based on what I see at shops, he might have been the best selling conductor of the era and despite it being pops, he's got some fabulous stuff, particularly the Gershwin album with Earl Wild.


For me, Fiedler was a competent conductor but not a great one. Erich Kunzel was better, imo. But Fiedler had a good sense of what was needed for jazzy pops numbers -- discipline, and taking them seriously as works of artistic merit.

Earl Wild was at our house when I was a kid. A polite and well-mannered but prickly guy. I think as an openly gay man, he hugely resented it when he felt he wasn't being treated with the dignity and respect someone of his stature deserved. For example, when he rejected the advances of Virgil Thomson, a famous composer, critic and older gay man, Wild felt he suffered career-damaging retribution. But one couldn't speak openly about gay relationships, so nothing could be done. (All this according to him.)


----------



## fluteman

eljr said:


> As I would expect anyone who regards themselves as an audiophile would.
> 
> My question, respectfully, where to do folks come up with their ideas on audiophiles? (rhetorical, I know where)


It's never a good idea to insult and dismiss whole groups, including audiophiles, who as I've said have had a positive impact on consumer audio. Maynard and Seymour Solomon, the founders of Vanguard Records, an excellent small classical label, were audiophiles. My father attended a party at Seymour Solomon's New York apartment and told me his audio system was not to be believed.

But the audiophile world has had its share of snake oil salesmen, and when it goes too far, I have no choice but to call BS, if I'm allowed to say that here. Also, endlessly buying the same few classical titles (or Beatles, or anything else) in the latest super duper format seems silly, and I've known a number who fall into that category. It seems like putting the technology ahead of the music and making a fetish out of equipment. If you want to hear the best possible sound, listen to music live.

Finally, as I've said, none of that applies to TC members, who are much more sophisticated, informed, and genuinely interested in classical music than that, with very few if any exceptions.


----------



## eljr

fluteman said:


> It's never a good idea to insult and dismiss whole groups, including audiophiles, who as I've said have had a positive impact on consumer audio. Maynard and Seymour Solomon, the founders of Vanguard Records, an excellent small classical label, were audiophiles. My father attended a party at Seymour Solomon's New York apartment and told me his audio system was not to be believed.
> 
> the audiophile world has had its share of snake oil salesmen, and when it goes too far, I have no choice but to call BS, if I'm allowed to say that here. Also, endlessly buying the same few classical titles (or Beatles, or anything else) in the latest super duper format seems silly, and I've known a number who fall into that category. It seems like putting the technology ahead of the music and making a fetish out of equipment. If you want to hear the best possible sound, listen to music live.
> 
> Finally, as I've said, none of that applies to TC members, who are much more sophisticated, informed, and genuinely interested in classical music than that, with very few if any exceptions.


Snake oil salesmen, absolutely. Most really believe it. Calling BS as bogus claims has nothing to do with appreciating better audio though.

If a guy says his noise canceling, blue tooth head phones *sound better to him *than does the moderately priced Stax SR-007MK2, I have no problem with that. If he say *they are better*, then I jump in and ask for objective corroboration, which he won't have. Big differance between these two statements.

As to buying the latest release of old stuff because it is on a new format, everyone does that. No way this is reserved for audiophiles.
And it does generally sound different because it's generally remastered. I personally have never heard a differance on SACD vs CD or DAD-A or Blu Ray Audio or... I have head better remastering on the high profile rereleases. 
I am not into that either. I move on, it's about new music for me. I don't get why people listen to the same things for 60 years. And keep buying it on different formats! But that is just me, I begrudge no one anything that does it. Enjoy if you do, I am happy you love music.

Do you have but one hobby? I don't don't. I have 3. One is music, one is audio, one is neuropsychology. 
Does music sound better live? Sometimes. Not always. Psychoacoustics is very important for example. Heck, I love live concerts because I stop for dinner or a drink before and or after. It really makes the experience greater *for me*. I love the walk through bar, the Knave on 57th before. I am sure you know it. Then just a few steps to Carnegie. This all goes into appreciating the music.

What I can't do and cannot understand are folks that change their basement into a concert hall. Perfect acoustical treatments everything. I could not listen to music like that. I need windows to enjoy music. Of course I know they are terrible for acoustics. 
Makes my experience better than the perfect room downstairs non the less.

Not sure what you mean by your last paragraph but I do not think sophistication has much to do with audiophilia or who believes in magic wires. Also, I don't know anyone who does not prefer live music on any level of the spectrum. It is not an either or, that is a fallacy if that's the suggestion.

Very cool to have had the kind of exposures you have had through your dad.

People hear what they expect to hear most times or misinterpret what they hear. So it an audiophile tells me he got a new cable elevator and it has transformed the sound, I call it ********. If he says it transforms the sound to him, I slap him on the back and tell him I am happy for him.

Good thoughts, thanks for sharing.


----------



## fluteman

To eljr: In honor of our polite and civilized discussion about audiophiles, I'm going to dig out (one of these days) my copy of the Leibowitz/LSO/Mussorgsky LP, The Power of the Orchestra, famously on the TAS list as one of the best-sounding classical LPs of all time, if not the best. I have an original, RCA LSC, shaded dog copy that I pulled from the dollar bins. Of course, those don't sell for as much as they used to, with all the audiophile reissues, including at least one 45 rpm 2 disc one. It's also one of those 11 classical titles you can buy on reel to reel tape from Acoustic Sounds for $450.

However, imo, this is nowhere near the best or best-sounding performance on record of this music, nor will it ever be, regardless of how often it is reissued. Peace, and good night.


----------



## fbjim

This is of course off topic but how much of the "total snake oil" audiophile stuff (eg magic rocks, $5000 cables) exist before the digital era? Another forum I browse which makes light of audiophile snake oil mentioned that digital allowing bit-correct copying without degradation took a lot of uncertainty out of things, meaning companies had to start more or less making up problems to sell solutions to. (they also mentioned that some of the dumb myths, especially based on CD players, actually had a basis of truth to them, but ones which only applied to very early CD player models) 


Also I fully love basement studios, hah. Honestly if you're going to spend the stupid amount of money the rich audiophiles spend on equipment, so many of them would be far better served building a listening room expansion in their house for that money. Even I've noticed things in my room affecting sound quality based on reflection and resonance, and I'm hardly a big spender.


----------



## fluteman

fbjim said:


> Honestly if you're going to spend the stupid amount of money the rich audiophiles spend on equipment, so many of them would be far better served building a listening room expansion in their house for that money. Even I've noticed things in my room affecting sound quality based on reflection and resonance, and I'm hardly a big spender.


Or better yet, hire live professional musicians to come to their homes and give private concerts for them and their friends. Turns out wealthy people who have a good ear for music do this all the time.

But back to the topic, another thing about TC that is very surprising to me is the frequent use of the perplexing terms "Common Practice" and "Common Practice Era", or CP and CPE.

Common Practice can't mean traditional western tonal music, as most western music has continued to be partly if not entirely tonal throughout the 20th and now 21st centuries, however strictly one defines "tonal", i.e., as using the diatonic scale, triads, and harmonic progressions based on the circle of fifths and the tonic - dominant and subdominant relationship. And anyway, there already is a term for that music -- tonal.

It could mean, music of the 18th and 19th European tradition employing the unamplified, acoustic instruments of the symphony orchestra and unamplified voices, especially in the symphonic and grand opera traditions. This definition works pretty well, especially for common practice as an era. While acoustic, unamplified symphonies and operas are still being written by prominent composers, many of these are commissioned by the orchestras and opera companies themselves or those associated with them, to help keep the opera and symphony traditions alive, even while the majority of their repertoire is still from 18th and 19th centuries.

Some here have resisted this definition when I suggested it, I suspect mainly because it would include some atonal music, such as that of Schoenberg (who rejected the term 'atonal'), Berg and Webern, and they don't like that music. Apparently, CP music, whatever else it is, needs to be music the user of the term prefers.


----------



## Heck148

fluteman said:


> ......endlessly buying the same few classical titles (or Beatles, or anything else) in the latest super duper format seems silly, and I've known a number who fall into that category. It seems like putting the technology ahead of the music and making a fetish out of equipment. * If you want to hear the best possible sound, listen to music live.*


Yes, for sure, live music is best....support live music.


----------



## eljr

fbjim said:


> Also I fully love basement studios, hah.


And when you do this, I will sincerely be happy for you. I do not expect others to be like me.



fbjim said:


> Honestly if you're going to spend the stupid amount of money the rich audiophiles spend on equipment, so many of them would be far better served building a listening room expansion in their house for that money.


Exactly what I did. Filled with windows!

For the record though, I have have found an equal number of audiophiles with shallow pockets as full pockets.


----------



## SONNET CLV

fluteman said:


> ...... endlessly buying the same few classical titles (or Beatles, or anything else) in the latest super duper format seems silly, and I've known a number who fall into that category. It seems like putting the technology ahead of the music and making a fetish out of equipment. *If you want to hear the best possible sound, listen to music live.*





Heck148 said:


> Yes, for sure, live music is best....support live music.


I agree.
So, tell me, please ... where do I go to hear The Beatles live?

Or should I invest in the new "remastered from the original master tapes" Beatles SACD and HD-200g vinyl box set of the Fab Four's music, of which I remain a fan?

I don't know much about snake oil, but I do use a quality clock oil to lubricate my VPI Scoutmaster II fitted with a ClearAudio Maestro Wood MM Cartridge pre-amplified and amplified through JoLida tube equipment (with Gold Lion KT88 power tubes and a combination of Mullard, Genalex and GE NOS 12AX7A/ECC83 and 12AT7/ECC81 pre-amp tubes) connected by upgraded, but modestly priced, power line and cables (from companies such as Audioquest, Kimber, Tara Labs and Monster Cable) with a SONY XA5400ES CD/SACD player for digital purposes all running through Triangle factory speaker wire into Triangle Antal speakers with an auxiliary ONKYO sub-woofer, power conditioned with a Panamax processor. Far from the most expensive equipment available but capable of eyebrow-raising sound. And I notice, oddly enough, that the sound improves on humid, damp days, for some inexplicable reason a friend of mine who is an electrical engineer could not explain.

But I'd much rather hear the Beatles live. Since that may prove difficult at best, I'm willing to settle on quality sound from my playback equipment and ever improving recording media. And though I can go to Berlin or Moscow or Cleveland or Pittsburgh to hear live symphonic music, what do I do if I want to hear Furtwängler or Mravinsky or Szell or Steinberg conducting these orchestras? Let alone the drumming of Charlie Watts. And if the SACD of the music comes out to replace the older CD, or a remastered high quality vinyl reissue hits the market, what is wrong with wanting to hear one's favorite interpretations in improved sound quality?

Sure, there's lots of live music out there, but it may not be to one's liking or performed at the levels capable of artists such as Heifetz, Rubinstein, Miles Davis or Ella Fitzgerald. Yet, with some moderate investment of time, research, and cash, one can put together a sound system capable of producing something of the illusion that Ella is singing in one's listening room, or that Charlie Watts is there drumming on his small but more than effective kit. And that's what we audiophiles are seeking: not higher and higher priced equipment, but musical bliss, the sort that comes from hearing one's favorite works or artists live, or at least as live as is currently possible via recording playback equipment. Snake oil has nothing to do with it.

But if snake oil improves the shine of one's boots, I'll buy a bottle.


----------



## fluteman

SONNET CLV said:


> And that's what we audiophiles are seeking: not higher and higher priced equipment, but musical bliss, the sort that comes from hearing one's favorite works or artists live, or at least as live as is currently possible via recording playback equipment. Snake oil has nothing to do with it.


Alas, you don't, and can't, speak for other audiophiles. The specific examples I've already given more than suffice to make my points on the subject. Your system shows you seek to get as good sound as possible from 33 1/3 rpm vinyl LPs that are over 35 years old, and perhaps a limited number of reissues, while avoiding solid state electronics. That's a matter of personal taste, and perfectly reasonable. My only point there was, undeniable improvements in digital audio and solid state electronics since the 1990s have made those options more palatable to many (including the revered sage Michael Fremer). But again, it's a matter of taste.

But the existence of a format with only 37 available titles (11 classical) at $450 each, and the lack of true interest, much less knowledge, of many of those who pursue such things, or who mindlessly stockpile RCA LSC "shaded dog" or TAS listed LPs, implies audiophilia often goes too far. And I'm not taking anyone else's word for any of this. I've done my own investigation of the audiophile world, including listening to $100,000+ audio systems.

And finally, I wasn't talking about you or other TC members. People here clearly know and care more about music than that, audiophiles or not.


----------



## eljr

fluteman said:


> But the existence of a format with only 37 available titles (11 classical) at $450 each, and the lack of true interest, much less knowledge, of many of those who pursue such things, or who mindlessly stockpile RCA LSC "shaded dog" or TAS listed LPs, implies audiophilia often goes too far..


I have enjoyed reading your posts as I have said. I really do.

I just can't agree with this. It is not going too far if the person enjoys owning 11 classical titles at $450 a pop. As long as he does not tell me they do something they don't and they are not taking food from his kids to buy them, God bless, enjoy.

---------------


----------



## fluteman

eljr said:


> I have enjoyed reading your posts as I have said. I really do.
> 
> I just can't agree with this. It is not going too far if the person enjoys owning 11 classical titles at $450 a pop. As long as he does not tell me they do something they don't and they are not taking food from his kids to buy them, God bless, enjoy.
> 
> ---------------


Yes, chacun a son gout. But if you're letting someone else tell you which 11, and only 11, classical music records (or tapes) you should have, well, you're missing out on a lot that your 5 grand could have bought you, no matter what your tastes happen to be. Even so, those folks are welcome to their hobby. They just are no use to me, and I'm glad most here aren't like that. That's all. Ciao.


----------



## fbjim

(white dogs and even RCA VICS sound just fine, btw. i've got a few Munch recordings on those, at a fraction of the price of the mythical LSC shaded dogs)


----------



## eljr

fluteman said:


> Yes, chacun a son gout.* But if you're letting someone else tell you which 11, and only 11, classical music records (or tapes) you should have, well, you're missing out on a lot that your 5 grand could have bought you*, no matter what your tastes happen to be. Even so, those folks are welcome to their hobby. They just are no use to me, and I'm glad most here aren't like that. That's all. Ciao.


So what? You and I aren't.

I just don't get the judgemental perspective.

Speaking for myself, I am way happier with two mono bocks than with one 2 channel power amp in my statement system. 
My audio guy, a true high end store, no Nad, Yamaha, Cambridge... told me point blank I did not need mono blocks. My 2 channel amp was pleaty good enough to drive my speakers. No snake oil at all in play. 
I told him I understand, it's a want not a need. I had no expectation of improved fidelity. I bought them anyway. To you a waste of money. 
You would write about me disparagingly.

I love them, they have made me happy for years. It was a great decision, FOR ME.

We are all different, like you said, chacun à son goût. But why then does it bother people when someone chooses a different path than they would? This is what I cannot understand.

Peace


----------



## fluteman

fbjim said:


> (white dogs and even RCA VICS sound just fine, btw. i've got a few Munch recordings on those, at a fraction of the price of the mythical LSC shaded dogs)


Now you're giving away all the secrets. :lol: I even have a few red labels (!) that sound superb. But they are very much the exception. Long ago, but after the prices came down and nearly all of them could be had for $10 or less, even in "shaded dog" form, I looked through the entire shaded dog RCA LSC catalog and decided which ones I wanted, such as the Juilliard Quartet's Berg Lyric Suite and Beethoven Op. 135 (already had their Op. 131), and the Munch / BSO Ravel and Debussy LPs.

And I have to concede, a number of my favorites of various labels from the 50s and early 60s, mono and stereo, had great sound but were ruined in 70s reissues and 80s transfers to CD, so much so you need to hear them on the original LPs to get the real music. At least one I can think of offhand is an audiophile favorite and eventually was reissued as a fine audiophile pressing. But the others aren't, just great recordings of great music ruined by later reissues that fooled around with the sound.

I hope eljr and SONNET CLV, with their Scoutmasters and tube amps, aren't reading this!


----------



## eljr

fluteman said:


> I hope eljr and SONNET CLV, with their Scoutmasters and tube amps, aren't reading this!


ELJR uses neither nor is he so inclined. (except tubes look so damned cool) Please make a note before attempting to bait again, thanks!


----------



## fluteman

eljr said:


> ELJR uses neither nor is he so inclined. (except tubes look so damned cool) Please make a note before attempting to bait again, thanks!


That was an attempt at self-deprecating humor on my part. The point was, I was revealing some audiophile sensibilities on my part after adopting a less than fully enthusiastic attitude about audiophilia with you.

Obviously, humor doesn't translate well online. Sorry about that.


----------



## eljr

fluteman said:


> That was an attempt at self-deprecating humor on my part. The point was, I was revealing some audiophile sensibilities on my part after adopting a less than fully enthusiastic attitude about audiophilia with you.
> 
> Obviously, humor doesn't translate well online. Sorry about that.


No it does not. I get caught misinterpreted like that all the time. 
I am glad to read this post as I do enjoy reading your posts and love hearing about your exposures.


----------



## Art Rock

Temporarily closed while the moderating team discusses how to proceed.


----------



## Art Rock

Several posts on a politically coloured side topic have been removed. Please note that discussion of such subjects is not allowed at Talk Classical, unless in the dedicated sub-forum and there only if it is directly related to music.


----------



## fluteman

Art Rock said:


> Several posts on a politically coloured side topic have been removed. Please note that discussion of such subjects is not allowed at Talk Classical, unless in the dedicated sub-forum and there only if it is directly related to music.


Right. And for my part, I apologize for diving so far down the audiophile side topic. But even though people here or elsewhere can have heated arguments over whether power conditioners or room treatments are worthwhile, or whether a recording by a great violinist on an ancient mono 78 still is listenable today, there is a profound difference between arguments over issues like that and the political posts you deleted:

That is, eljr, SONNET CLV, fbjim, myself, and anyone else who chimed in on the sound quality issues, are all just honestly calling 'em like we hear 'em. There is no non-musical agenda or bias, political or otherwise, subtle or overt, fouling the discussion. And whether they realize it or not, those who disagree with me on these things (and if we got deeper into it, there would be many more disagreements, as well as agreements) not only have my respect, I almost always understand and sympathize with their point of view even if it differs from mine. I (and most of you) have been listening to thousands of classical records for decades. Most of us can see the various sides of whatever issues there are, and how tastes and opinions can legitimately differ, both in the performances themselves, and how they were recorded.

Sadly but understandably, the same is not true for important non-musical issues, where we all have such a major personal and emotional stake.


----------



## RogerWaters

What surprises me about TC is how much some people can write, often going off-topic doing so.


----------



## science

One of the things (although not the absolutely most surprising) that has surprised me is that so many people profess a passion for Bach's music, and perhaps a bit of Handel's music, but aren't very interested in the rest of the Baroque era.


----------



## Simon23

eljr said:


> The bolded statement is totally unacceptable.
> 
> It is clear that this "statement of fact" is not at all fact but rather a subjective appraisal based on bias. (you do not want me to explain the seed of that bias)
> 
> Statements like this I find even more objectionable than the pomp of the "dinosaurs" claiming their brand of classical superior to all other music.
> 
> That said, enjoy the day!


I agree, in order to be as correct as possible, I had to write "many audiophiles" (not all of them, of course). I've spent many years on audio forums, so believe me, I know what I'm talking about.


----------



## Taggart

science said:


> One of the things (although not the absolutely most surprising) that has surprised me is that so many people profess a passion for Bach's music, and perhaps a bit of Handel's music, but aren't very interested in the rest of the Baroque era.


 Just because you like Dickens doesn't mean you'll like Eliot (George), Gaskell, Thackeray, the Brontes or Trollope. You can like certain pieces or composers without having to buy into the whole scene around them.

Equally one could say that since Bach is the epitome of the Baroque, what else does one need?


----------



## Kreisler jr

Taggart said:


> Equally one could say that since Bach is the epitome of the Baroque, what else does one need?


One could say the same about other epochs, and they are usually shorter whereas Monteverdi is 100 years earlier and more different from Bach than say Tchaikovsky from Dvorak.
But the misapprehension of "baroque" begins when people say "baroque" and only mean the last ca. 30-50 years of late baroque from ~1710-50, not the 100 years before that.


----------



## fluteman

Taggart said:


> Just because you like Dickens doesn't mean you'll like Eliot (George), Gaskell, Thackeray, the Brontes or Trollope. You can like certain pieces or composers without having to buy into the whole scene around them.
> 
> Equally one could say that since Bach is the epitome of the Baroque, what else does one need?


Even if his work isn't as great as the others, if you don't like Trollope, you need to see a cardiologist about your missing heart.


----------



## science

Taggart said:


> Just because you like Dickens doesn't mean you'll like Eliot (George), Gaskell, Thackeray, the Brontes or Trollope. You can like certain pieces or composers without having to buy into the whole scene around them.
> 
> Equally one could say that since Bach is the epitome of the Baroque, what else does one need?


We can even that say we need nothing but Beethoven's ninth, the epitome of western art music.


----------



## science

Kreisler jr said:


> One could say the same about other epochs, and they are usually shorter whereas Monteverdi is 100 years earlier and more different from Bach than say Tchaikovsky from Dvorak.
> But the misapprehension of "baroque" begins when people say "baroque" and only mean the last ca. 30-50 years of late baroque from ~1710-50, not the 100 years before that.


I just had a thought that perhaps it's related to the resistance to Vivaldi. A lot of classical newbies are in love with the Four Seasons, so at some point one has to earn one's bona fides by professing to be sick of it, with bonus points for being sick of the rest of Vivaldi since Stravinsky said something about five hundred times. And of course we have to disavow Pachelbel's canon.

And poof! Just like that, down goes Albinoni, Biber, Corelli, and so on all the way to Zelenka.

To compensate, I propose to bestow especial esteem on those who demonstrate as deep a knowledge and appreciation of Frescobaldi, Buxtehude, F. Couperin, and Rameau as of Ries, Berwald, Hummel, and Weber.


----------



## SanAntone

science said:


> I just had a thought that perhaps it's related to the resistance to Vivaldi. A lot of classical newbies are in love with the Four Seasons, so at some point one has to earn one's bona fides by professing to be sick of it, with bonus points for being sick of the rest of Vivaldi since Stravinsky said something about five hundred times. And of course we have to disavow Pachelbel's canon.
> 
> And poof! Just like that, down goes Albinoni, Biber, Corelli, and so on all the way to Zelenka.
> 
> To compensate, I propose to bestow especial esteem on those who demonstrate as deep a knowledge and appreciation of Frescobaldi, Buxtehude, F. Couperin, and Rameau as of Ries, Berwald, Hummel, and Weber.


You act as though someone just does not like that kind of Baroque music. I have never found the _Four Seasons_ interesting, as well as most of Vivaldi, for that matter. Pachebel's _Canon_ has been over used to the point of absurdity; I can't listen to it anymore, and as a consequence will never watch _Ordinary People_ ever again.

Mainly, what I listen to from the Baroque, outside of Bach, are the operas. Rameau and others. But I am not posing - I just follow my bliss.


----------



## FrankE

A lot of game threads.
I don't understand them or know enough to play though. Plenty other threads


----------



## pianozach

Sondersdorf said:


> What surprised me most about talkclassical.com? How much time people spend typing. I suspect that often there is music playing and people are engaged more with typing than the music. They might be patting themselves on the back for being the type of person who listens to a lot of classical music, too. I might be wrong.
> 
> All the polls and games surprise me. One post like the one where someone said they heard Dvorak's Piano Quintet No. 2, Op. 81, B. 155: II. Dumka. Andante con moto in a record store and it opened a new world of music to them is more valuable to me than all the polls.


I frequent some social media, and two blogs, and have been compiling a seemingly endless "Watch Later" list on Youtube. If something looks or sounds interesting I'll add it to my list. I'll listen to what I've loaded in 10 at a time, sometimes months later. Surprisingly, it started with the first three tracks from the debut albums of rappers that are recognized as being significant. I was appalled at the misogyny and hate, but I forced myself to listen.

I've actually started posting my 10-at-a-time listening in one of the other What Are You Listening To threads, and it's rather odd to see them listed out in this way.

But I digress. *TC* exposes me to Never-Heard, or forgotten music, and sometimes I put it on my list. I've added *Dvorak's Piano Quintet No. 2, Op. 81, B. 155: II. Dumka* to the list based on your very brief description of how it affected someone deeply. I usually try to keep the tracks I add under 10 minutes, but I make exceptions to my own loose "rules" whenever it suits. me.

So, thanks for the recommendation. I chose a version by *Menahem Pressler* and the *Emerson String Quartet*.

I'll listen to it eventually.


----------



## fluteman

science said:


> I just had a thought that perhaps it's related to the resistance to Vivaldi. A lot of classical newbies are in love with the Four Seasons, so at some point one has to earn one's bona fides by professing to be sick of it, with bonus points for being sick of the rest of Vivaldi since Stravinsky said something about five hundred times. And of course we have to disavow Pachelbel's canon.
> 
> And poof! Just like that, down goes Albinoni, Biber, Corelli, and so on all the way to Zelenka.
> 
> To compensate, I propose to bestow especial esteem on those who demonstrate as deep a knowledge and appreciation of Frescobaldi, Buxtehude, F. Couperin, and Rameau as of Ries, Berwald, Hummel, and Weber.


Out of those, I'd give special recognition to Couperin and Rameau. Also Boismortier. Maybe even Corrette. I find French baroque music inexplicably underrated. But not just at TC, so I can't say I'm "surprised", to stick to the topic.


----------



## fbjim

I think capital-C Classical that isn't Haydn or Mozart is also surprisingly rare.


----------



## fluteman

fbjim said:


> I think capital-C Classical that isn't Haydn or Mozart is also surprisingly rare.


Agreed. In many ways, European classical music followed the blueprint created (in large part) by Haydn and built upon by Mozart and Beethoven until the mid-20th century. Boccherini, Hummel, Spohr, Reicha and especially Weber all were much more celebrated in their own time than today.


----------



## science

fluteman said:


> Out of those, I'd give special recognition to Couperin and Rameau. Also Boismortier. Maybe even Corrette. I find French baroque music inexplicably underrated. But not just at TC, so I can't say I'm "surprised", to stick to the topic.


Upon you, my friend, I bestow my especial esteem.


----------



## science

fbjim said:


> I think capital-C Classical that isn't Haydn or Mozart is also surprisingly rare.


That's true too (not counting Beethoven as classical).


----------



## MusicSybarite

*What has surprised me the most on TC?*

The huge stamina of many for listening to the same works over and over and over and over and over again. And on the other hand, the level of participation and creation of threads of any type. Now, those people are creative.


----------



## FrankinUsa

FrankE said:


> A lot of game threads.
> I don't understand them or know enough to play though. Plenty other threads


Lol. I don't understand the game threads either.


----------



## Bulldog

FrankinUsa said:


> Lol. I don't understand the game threads either.


I'm the guy who runs most of them. If you have questions, just ask. Art Rock, one of the TC moderators also runs games; I'm sure he would be pleased to address any questions.

I remember when I first joined TC and perused a couple of games. Piles upon piles of numbers. What's the parentheses about? What are they voting on? They do this every day.  What's wrong with these people?


----------



## HenryPenfold

FrankinUsa said:


> Lol. I don't understand the game threads either.


I don't understand most of them and when I contribute I tend to create a balls-up, so I stay away for the most part.


----------



## Forster

I'm 'surprised' at the number of people who are 'surprised', and about the number of things about which they are 'surprised'. I'm more...disappointed at the willingness of some to prefer snark to courtesy.

On a positive note, I'm more...pleased... at the number of people here with a signficant quantity of knowledge and their willingness to respond to questions dumb and complex.


----------



## hammeredklavier

FrankinUsa said:


> Lol. I don't understand the game threads either.


I've wondered; if the games were played anonymously, how many people would participate?


----------



## hammeredklavier

fluteman said:


> In many ways, European classical music followed the blueprint created (in large part) by Haydn


Sorry, but I find ^this sort of "overhype" around "that composer" "sickening" sometimes. 
https://www.talkclassical.com/71802-classical-music-vs-great-3.html#post2114525


hammeredklavier said:


> No.18 in C (1773), with a length of 26:45 (albeit with some repeats), rivals the most substantial symphonies of other composers of the time.
> 
> 
> 
> (the harmonies at 11:23~12:41 are wonderful).
> Compare it with





hammeredklavier said:


> No.18 in C:
> 
> 
> 
> (1:17~1:23)
> K.466:
> 
> 
> 
> (1:21~1:28 / 1:48~1:52)


----------



## RogerWaters

hammeredklavier said:


> Sorry, but I find ^this sort of "overhype" around "that composer" "sickening" sometimes.
> https://www.talkclassical.com/71802-classical-music-vs-great-3.html#post2114525


I'm surprised by the omnipresent and everpresent power Haydn has to trigger hammerdklavier :lol:


----------



## Sid James

MusicSybarite said:


> *What has surprised me the most on TC?*
> 
> The huge stamina of many for listening to the same works over and over and over and over and over again.


No need to be surprised, we're still normal people just like you.


----------



## Dan Ante

Sid James said:


> No need to be surprised, we're still normal people just like you.


Andante said he agrees with you.:cheers:


----------



## gregorx

hammeredklavier said:


> I've wondered; if the games were played anonymously, how many people would participate?


So, you're saying that people just vote for affect or because they have an agenda? I participate because it is (for me) the best way to explore the vast amount of music that's collectively called "classical music." I prefer 20th century and on, so pretty much stick to games that fit into that. And, yeah, I'll vote for a Webern composition over a Mozart because I like him better, not because I'm trying to sway anybody's opinion. Pretty much impossible here anyway. To me, the games are educational and fun, that's why I participate.


----------



## Art Rock

Given the number of posts about people surprised about the games, you can find more information here:
https://www.talkclassical.com/blogs/art-rock/3511-talk-classical-games.html


----------



## SanAntone

gregorx said:


> So, you're saying that people just vote for affect or because they have an agenda? I participate because it is (for me) the best way to explore the vast amount of music that's collectively called "classical music." I prefer 20th century and on, so pretty much stick to games that fit into that. And, yeah, I'll vote for a Webern composition over a Mozart because I like him better, not because I'm trying to sway anybody's opinion. Pretty much impossible here anyway. To me, the games are educational and fun, that's why I participate.


The games are the best thing about TC, IMO. I usually vote for my favorite composers, unless one or all of my choices are not competitive, and then I make strategic votes. The horse race aspect adds more interest than just a thread about making lists.


----------



## Bulldog

hammeredklavier said:


> I've wondered; if the games were played anonymously, how many people would participate?


Each of us is already anonymous. I don't know who you are, and I have no interest in finding out.


----------



## science

Art Rock said:


> Given the number of posts about people surprised about the games, you can find more information here:
> https://www.talkclassical.com/blogs/art-rock/3511-talk-classical-games.html


"They are just for fun and to some extent educational."

There it is!

That's really all there is to it.

I am not, however, surprised, that some people are critical of fun or education.


----------



## ManateeFL

Nothing wrong with fun or educational, unfortunately the games themselves are pretty lame and one dimensional, and I can't say I see any informative value in them, so I too am a little surprised at their popularity. But hey, more power to those who think it's a good time.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Kreisler jr said:


> One could say the same about other epochs, and they are usually shorter whereas Monteverdi is 100 years earlier and more different from Bach than say Tchaikovsky from Dvorak. But the misapprehension of "baroque" begins when people say "baroque" and only mean the last ca. 30-50 years of late baroque from ~1710-50, not the 100 years before that.


Another thing that surprises me is that there are people who seem to be unable to tell late Baroque sounds apart from Classical ones when choruses and counterpoint are involved. (ex. https://www.talkclassical.com/72638-alma-doesnt-deserve-more-4.html#post2142893)


----------



## Roger Knox

What has surprised me the most how much less bile and rancor there is now compared to several months ago. People who are passionate about classical music express angry thoughts once in a while, at least I do. But I think going on in that mode is destructive.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Roger Knox said:


> What has surprised me the most how much less bile and rancor there is now compared to several months ago. People who are passionate about classical music express angry thoughts once in a while, at least I do. But I think going on in that mode is destructive.


You must have never went into political groups.


----------



## Roger Knox

Johnnie Burgess said:


> You must have never went into political groups.


Yes there was a lot of rage in political groups some months ago but they are gone now.


----------



## BachIsBest

How the three most controversial composer on TC are John Cage, Alma Deutscher, and John Williams. I mean, who could have possibly not been surprised by that one!


----------



## mikeh375

The futile and let's be honest, absurd comparisons of composers from different eras is a surprising habit here. No sensible conclusion is ever possible and threads as a result just descend into subjective opinions that often become derogatory towards one another. I know myself that it's hard at times to remain cool and to even ignore such threads, I wish it was otherwise...I'll keep trying.

Another surprise for me is how often I see a subtle (and not so subtle) implication that any composer after 1900 who uses more than 4-5 note harmony is not on a par with the greats. Subjectivity - sometimes based on less than a passing acquaintance of the music in question - that manages to conclude decisively, sometimes allegedly objectively and yet often negatively, regarding music by undisputed great masters greatly exceeds the bounds of its viable and plausible remit imv. 

By all means hate the music, but why question it's integrity if you don't 'get it'?

There endeth the mini rant....now where's my hard hat and nearest cover.


----------



## Forster

The inability to distinguish between 'imply' and 'infer'. :scold:


----------



## mikeh375

Forster said:


> The inability to distinguish between 'imply' and 'infer'. :scold:


oh yeah...oops. Post above now edited, thanks F.


----------



## Forster

mikeh375 said:


> oh yeah...oops. Post above now edited, thanks F.


Although it was your post here that prompted my mini-rant, your "inference" was actually justifiable. It's other more blatant confusions by other posters that were brought to mind.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

...there have been told some jokes I never heard before :lol:


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

BachIsBest said:


> How the three most controversial composer on TC are John Cage, Alma Deutscher, and John Williams. I mean, who could have possibly not been surprised by that one!


John Cage, Alma Deutscher, and John Williams walk into a bar... There is a terrible silence. 
"Gotcha!" - says Cage.


----------



## SanAntone

BachIsBest said:


> How the three most controversial composer on TC are John Cage, Alma Deutscher, and John Williams. I mean, who could have possibly not been surprised by that one!


I don't think the composers or their music are controversial. The discussions become heated because of either the advocacy of their most ardent fans (re: Williams and Deutscher) or their most dedicated enemies (re: John Cage).


----------



## FrankE

The number of banned users, including high post count users.


----------



## 59540

FrankE said:


> The number of banned users, including high post count users.


The number who are on "probation" or have infractions is probably even higher.


----------



## BachIsBest

SanAntone said:


> I don't think the composers or their music are controversial. The discussions become heated because of either the advocacy of their most ardent fans (re: Williams and Deutscher) or their most dedicated enemies (re: John Cage).


Funnily enough, considering your opinion on the matter, I seem to recall you are a dedicated enemy of Williams and Deutscher and an ardent fan of Cage. 

It takes two sides two sides to make a controversial TC composer.


----------



## SanAntone

BachIsBest said:


> Funnily enough, considering your opinion on the matter, I seem to recall you are a dedicated enemy of Williams and Deutscher and an ardent fan of Cage.
> 
> It takes two sides two sides to make a controversial TC composer.


I think you have distorted my posting history.

I have defended Cage against what I consider unfair vitriol.

In response to a call to re-brand Williams' music as Classical, I have said he wrote some of the greatest film music but his Classical output is not what he is known for. I have also said that I prefer having musical genres remain clearly drawn. There is nothing secondary about film music and no reason to want to call it Classical.

Re: Deutscher - I think she has attracted attention because she is a teenage girl writing Classical music, what I consider mediocre Classical music. And that the threads were a stalking horse to rehash the traditional vs modern music debate.

I listen to and love both traditional and modern music. The only kind of music which I don't listen to is what I consider mediocre music.


----------



## JTS

SanAntone said:


> I think you have distorted my posting history.
> 
> I have defended Cage against what I consider unfair vitriol.
> 
> In response to a call to re-brand Williams' music as Classical, I have said he wrote some of the greatest film music but his Classical output is not what he is known for. I have also said that I prefer having musical genres remain clearly drawn. There is nothing secondary about film music and no reason to want to call it Classical.
> 
> Re: Deutscher - I think she has attracted attention because she is a teenage girl writing Classical music, what I consider mediocre Classical music. And that the threads were a stalking horse to rehash the traditional vs modern music debate.
> 
> I listen to and love both traditional and modern music. The only kind of music which I don't listen to is what I consider mediocre music.


The only kind of music I don't listen to is music I don't enjoy.


----------



## Forster

BachIsBest said:


> How the three most controversial composer on TC are John Cage, Alma Deutscher, and John Williams. I mean, who could have possibly not been surprised by that one!


I agree.

But let's be pedantic here. It isn't that the composers themselves are controversial (well, Cage possibly, in the sense that he was aware of the provocative nature of some of his pieces and opinions), but that they generate controversy among fans and detractors.


----------



## BachIsBest

Forster said:


> I agree.
> 
> But let's be pedantic here. It isn't that the composers themselves are controversial (well, Cage possibly, in the sense that he was aware of the provocative nature of some of his pieces and opinions), but that they generate controversy among fans and detractors.


I'm pretty sure the definition of something being controversial is that it generates controversy!


----------



## Forster

BachIsBest said:


> I'm pretty sure the definition of something being controversial is that it generates controversy!


I'm pretty sure it is too, but I think it important to distinguish between controversy instigated by the individual, and controversy generated around the individual. AD is not, it seems to me, being controversial, nor is John Williams, so it creates ambiguity to describe them as controversial.


----------



## BachIsBest

SanAntone said:


> I think you have distorted my posting history.
> 
> I have defended Cage against what I consider unfair vitriol.
> 
> In response to a call to re-brand Williams' music as Classical, I have said he wrote some of the greatest film music but his Classical output is not what he is known for. I have also said that I prefer having musical genres remain clearly drawn. There is nothing secondary about film music and no reason to want to call it Classical.
> 
> Re: Deutscher - I think she has attracted attention because she is a teenage girl writing Classical music, what I consider mediocre Classical music. And that the threads were a stalking horse to rehash the traditional vs modern music debate.
> 
> I listen to and love both traditional and modern music. The only kind of music which I don't listen to is what I consider mediocre music.


Fair enough, but don't you think your distorting other's opinions on the matter? Most people on the opposite side of the debates from you have more nuanced opinions than "I love John Williams unequivocally as a composer of classical music".

Regardless, my perception of the "controversy" surrounding all three composers is that both sides are involved in creating it. If you want more of a blame-game I would say the controversy around the John's has been created more from people who don't like them, whereas I agree that the controversy around Deutscher is a bit of a dog whistle to ignite the traditional vs modern music debate, although I'm willing to accept some legitimately find the music pleasing.

I mean, personally, I don't really listen to any of them.


----------



## BachIsBest

Forster said:


> I'm pretty sure it is too, but I think it important to distinguish between controversy instigated by the individual, and controversy generated around the individual. AD is not, it seems to me, being controversial, nor is John Williams, so it creates ambiguity to describe them as controversial.


I definitely agree that John Williams has no intention of generating controversy, but I'm not so sure with Deutscher. I think she's old enough to be aware of how some view her and how some will take her comments on modern music.


----------



## Woodduck

Forster said:


> The inability to distinguish between 'imply' and 'infer'. :scold:


Are you implying what I'm inferring here?


----------



## Forster

Woodduck said:


> Are you implying what I'm inferring here?


I don't know...you've just given me a headache!


----------



## Forster

BachIsBest said:


> I definitely agree that John Williams has no intention of generating controversy, but I'm not so sure with Deutscher. I think she's old enough to be aware of how some view her and how some will take her comments on modern music.


That's fine. If we agree on John Williams, we agree that he is not a "controversial composer".


----------



## SanAntone

BachIsBest said:


> Fair enough, but don't you think your distorting other's opinions on the matter? Most people on the opposite side of the debates from you have more nuanced opinions than "I love John Williams unequivocally as a composer of classical music".


The people I confront are not being very nuanced; they are the ones saying Cage is a charlatan or that avant-garde music is not Classical. I haven't started any threads in order to create a controversy, which is the case with most of the threads devoted to Cage, Williams, and now Deutscher.



> Regardless, my perception of the "controversy" surrounding all three composers is that both sides are involved in creating it. If you want more of a blame-game I would say the controversy around the John's has been created more from people who don't like them, whereas I agree that the controversy around Deutscher is a bit of a dog whistle to ignite the traditional vs modern music
> 
> I mean, personally, I don't really listen to any of them.


I basically agree with you, and despite what you may think, I don't listen to Cage much but will defend him against the worst kind of cliched criticism. As far as John Williams I actually learned something I did not know, i.e. he wrote concert pieces. One of which I expressed a liking for, _Escapades, _his alto sax concerto based on the music from _Catch Me if You Can_.

Deutscher I have only sampled enough to determine it is not for me. She may mature into a composer of merit.


----------



## Luchesi

mikeh375 said:


> oh yeah...oops. Post above now edited, thanks F.


I remember learning contractions and possessive cases until I had them in long term memory. So many knowledgeable posters (everywhere) get confused.


----------



## Enthusiast

JTS said:


> The only kind of music I don't listen to is music I don't enjoy.


But how do you know until you've given it a good hearing?


----------



## mikeh375

Luchesi said:


> I remember learning contractions and possessive cases until I had them in long term memory. So many knowledgeable posters (everywhere) get confused.


Posting on TC makes you up your game a bit if at all possible because of the knowledge and intellects here...I'm still an aspiring learner. One thing I have re-learned is to not split infinitives.


----------



## Forster

mikeh375 said:


> Posting on TC makes you up your game a bit if at all possible because of the knowledge and intellects here...I'm still an aspiring learner. One thing I have re-learned is to not split infinitives.


I saw what you did there! :lol:


----------



## Heck148

Forster said:


> I saw what you did there! :lol:


Most of us seem to hardly notice!! :lol::lol::devil:


----------



## mikeh375

The V and A Museum.....verb before adjective. That's how I remember.


----------



## FrankE

Lots of interesting threads are locked.


----------



## Luchesi

mikeh375 said:


> Posting on TC makes you up your game a bit if at all possible because of the knowledge and intellects here...I'm still an aspiring learner. One thing I have re-learned is to not split infinitives.


Yes, I split infinitives often, and I love the logic of grammar, but I don't know what the logical issue is with such splitting.

Anyway, my post was truly snarky, because you misused "it's" in post #442.


----------



## Luchesi

Kjetil Heggelund said:


> ...there have been told some jokes I never heard before :lol:


I bought some powdered water,

.... but I didn't know what to add.:lol:


----------



## Forster

Luchesi said:


> I don't know what the logical issue is with such splitting.


You think there's logic involved in such matters?

On the s.i., my Fowler's* (2nd Ed revised by Gowers) has plenty to say - though he declares that the discussion on this point of grammar is inconclusive. I find one example helpful:

"To have just heard" may not be the same as "to just have heard": the ambiguity seems plain enough to me. Fowler argues that a true s.i. is preferable to patent artificiality and real ambiguity. I wholly agree.

My typing, especially on my phone, is prone to error, so unless a fellow poster's mistakes cause problems of understanding, maybe it's wiser to overlook such transgressions. Like anyone attempting to argue on a point of grammar or spelling, let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

* Is the Columbia Guide (ed Kenneth G Wilson) the equivalent for American English?


----------



## BachIsBest

It seems the TC membership is really split on this issue. One might say, to really like to split the infinitive, or not really liking to split the infinitive: that is the question.


I think this may be my finest hour. :tiphat:


----------



## science

The split infinitives thing is yet another rule up with which we should not put.


----------



## Forster

science said:


> The split infinitives thing is yet another rule up with which we should not put.


Fowler has plenty to say too about prepositions appearing at the end of a sentence, but it's not something I'm going to bore you with.


----------



## mikeh375

..oh dear what have I done...


----------



## Dan Ante

What is a infinitiv????????????????????????????????????????


----------



## Art Rock

> What has surprised you the most on TC?


The ability of people to go off on a tangent in any thread.


----------



## trazom

Forster said:


> Fowler has plenty to say too about prepositions appearing at the end of a sentence, but it's not something I'm going to bore you *with*.


:lol:

Well done


----------



## Luchesi

Forster said:


> You think there's logic involved in such matters?
> 
> On the s.i., my Fowler's* (2nd Ed revised by Gowers) has plenty to say - though he declares that the discussion on this point of grammar is inconclusive. I find one example helpful:
> 
> "To have just heard" may not be the same as "to just have heard": the ambiguity seems plain enough to me. Fowler argues that a true s.i. is preferable to patent artificiality and real ambiguity. I wholly agree.
> 
> My typing, especially on my phone, is prone to error, so unless a fellow poster's mistakes cause problems of understanding, maybe it's wiser to overlook such transgressions. Like anyone attempting to argue on a point of grammar or spelling, let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
> 
> * Is the Columbia Guide (ed Kenneth G Wilson) the equivalent for American English?


When comforting a grammar Nazi, 
I always say softly,

"there, their, they're".


----------



## fluteman

Art Rock said:


> The ability of people to go off on a tangent in any thread.


Back to the topic: I'm surprised no one at TC has mentioned Alma Deutscher's grammar.


----------



## Luchesi

fluteman said:


> Back to the topic: I'm surprised no one at TC has mentioned Alma Deutscher's grammar.


Yes, and nobody mentions Beethoven's grammar while he was ranting and raving. I would've liked to have been a fly on the wall!


----------



## Forster

fluteman said:


> Back to the topic: I'm surprised no one at TC has mentioned Alma Deutscher's grammar.


What about her grampar?


----------



## fluteman

Forster said:


> What about her grampar?


I mention Alma Deutscher, and you respond with a bad pun? Shouldn't you show more respect for the savior of classical music? Or are you one of those who thinks music has to be ugly? Or ... [and so on for 500 posts].


----------



## arpeggio

The clashes I have seen between musicians and non-musicians.


----------



## mikeh375

arpeggio said:


> The clashes I have seen between musicians and non-musicians.


yes. It's a minefield.


----------



## 59540

arpeggio said:


> The clashes I have seen between musicians and non-musicians.


Unless they explicitly say so, you can't assume anyone is a non-musician. You might be surprised.


----------



## chipia

arpeggio said:


> The clashes I have seen between musicians and non-musicians.


Could you give an example for such a clash? Because I didn't notice it.


----------



## arpeggio

chipia said:


> Could you give an example for such a clash? Because I didn't notice it.


This forum has been around for over fifteen years.

Even if I took the time to find dozens of examples there would still be members who would dispute this observation.

I recall one time a member ripped my head off concerning a positive experience I had with Schubert's _Unfinished Symphony_. At one time I did not care for the work. I then had the experience of actually performing the work and connecting with it. He basically called me a jerk because I should have realized it was a great work without having to perform it.

Then there was the clash between some of us concerning the movie _Whiplash_. This was a movie about a tyrannical conductor and one of his students. Some of us recalled our real life experiences with nasty conductors and several non-music types did not believe us.

Then there are the countless times musicians have been unfairly accused of being elitist. Or course there have been some musicians who were arrogant.

I really do not know what else I can say.


----------



## Malx

mikeh375 said:


> Posting on TC makes you up your game a bit if at all possible because of the knowledge and intellects here...I'm still an aspiring learner. One thing I have re-learned is to not split infinitives.


Back in the sixties nobody really cared about their spliff infinitives.


----------



## arpeggio

dissident said:


> Unless they explicitly say so, you can't assume anyone is a non-musician. You might be surprised.


Really? I had no idea that in nine years I had never mistakenly thought a non-musician was actually a musician. Give me a break.


----------



## fluteman

arpeggio said:


> This forum has been around for over fifteen years.
> 
> Even if I took the time to find dozens of examples there would still be members who would dispute this observation.
> 
> I recall one time a member ripped my head off concerning a positive experience I had with Schubert's _Unfinished Symphony_. At one time I did not care for the work. I then had the experience of actually performing the work and connecting with it. He basically called me a jerk because I should have realized it was a great work without having to perform it.
> 
> Then there was the clash between some of us concerning the movie _Whiplash_. This was a movie about a tyrannical conductor and one of his students. Some of us recalled our real life experiences with nasty conductors and several non-music types did not believe us.
> 
> Then there are the countless times musicians have been unfairly accused of being elitist. Or course there have been some musicians who were arrogant.
> 
> I really do not know what else I can say.


I had a band conductor who could have been the model for the conductor in Whiplash. That movie was almost frighteningly realistic, until the "Hollywood" ending. No such conductor, however much a masochist, would intentionally mess up an actual performance before a large audience just to humiliate one of his players while making himself look bad too in the process.

"Tap, tap, tap. *My* tempo." Too funny.


----------



## SanAntone

arpeggio said:


> Really? I had no idea that in nine years I had never mistakenly thought a non-musician was actually a musician. Give me a break.


Here's a joke among Jazz musicians: "What do you call someone who likes to hang around with musicians? A drummer."


----------



## arpeggio

Since we are getting sidetrack my favorite musician's joke.

There was a pianist playing in a bar and part of his schtick was that he had a monkey with a cup hassling the customers for tips.

Well the monkey relieved himself in a customer's beer. 

The irate customer then confronted the pianist and said, "Did you know your monkey peed in by beer?"

The pianist responded, "No. But if you hum a few bars I'll fake it :lol:


----------



## Heck148

fluteman said:


> ....No such conductor, however much a masochist, would intentionally mess up an actual performance before a large audience just to humiliate one of his players while making himself look bad too in the process


Fluteman, Arpeggio - we should start a thread on "biggest jerk conductor" experiences...lol!!
I've played for some very good conductors, and many, many real flaming *ssholes!!


----------



## fluteman

Heck148 said:


> Fluteman, Arpeggio - we should start a thread on "biggest jerk conductor" experiences...lol!!
> I've played for some very good conductors, and many, many real flaming *ssholes!!


I was a pretty fair student, but I didn't turn pro, so unlike you I have relatively few direct personal experiences with famous conductors whose names you would know. In fact, I can sum them up very succinctly:

Frederick Fennell: A hilarious and wonderful guy, who would, however, conduct from memory and get lost.

Jorge Mester: A flaming *sshole.


----------



## 59540

arpeggio said:


> This forum has been around for over fifteen years.
> 
> Even if I took the time to find dozens of examples there would still be members who would dispute this observation.
> 
> I recall one time a member ripped my head off concerning a positive experience I had with Schubert's _Unfinished Symphony_. At one time I did not care for the work. I then had the experience of actually performing the work and connecting with it. He basically called me a jerk because I should have realized it was a great work without having to perform it.
> 
> Then there was the clash between some of us concerning the movie _Whiplash_. This was a movie about a tyrannical conductor and one of his students. Some of us recalled our real life experiences with nasty conductors and several non-music types did not believe us.
> 
> Then there are the countless times musicians have been unfairly accused of being elitist. Or course there have been some musicians who were arrogant.
> 
> I really do not know what else I can say.


One of the reasons for the "elitism" accusation may be dividing people somewhat arbitrarily between musicians/non-musicians. I don't see any reason for surprise. How did you know that the one disagreeing with you about the Schubert was a non-musician? Anyway, there are probably pianists who would call bassoonists non-musicians.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Portamento said:


> The amount of people here who continue to claim that classical music is superior to other genres always surprises me.


why though?

We sort of expect it dont we? Given that it is generally seen as, dare I say it, high art.

I know people that rarely listen to classical - and they apologise to me for their own tastes knowing what I listen to.

So if people outside of the CM fanbase feel this way - it is probably not that surprising.

and how many closet elitists are there - people who say - all music is equal, while privately congratulating themselves for having such impeccable taste. I wonder.


----------



## fluteman

PlaySalieri said:


> why though?
> 
> We sort of expect it dont we? Given that it is generally seen as, dare I say it, high art.
> 
> I know people that rarely listen to classical - and they apologise to me for their own tastes knowing what I listen to.
> 
> So if people outside of the CM fanbase feel this way - it is probably not that surprising.
> 
> and how many closet elitists are there - people who say - all music is equal, while privately congratulating themselves for having such impeccable taste. I wonder.


Not me. And insisting on the superiority of western classical music over classical music of other just as old or older cultures such as those in India, China and Japan, even less so. And insisting on the superiority of western classical music of the 18th and 19th centuries over classical music from before or after that period, less so still.


----------



## KevinJS

fluteman said:


> Not me. And insisting on the superiority of western classical music over classical music of other just as old or older cultures such as those in India, China and Japan, even less so. And insisting on the superiority of western classical music of the 18th and 19th centuries over classical music from before or after that period, less so still.


Well said. And any time someone goes all elitist on you, tell 'em you know a trucker who listens to Telemann and Glass (and just about everything in between.)

Oh, yeah. What surprised me about this place? Finding a recipe for roast Shi Tzu. I wasn't expecting that.


----------



## 59540

fluteman said:


> Not me. And insisting on the superiority of western classical music over classical music of other just as old or older cultures such as those in India, China and Japan, even less so. And insisting on the superiority of western classical music of the 18th and 19th centuries over classical music from before or after that period, less so still.


If I say Bach is superior to Justin Timberlake, is that elitist? I'm frankly surprised by the leveling impulse, although I probably shouldn't be.


----------



## arpeggio

dissident said:


> One of the reasons for the "elitism" accusation may be dividing people somewhat arbitrarily between musicians/non-musicians. I don't see any reason for surprise. How did you know that the one disagreeing with you about the Schubert was a non-musician? Anyway, there are probably pianists who would call bassoonists non-musicians.


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


----------



## Forster

dissident said:


> If I say Bach is superior to Justin Timberlake, is that elitist?


No, just mistaken.

True, Timberlake's take on the WTC is pretty poor, but Bach didn't come up with a song ('Sexyback') that stayed 7 weeks at number 1 on the Billboard chart and sold 17 million copies worldwide (as of July 2020, according to Wikipedia).


----------



## 59540

Forster said:


> No, just mistaken.
> 
> True, Timberlake's take on the WTC is pretty poor, but Bach didn't come up with a song ('Sexyback') that stayed 7 weeks at number 1 on the Billboard chart and sold 17 million copies worldwide (as of July 2020, according to Wikipedia).


No, it's not mistaken from my perspective. McDonald's has sold billions and billions of whatever. I don't like McDonald's.


----------



## Forster

dissident said:


> No, it's not mistaken from my perspective. McDonald's has sold billions and billions of whatever. I don't like McDonald's.


So, just different strokes.


----------



## 59540

Forster said:


> So, just different strokes.


Right. So I'm not forced to concede that the classical genre is no better than anything else out of a fear of being called "elitist", any more than I'm forced to concede that McDonald's is just as good as haute cuisine.


----------



## Forster

dissident said:


> Right. So I'm not forced to concede that the classical genre is no better than anything else out of a fear of being called "elitist", any more than I'm forced to concede that McDonald's is just as good as haute cuisine.


I'm not forcing you to concede anything.

I think Timberlake v Bach is an invalid comparison. Just as I prefer McDonald's to the menu at Noma.


----------



## 59540

Forster said:


> I'm not forcing you to concede anything.
> 
> I think Timberlake v Bach is an invalid comparison. Just as I prefer McDonald's to the menu at Noma.


Both music, both food.


----------



## Forster

dissident said:


> Both music, both food.


It's good we can agree on something


----------



## Luchesi

Forster said:


> So, just different strokes.


But what about the children?

Many of the kids that I've taught over the decades have indicated that they got into music because of the claims about the 'heroes' of CM.
Mozart was an unbelievable child genius, Beethoven was a titan, Bach was the god of music, Schubert was the shy, undiscovered genius - far fairer hopes etc.
These days they hear from academics that pop music is equal in value to them and their future. It just depends upon what your needs are and what music offers you, where you are now.


----------



## Red Terror

PlaySalieri said:


> why though?
> 
> We sort of expect it dont we? Given that it is generally seen as, dare I say it, high art.
> 
> I know people that rarely listen to classical - and they apologise to me for their own tastes knowing what I listen to.
> 
> So if people outside of the CM fanbase feel this way - it is probably not that surprising.
> 
> and how many closet elitists are there - people who say - all music is equal, while privately congratulating themselves for having such impeccable taste. I wonder.


I often congratulate myself on having impeccable taste in music. I mean, why shouldn't I?


----------



## hammeredklavier

When people can't win a debate with facts, they dig up old posts from years ago and find excuses to ad hom the opponent with them.


----------



## eljr

That the high-brows here can't have a discussion with anyone who disagrees with them without getting the thread shut down. 

Seriously, WTF? 

Guess what, your opinion is of no more worth than anyone else and your attitude is the real problem.

(for the records, I am pretty much not involved in any of the back and forths, I am just tired of threads getting shutdown) 

Peace all! :tiphat:


----------



## Chilham

That so many here believe their opinion is fact.


----------



## Luchesi

Chilham said:


> That so many here believe their opinion is fact.


Yes, musicians and non-musicians experience very different worlds. I think it's an interesting topic, but would it be an interesting thread?

What's it like to play effortlessly? What's it's like to play in a small ensemble of your peers, or an orchestra? What does a score look like to a musician?


----------



## janxharris

Luchesi said:


> Yes, musicians and non-musicians experience very different worlds. I think it's an interesting topic, but would it be an interesting thread?
> 
> What's it like to play effortlessly? What's it like to play in a small ensemble of your peers, or an orchestra? What does a score look like to a musician?


Curious reply to Chilum's post....not sure it addresses what was said. What are you suggesting exactly?


----------



## Sid James

Regarding elitism, superiority, snobbery, I subscribe to the wisdom of Hyacinth Bucket on this important matter. Being a real snob is one thing, but just acting like one is vulgar:

_"If there's one thing I can't stand, its snobbery and one-upishness. People who try to pretend they're superior makes it so much harder for those of us who really are."_

:lol:


----------



## Dan Ante

Sid James said:


> Regarding elitism, superiority, snobbery, I subscribe to the wisdom of Hyacinth Bucket on this important matter. Being a real snob is one thing, but just acting like one is vulgar:
> 
> _"If there's one thing I can't stand, its snobbery and one-upishness. People who try to pretend they're superior makes it so much harder for those of us who really are."_
> 
> :lol:


*
I agree with you Sid those of us on TC who are the "Elite Club" find the dismal attempts of the wanabees a bit tiresome but we do not ridicule them and this is what makes us special. *


----------



## HerbertNorman

Chilham said:


> That so many here believe their opinion is fact.


This, it has refrained me from participating in some discussions tbh I have gotten to know some composers thanks to people on here and I am very grateful for that. Yet some on here take themselves so seriously ... it has stopped me from starting a discussion or two ...

I love Schubert , but does that mean he is the greatest ever and everyone listening to classical music should love him? No, everyone is entitled to their tastes and their opinions imho But I have seen that there are some who'd try everything to impose their opinion and taste . On the whole though I am happy to see that there is a great interest in classical and it makes me feel good that there's a forum that is about this great form of art.


----------



## fluteman

Luchesi said:


> Yes, musicians and non-musicians experience very different worlds. I think it's an interesting topic, but would it be an interesting thread?
> 
> What's it like to play effortlessly? What's it's like to play in a small ensemble of your peers, or an orchestra? What does a score look like to a musician?


I think the main difference is, non-musicians often have less of an appreciation of how many hours of hard work, leaving talent completely aside, must go into being able to play any piece of classical music halfway decently. Especially with modern technology, where the best performances are available with the touch of a button, not to mention sophisticated editing tools that can remove all traces of human imperfection (not really, but you know what I mean), the magnitude of the achievement can be hard to see for the inexperienced.

What is not different is the ability to listen for and find what is good in music. The non-musician may not be able to explain why good music is good as clearly or precisely, though with practice I suspect even that deficit can be diminished or even eliminated. But in matters of taste, the musician is no more qualified than the non-musician. And the full-time professional performer is often at a disadvantage, as they often must specialize to a degree that prevents them from being able to explore a wider spectrum of music as thoroughly as would be ideal.


----------



## arpeggio

The amount of research one has to do in order to respond to many of the posts.


----------



## arpeggio

The number of members who think classical music is dying.


----------



## Luchesi

fluteman said:


> I think the main difference is, non-musicians often have less of an appreciation of how many hours of hard work, leaving talent completely aside, must go into being able to play any piece of classical music halfway decently. Especially with modern technology, where the best performances are available with the touch of a button, not to mention sophisticated editing tools that can remove all traces of human imperfection (not really, but you know what I mean), the magnitude of the achievement can be hard to see for the inexperienced.
> 
> What is not different is the ability to listen for and find what is good in music. The non-musician may not be able to explain why good music is good as clearly or precisely, though with practice I suspect even that deficit can be diminished or even eliminated. But in matters of taste, the musician is no more qualified than the non-musician. And the full-time professional performer is often at a disadvantage, as they often must specialize to a degree that prevents them from being able to explore a wider spectrum of music as thoroughly as would be ideal.


Thanks, we disagree about many things in your post (from your experiences and my experiences). Disagree is too strong a word..
It sounds like I'm a habitual naysayer but I'm not. When I come back to a post a few weeks later it seems I can take the other side of every argument I've made. haha I've found this to be my reality (not in science but in the arts).

Talent, what is it? We can say it's partly a genetic endowment, we can say it's very early exposure and a child with a higher IQ - and the family conditions which make him a sensitive receiver of artistic inspirations. BUT talent is such a confusing term to various types of people, and it will grow into a divisive debate, ... according to people who come here to talk mostly about their musical likes and dislikes (and avoid conflicts).

The hard work is not appreciated... I don't know, I've never thought about that one, but the instant availability of world class performances has changed many things, and it might be another factor that results in this chasm. IDK, I haven't talk to non-musicians about it. My musician friends say it's a fantastic new world (it's saved them oodles of money).

Finding what is good in music without being able to effortlessly read a score? Objectivity (from the scores) is so important because your subjective tastes change every decade, or faster. Your other outlooks change along with your musical outlooks.

Matters of taste from non-musicians who can't talk about specifics in the score... Well what can I say, it's the same conversation about favorite flavors of ice cream. I've never liked vanilla because as a kid I mistakenly drank some vanilla extract because it looks so yummy.

I'm certainly not a full-time professional performer, but I force myself to look over the number one hits of the last 10 or 20 years to try to understand and appreciate why they sold well. A few times I've been pleasantly surprised. The clever devices in the song "Shallow" Lady Gaga and Bradley Cooper stands out in my memory. I would think that a musician could very quickly evaluate new music (like a scientist does in his field), but time and time again I've been forced to change my opinion after some time has passed. That's an interesting phenomenon. We all have our unruly prejudices.


----------



## fluteman

Luchesi said:


> Thanks, we disagree about many things in your post (from your experiences and my experiences). Disagree is too strong a word..
> It sounds like I'm a habitual naysayer but I'm not. When I come back to a post a few weeks later it seems I can take the other side of every argument I've made. haha I've found this to be my reality (not in science but in the arts).
> 
> Talent, what is it? We can say it's partly a genetic endowment, we can say it's very early exposure and a child with a higher IQ - and the family conditions which make him a sensitive receiver of artistic inspirations. BUT talent is such a confusing term to various types of people, and it will grow into a divisive debate, ... according to people who come here to talk mostly about their musical likes and dislikes (and avoid conflicts).
> 
> The hard work is not appreciated... I don't know, I've never thought about that one, but the instant availability of world class performances has changed many things, and it might be another factor that results in this chasm. IDK, I haven't talk to non-musicians about it. My musician friends say it's a fantastic new world (it's saved them oodles of money).
> 
> Finding what is good in music without being able to effortlessly read a score? Objectivity (from the scores) is so important because your subjective tastes change every decade, or faster. Your other outlooks change along with your musical outlooks.
> 
> Matters of taste from non-musicians who can't talk about specifics in the score... Well what can I say, it's the same conversation about favorite flavors of ice cream. I've never liked vanilla because as a kid I mistakenly drank some vanilla extract because it looks so yummy.
> 
> I'm certainly not a full-time professional performer, but I force myself to look over the number one hits of the last 10 or 20 years to try to understand and appreciate why they sold well. A few times I've been pleasantly surprised. The clever devices in the song "Shallow" Lady Gaga and Bradley Cooper stands out in my memory. I would think that a musician could very quickly evaluate new music (like a scientist does in his field), but time and time again I've been forced to change my opinion after some time has passed. That's an interesting phenomenon. We all have our unruly prejudices.


I suppose we have two fundamental areas of disagreement, or perhaps only one, as they may be the same thing. For me, first, there is a world of difference between being able to hear what is good in music and being able to explain it in words in a clear, articulate and insightful way. Second, a musician trying to earn a living as a performer or composer who thinks he or she knows better what is good than any audience either is not very interested in earning a living or is a fool.

Even Beethoven was convinced, and rightly so, that later generations would appreciate his final string quartets. And he didn't start out ignoring the views of audiences, patrons or publishers, far from it, in fact.

But I did neglect one other important difference I've observed between musicians and non-musicians. As incapable as some non-musicians seem to be in appreciating the difficulty in performing music on a high level, they seem even less capable of appreciating the challenge of composing or creating music, especially music that is original in a compelling way. A poster here once asked why composers today don't simply create music like Mozart's. Well, I could easily write a short piece recognizable as (more or less) in Mozart's style, as could any competent music student. Matching Mozart's sophisticated skills in thematic structure and modulation (for example) is another matter.

The longer my imitation Mozart piece continued, the more obvious it would be to non-musicians and musicians alike that it was not the genuine article.


----------



## SanAntone

All musicians start out as music lovers, and this they share with all music lovers. And a musician who loses his love of music to replace it with other priorities: technique, fame, riches, becomes a lesser musician, in the process. Some aspects of the "music business" can tamp down or obscure, this innate love for music, and in this regard non-musicians, or amateur musicians, have an advantage.

The primary trait for all music lovers is the desire and ability to listen at a deep level. Musicians must retain this priority of listening: to the music around them and responding to their fellow musicians during a performance. It is akin to a baseball team where some great players never sacrificed winning as a team effort in pursuit of individual stats. In short, a love for the music must trump any individual artistic or financial or celebrity goals with the musician serving the music, not the other way around.

So I see more common traits among musicians and non-musicians.


----------



## fluteman

This is absolutely right imho, and may be the only thing that really matters, regardless of whether you step up on stage every day, sometimes, or never:



SanAntone said:


> The primary trait for all music lovers is the desire and ability to listen at a deep level.


----------



## Heck148

SanAntone said:


> The primary trait for all music lovers is the desire and ability to listen at a deep level. Musicians must retain this priority of listening: to the music around them and responding to their fellow musicians during a performance. It is akin to a baseball team where some great players never sacrificed winning as a team effort in pursuit of individual stats.


Actually, the equation with sports is quite appropriate as it relates to peoples' enjoyment of both music and sports. Both can be enjoyed on many different levels - to the non-musician, their enjoyment of music may be quite simple and direct - they love the beautiful melodies, the sounds that are produced, the flow, a featured solo, the feeling it evokes in them or whatever....this is perfectly wonderful, and very worthwhile to be sure...
"advanced" listeners, or professional musicians may listen on a different level - what's the quality of execution, how well did the performers present certain difficult or more obscure aspects of the score...their enjoyment may well be on a quite "technical", detailed level, did they make the , was the climax at sufficient dynamic level, etc...not better, of course, just different...and of course, different listeners will find a place on the "appreciation spectrum" - from more casual listener, to intense concentration on all aspects...
Same with sports - some fans just love to see a good game - they know how points are scored, who's winning, who's making great plays...others will intensely analyze every play - evaluate the offensive, defensive alignments, etc, etc,....the announcers will go on and on about " 3-2 zone coverage", pitch selection, "3rd down" strategy, timeout tactics, "shotgun formation" etc, etc...
both are fine - the sports event provides enjoyment on many different levels, as does the presentation of great music...
people will take it at the level that they enjoy, and that makes sense to them at their level of understanding.

there is no better or worse, knowing more does not equate with any inherent superiority, its just a different level of appreciation.


----------



## eljr

Luchesi said:


> Talent, what is it?.


Neuropsychology tells us it is concentrated repetition that builds the myelin sheath enabling nerve signals to be passed more efficiently.

:tiphat:


----------



## 59540

eljr said:


> Neuropsychology tells us it is concentrated repetition that builds the myelin sheath enabling nerve signals to be passed more efficiently.
> 
> :tiphat:


Fine. Then soon we can more or less manufacture loads of Mozarts. I don't put that much faith in the omniscience of neuroscience at the moment.


----------



## 13hm13

Mozart - Marsch, Haffner Serenade - Soudant


----------



## hammeredklavier

13hm13 said:


> Mozart - Marsch, Haffner Serenade - Soudant
> View attachment 160014


Did you mean to post this in "Pieces that have blown you away recently?" or "Horrible Album Covers"?


----------



## eljr

dissident said:


> Fine. Then soon we can more or less manufacture loads of Mozarts. I don't put that much faith in the omniscience of neuroscience at the moment.


Always could and have.

Ever notice how some of the greatest composers all came from the same place the same time for example? 
(we see this is all avenues of life)

I'll take science over "I've got a hunch" any day.

From a distance, science can seem subjective.

If you are interested I can recommend some reading sources. peace


----------



## 59540

eljr said:


> Always could and have.


So why was Mozart such a singularity? We're told all the time that we can't compare X with Mozart because heck, that's _Mozart_...


> Ever notice how some of the greatest composers all came from the same place the same time for example?
> (we see this is all avenues of life)


So what? And same place at the same time? The "big 3" spanned 142 years and various places in central Europe.


> I'll take science over "I've got a hunch" any day.


Scientific theories often start as "I've got a hunch". Emotions and intelligence are not even clearly understood. It's in large part "I've got a hunch" regardless.


----------



## neofite

I know much more about classical music than anyone I know, or probably have ever known. Since joining TC, however, it came as a big surprise (actually more like a shock) to me that there are large numbers of people who know vastly more about it than I do, or could ever hope to do in the future.


----------



## Dan Ante

neofite said:


> I know much more about classical music than anyone I know, or probably have ever known. Since joining TC, however, it came as a big surprise (actually more like a shock) to me that there are large numbers of people who know vastly more about it than I do, or could ever hope to do in the future.


Yes with wiki and a good search engine it makes experts of us all...


----------



## Luchesi

fluteman said:


> I suppose we have two fundamental areas of disagreement, or perhaps only one, as they may be the same thing. For me, first, there is a world of difference between being able to hear what is good in music and being able to explain it in words in a clear, articulate and insightful way. Second, a musician trying to earn a living as a performer or composer who thinks he or she knows better what is good than any audience either is not very interested in earning a living or is a fool.
> 
> Even Beethoven was convinced, and rightly so, that later generations would appreciate his final string quartets. And he didn't start out ignoring the views of audiences, patrons or publishers, far from it, in fact.
> 
> But I did neglect one other important difference I've observed between musicians and non-musicians. As incapable as some non-musicians seem to be in appreciating the difficulty in performing music on a high level, they seem even less capable of appreciating the challenge of composing or creating music, especially music that is original in a compelling way. A poster here once asked why composers today don't simply create music like Mozart's. Well, I could easily write a short piece recognizable as (more or less) in Mozart's style, as could any competent music student. Matching Mozart's sophisticated skills in thematic structure and modulation (for example) is another matter.
> 
> The longer my imitation Mozart piece continued, the more obvious it would be to non-musicians and musicians alike that it was not the genuine article.


For me there's always been 3 parts to the appreciation of any music. Without any of these 3 parts I don't think I would have continued to practice and learn about performing etc., since we know it's so time-consuming. It had better be worth the time and effort.

Analysis and historical achievement

Listening, for the cleverness/originality and the 'spiritual' narrative

and then playing (...and then perhaps performing for others of like minds)

What can the non-musician do?


----------



## eljr

dissident said:


> So why was Mozart such a singularity? We're told all the time that we can't compare X with Mozart because heck, that's _Mozart_...
> 
> So what? And same place at the same time? The "big 3" spanned 142 years and various places in central Europe.
> Scientific theories often start as "I've got a hunch". Emotions and intelligence are not even clearly understood. It's in large part "I've got a hunch" regardless.


I noticed you answered every sentence I wrote except the one where I offered edification guidance.

I'd say you hold no value for fact that might disrupt what you are comfortable in believing.

As such, there is nothing for I or anyone to say.

I wish you well, peace.


----------



## 59540

eljr said:


> I noticed you answered every sentence I wrote except the one where I offered edification guidance.


I've read enough to know that, as I said, intelligence, memory and emotion are still largely mysterious. So I find it hard to "believe" that science can supply us with the talented to order.


> I'd say you hold no value for fact that might disrupt what you are comfortable in believing.


Facts are facts, regardless of my beliefs.


> As such, there is nothing for I or anyone to say.
> 
> I wish you well, peace.


Same to you.


----------



## fluteman

Heck148 said:


> Actually, the equation with sports is quite appropriate as it relates to peoples' enjoyment of both music and sports. Both can be enjoyed on many different levels - to the non-musician, their enjoyment of music may be quite simple and direct - they love the beautiful melodies, the sounds that are produced, the flow, a featured solo, the feeling it evokes in them or whatever....this is perfectly wonderful, and very worthwhile to be sure...
> "advanced" listeners, or professional musicians may listen on a different level ...


With respect, I agree with Duke Ellington, who wrote at some length about this issue, rather than with you. As with sports, technical skills and strategies can be understood and appreciated much better by those who themselves have training and experience with the skills involved in producing certain types of art. But music is not like a sport. It is more akin to gourmet meals served at a three-star restaurant. Most diners have little appreciation of what goes on in the kitchen, and of the training, skills and experience the chef and his staff must have, to produce hundreds of great meals each day in a commercial setting. (Ironically, a whole genre of reality TV shows has emerged in recent years that puts the audience in a restaurant kitchen, though those light entertainment shows probably diverge a long way from reality.)

But all diners, at least all those who are regulars at high end restaurants, are equally capable of recognizing and appreciating great food, regardless of how much they understand about what it takes to produce it. If a fine restaurant goes downhill it loses customers quickly. I've seen this happen many times, and the discernment of the ordinary restaurant customer is amazing.

The difference between you and non-musician listeners is not that you can tell a performance is good or bad and they can't, but rather, you understand WHY it is good or bad, usually in great depth and detail, while they usually have no idea. Of course, you do have an advantage over non-musician listeners in standard orchestral repertoire and bassoon music. You are thoroughly familiar with nearly all of that music, while most non-musicians will be much less familiar with most of it.

However, even there, many non-musicians are "specialists" who spend their lives listening to every available recording and numerous live performances of, for example, Wagner's Ring cycle, or Beethoven's piano sonatas. Professional musicians often are specialists by the necessity of their jobs, and are unfamiliar with a lot of music that might be considered classical standards. I remember my surprise as a teen aged student that my flute teacher (also a successful professional performer) didn't even know Beethoven's violin sonata no. 8 at all, when I liked it so much I could play most of it by ear (still can).

As Duke Ellington said, if it sounds good, it is good, never mind exactly why it is good.


----------



## Heck148

fluteman said:


> With respect, I agree with Duke Ellington, who wrote at some length about this issue, rather than with you. As with sports, technical skills and strategies can be understood and appreciated much better by those who themselves have training and experience with the skills involved in producing certain types of art. But music is not like a sport.


I don't think there is disagreement here....I was referring to the listener's enjoyment of music, which can be at many different levels....in that respect it is very much like sports, or rather the appreciation of sports....some people may have very in depth knowledge and interests in the minute aspects of both...others may appreciate on a on a simpler basis...both are fine, and provide enjoyment for the participants....
the actual performance of sports and music was not really part of my presentation, tho the similarities persist....performance of a concerto or solo work can be compared quite easily with preparation and performance of athletic events, esp something like a gymnastics or figure skating routine....but that's a different subject.. 


> The difference between you and non-musician listeners is not that you can tell a performance is good or bad and they can't, but rather, you understand WHY it is good or bad, usually in great depth and detail, while they usually have no idea.


right, that just illustrates my point...I'm not saying that one way is in any way superior...they are just different.



> However, even there, many non-musicians are "specialists" who spend their lives listening to every available recording and numerous live performances of, for example, Wagner's Ring cycle, or Beethoven's piano sonatas.


Yes, and that is wonderful...it's great to have knowledgeable listeners and appreciators of great music.



> As Duke Ellington said, if it sounds good, it is good, never mind exactly why it is good.


I agree with this, no problem...each listener will find his/her own level of enjoyment.


----------



## fluteman

Heck148 said:


> I don't think there is disagreement here....


I don't think so either. And I should add, I've long known (among other things, I have several family members and friends who are full time professional classical musicians), that the best ones are usually modest, at least in public, and try to share their knowledge and skills in a courteous, good-humored way without a trace of snobbery or elitism, and thereby encourage interest and enthusiasm in classical music.

You obviously fall into that category, and even though you have studied and performed a lot of the music discussed here over a long career with a thoroughness and at a level few here have or will achieve, you never rub anyone's nose in it. Bravo.

A longtime friend who is a fine pianist, musicologist and author attended the first recital at the newly reopened Carnegie Hall, recently, a lieder recital that included songs by Liszt. In her online 'review', she wrote that she was not entirely enthusiastic about Liszt as a song composer. Someone responded that perhaps she should become more familiar with Liszt's songs before giving them negative criticism. Ouch. I held my breath.

But she gracefully replied that no doubt he was right, and she would continue to listen to these songs. That is how true pros conduct themselves, especially in public or - gasp - on the internet.


----------



## Forster

fluteman said:


> But music is not like a sport. It is more akin to gourmet meals served at a three-star restaurant. [etc]


I'm not sure how helpful any of these analogies is, unless one is highly specific about the point of comparison. Just read some of the restaurant reviews on Tripadviser to see how varied the customers' views are of "gourmet meals". See these two, about the Best Restaurant In The World (just got the accolade for the 5th time).

https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/ShowU...94971-r749512914-Noma-Copenhagen_Zealand.html
https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/ShowU...94971-r743496292-Noma-Copenhagen_Zealand.html

Music is music, and, IMO, unlike any other type of human experience.


----------



## Josquin13

What initially surprised me most about TC was the sheer number of threads going on simultaneously. I've found it a lot easier to lose track of threads here than on the old Amazon classical forum--which I frequented for many years, where everyone was more or less on top of each other every week. & I'm sure I don't always find my way back to certain TC threads to respond to others' posts that may have been in response to mine.

Otherwise, what has surprised me most is the apparent lack of enthusiasm and full appreciation for the music of Georg Frideric Handel. I may be wrong, but Handel doesn't seem to be as popular a composer here on TC as I would have expected, relative to other major composers. After all, Beethoven placed Handel in his top three composers, ahead of J.S. Bach and W.A. Mozart! & for me, like those giants, Handel's musical I.Q. is off the scales. So, I don't get it.


----------



## eljr

Forster said:


> Music is music, and, IMO, unlike any other type of human experience.


There is good music and there is great music, there is no bad music. :angel:


----------



## arpeggio

For me the musician, non-musician discussion is troublesome.

I know many non-musicians whose listening skills are just as good as mine.


----------



## fbjim

I also have known plenty of musicians who don't actually like music. They were simply cursed with the talent for performing music and as a result went into it as their career.


----------



## Red Terror

Josquin13 said:


> What initially surprised me most about TC was the sheer number of threads going on simultaneously. I've found it a lot easier to lose track of threads here than on the old Amazon classical forum--which I frequented for many years, where everyone was more or less on top of each other every week. & I'm sure I don't always find my way back to certain TC threads to respond to others' posts that may have been in response to mine.
> 
> Otherwise, what has surprised me most is the apparent lack of enthusiasm and full appreciation for the music of Georg Frideric Handel. I may be wrong, but Handel doesn't seem to be as popular a composer here on TC as I would have expected, relative to other major composers. After all, Beethoven placed Handel in his top three composers, ahead of J.S. Bach and W.A. Mozart! & for me, like those giants, Handel's musical I.Q. is off the scales. So, I don't get it.


Handel, eh? I must look into it.


----------



## fluteman

Forster said:


> I'm not sure how helpful any of these analogies is, unless one is highly specific about the point of comparison. Just read some of the restaurant reviews on Tripadviser to see how varied the customers' views are of "gourmet meals". See these two, about the Best Restaurant In The World (just got the accolade for the 5th time).
> 
> https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/ShowU...94971-r749512914-Noma-Copenhagen_Zealand.html
> https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/ShowU...94971-r743496292-Noma-Copenhagen_Zealand.html
> 
> Music is music, and, IMO, unlike any other type of human experience.


Like most analogies, it is imperfect. Bon appétit.


----------



## SanAntone

How often I read someone making comments about a piece of music they don't enjoy, and expressing their opinion in a way that implies that no one else can possibly enjoy that music. The assumption being that there is something inherently wrong with the music instead of the realization that their taste is not universal.


----------



## JTS

SanAntone said:


> How often I read someone making comments about a piece of music they don't enjoy, and expressing their opinion in a way that implies that no one else can possibly enjoy that music. The assumption being that there is something inherently wrong with the music instead of the realization that their taste is not universal.


Do you think the same criterion should apply to someone saying they don't enjoy a particular interpretation of a work?


----------



## SanAntone

JTS said:


> Do you think the same criterion should apply to someone saying they don't enjoy a particular interpretation of a work?


I think anything, pro or con, can be said about a work or recording or performance, as long as there isn't the kind of implication I cited in my original post. I have found that the most heated debates on TC revolve around one group of posters making comments about a composer or genre or style that come across as transcending opinion-giving and trespass into making "objective" value judgments while an opposing group confronts those value judgments.


----------



## tdc

Josquin13 said:


> What initially surprised me most about TC was the sheer number of threads going on simultaneously. I've found it a lot easier to lose track of threads here than on the old Amazon classical forum--which I frequented for many years, where everyone was more or less on top of each other every week. & I'm sure I don't always find my way back to certain TC threads to respond to others' posts that may have been in response to mine.
> 
> *Otherwise, what has surprised me most is the apparent lack of enthusiasm and full appreciation for the music of Georg Frideric Handel. * I may be wrong, but Handel doesn't seem to be as popular a composer here on TC as I would have expected, relative to other major composers. After all, Beethoven placed Handel in his top three composers, ahead of J.S. Bach and W.A. Mozart! & for me, like those giants, Handel's musical I.Q. is off the scales. So, I don't get it.


Looks like this phenomena is not just localized to TC. In this survey 174 composers were asked their opinion on who the greatest composers were and Handel's name did not make the (top 50) list.

https://www.classical-music.com/composers/50-greatest-composers-all-time/


----------



## HenryPenfold

Josquin13 said:


> Otherwise, what has surprised me most is the apparent lack of enthusiasm and full appreciation for the music of Georg Frideric Handel. I may be wrong, but Handel doesn't seem to be as popular a composer here on TC as I would have expected, relative to other major composers. After all, Beethoven placed Handel in his top three composers, ahead of J.S. Bach and W.A. Mozart! & for me, like those giants, Handel's musical I.Q. is off the scales. So, I don't get it.


I must say I find this most surprising too. With the the huge number of threads, lists, discussions etc among a large community of classical music lovers, Handel is practically invisible!


----------



## hammeredklavier

Josquin13 said:


> Otherwise, what has surprised me most is the apparent lack of enthusiasm and full appreciation for the music of Georg Frideric Handel. I may be wrong, but Handel doesn't seem to be as popular a composer here on TC as I would have expected, relative to other major composers.


I hate to say it, but I think this is due to the fact Handel doesn't really have much merit over Bach except "dramaticism" - something the later composers with their fluidity of mood shifts, with dynamics and orchestration arguably did just as well or sometimes even better.


----------



## HenryPenfold

hammeredklavier said:


> I hate to say it, but I think this is due to the fact Handel doesn't really have much merit over Bach except "dramaticism" - something the later composers with their elaborate mood shifts, with dynamics and orchestration arguably did just as well or sometimes even better.


But we love composers and post about them, who 'really don't have much merit over Bach'


----------



## mmsbls

I agree that Handel is discussed less on TC than I might have expected. I do think the community actually values Handel's music highly. If we look at 3 composer polls taken years apart (snapshots in time on TC) Handel is ranked 18th, 9th, and 21st. That's an average of 16th. I view that as somewhat high but not excessively so.

Possibly one reason is that Handel wrote a lot of opera and oratorios. I believe those who frequent the opera section on TC tend to participate less on the non-opera parts of the forum and tend not to vote in composer polls. Those who participate in the non-opera parts of TC tend to discuss opera and oratorios less than other music.


----------



## fluteman

tdc said:


> Looks like this phenomena is not just localized to TC. In this survey 174 composers were asked their opinion on who the greatest composers were and Handel's name did not make the (top 50) list.
> 
> https://www.classical-music.com/composers/50-greatest-composers-all-time/


What amuses me about this list is that it is much closer to a top 50 list that I might compile than anything comparable that has appeared here or anything I've seen elsewhere that reflects general popularity. I can't pretend my own musical training and background doesn't play a major role in that. So much for my argument that musicians and non-musicians hear music the same way. There is a broader acknowledgement of renaissance, modern and contemporary music in that list than one typically sees at TC (with plenty of exceptions, however). No doubt that reflects that these composers have had more exposure to a broader range of music than all but the most experienced listeners here.

So much for picking a fight with heck148. Shoot.


----------



## SanAntone

Handel's stage works are his strong suit, IMO. His oratorios and operas greatly overshadow his instrumental works. But I don't ever even think of comparing him to Bach, it's almost as if they come from different universes. So, to get into a food fight over them seems extravagant and a bit silly.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

*What has surprised you the most on TC?*

That some people genuinely believe that the beauty of a piece of music is not in the music itself but in the listeners brain somewhere.


----------



## Forster

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> *What has surprised you the most on TC?*
> 
> That some people genuinely believe that the beauty of a piece of music is not in the music itself but in the listeners brain somewhere.


Surprised at the number of people who have twigged a truth about music?


----------



## janxharris

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> *What has surprised you the most on TC?*
> 
> That some people genuinely believe that the beauty of a piece of music is not in the music itself but in the listeners brain somewhere.


This would render opinions that do not accord with some platonic ideal as irrelevant.
Music remains, almost without exception (instrumental music at least), abstract.


----------



## Forster

janxharris said:


> *This *would render opinions that do not accord with some platonic ideal as irrelevant.
> Music remains, almost without exception (instrumental music at least), abstract.


Um...I'm not sure what your 'this' refers to, the idea that beauty _is _in the music or that it isn't (and it's in the listener's brain?


----------



## janxharris

Forster said:


> Um...I'm not sure what your 'this' refers to, the idea that beauty _is _in the music or that it isn't (and it's in the listener's brain?


'This' refers to Wilhelm Theophilus's opinion (so the former in your post).


----------



## Kreisler jr

SanAntone said:


> Handel's stage works are his strong suit, IMO. His oratorios and operas greatly overshadow his instrumental works.


This is true although not quite in practice or on recordings as there are A LOT of recordings of some of Handel's orchestral works, so apparently both musicians and the market like them well enough. 
Handel's operas clearly dominate the baroque opera revival of the last 30-40 years but baroque opera is nevertheless a bit of a niche taste and most online fora either tend towards a focus on romantic through modern orchestral music or IF opera, 19th century opera. Messiah is of course as popular as it gets but most of the other oratorios suffer a bit from the problem of Messiah dominating them and being too many (like Haydn symphonies or quartets). If like Bach there were 4-5 oratorios, not 15 or 20, these would get more attention.


----------



## Dan Ante

mmsbls said:


> I agree that Handel is discussed less on TC than I might have expected. I do think the community actually values Handel's music highly. If we look at 3 composer polls taken years apart (snapshots in time on TC) Handel is ranked 18th, 9th, and 21st. That's an average of 16th. I view that as somewhat high but not excessively so.
> 
> Possibly one reason is that Handel wrote a lot of opera and oratorios. I believe those who frequent the opera section on TC tend to participate less on the non-opera parts of the forum and tend not to vote in composer polls. Those who participate in the non-opera parts of TC tend to discuss opera and oratorios less than other music.


Re Handel. It was not all that long ago that Handel did not even figure at all on my musical like list, then roughly in the early 90s a new friend introduced me to the man, we had music evenings where all the members of the music group hosted an evening of recorded classical music and when it was his turn Mr Handel was dominant, at first I just put up with it but gradually my foot started to tap followed by more attention and a real fondness of the oratorio, I was hooked and remain even more so today.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

janxharris said:


> This would render opinions that do not accord with some platonic ideal as irrelevant.
> Music remains, almost without exception (instrumental music at least), abstract.


If you are saying that because something is abstract then it cant "accord with some platonic ideal", wouldn't it follow that Maths, also being abstract, would be open to opinions (and different opinions would be valid) and not fixed?


----------



## janxharris

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> If you are saying that because something is abstract then it cant "accord with some platonic ideal", wouldn't it follow that Maths, also being abstract, would be open to opinions (and different opinions would be valid) and not fixed?


Abstract maths may be made concrete if we instantiate. I'm not aware of anyone doing the same with a piece of music.

In any case, we are talking about aesthetics; while maths may be beautiful in it's ability to turn the complex into a seemingly simple formula, that isn't its central purpose.

This is something for the appropriate thread...


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

janxharris said:


> *Abstract maths may be made concrete if we instantiate.* I'm not aware of anyone doing the same with a piece of music.
> 
> In any case, we are talking about aesthetics; while maths may be beautiful in it's ability to turn the complex into a seeming simple formula, that isn't its central purpose.
> 
> This is something for the appropriate thread...


So as long as it remains abstract it isn't true?


----------



## 59540

eljr said:


> There is good music and there is great music, there is no bad music. :angel:


I think we were assured in the other thread that the "Bubbles" piece is bad.


----------



## arpeggio

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> *What has surprised you the most on TC?*
> 
> That some people genuinely believe that the beauty of a piece of music is not in the music itself but in the listeners brain somewhere.


Interesting.

Why don't you create a poll on who believes beauty is in the music and who believes it is in the brain?

I would vote "in the brain".


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

arpeggio said:


> Interesting.
> 
> Why don't you create a poll on who believes beauty is in the music and who believes it is in the brain?
> 
> I would vote "in the brain".


because I don't want to annoy everyone. I think I'm pushing my luck as it is already . There have been threads on this already. I'm not gonna do the poll. You do it.

then I can ask you in that thread how is it in the brain


----------



## janxharris

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> So as long as it remains abstract it isn't true?


Your question would need to be clearer and isn't in an appropriate thread.

I said my bit but I don't want to derail the thread.


----------



## fluteman

SanAntone said:


> I think anything, pro or con, can be said about a work or recording or performance, as long as there isn't the kind of implication I cited in my original post. I have found that the most heated debates on TC revolve around one group of posters making comments about a composer or genre or style that come across as transcending opinion-giving and trespass into making "objective" value judgments while an opposing group confronts those value judgments.


This is by far the most surprising thing about TC to me. If music, or other things created purely for aesthetic purposes, could be evaluated according to a specific, finite set of universal, objective criteria, they would be much less interesting to me. I've more than once mentioned a wonderful and famous little essay on just this topic, and here, for the "What is your source?" folks, I'll give the full citation: Morris Weitz, "The Role of Theory in Aesthetics," _The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism_, XV (1956), 27-35. For a less technical discussion of the issue, try "Does traditional aesthetics rest on a mistake?" William E. Kennick, Mind 67 (267):317-334 (1958). Both can be found for free online.  (Kennick was one of my teachers.) A wonderful discussion of what lies behind aesthetic choices if not objective criteria can be found in Walter Jackson Bate, _From Classic to Romantic: Premises of Taste in Eighteenth-Century England_ (Harvard University Press 1946). (Another of my teachers, William H. Pritchard, was a student of Bate.)

I'm very surprised that despite some marathon debates here, only one or two members here accepted my suggestion to do some basic background reading on this subject, and absolutely nobody was interested in my suggestion of a separate forum, or at least thread, for the philosophy of aesthetics (or music).


----------



## SanAntone

fluteman said:


> This is by far the most surprising thing about TC to me. If music, or other things created purely for aesthetic purposes, could be evaluated according to a specific, finite set of universal, objective criteria, they would be much less interesting to me. I've more than once mentioned a wonderful and famous little essay on just this topic, and here, for the "What is your source?" folks, I'll give the full citation: Morris Weitz, "The Role of Theory in Aesthetics," _The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism_, XV (1956), 27-35. For a less technical discussion of the issue, try "Does traditional aesthetics rest on a mistake?" William E. Kennick, Mind 67 (267):317-334 (1958). Both can be found for free online. (Kennick was one of my teachers.) A wonderful discussion of what lies behind aesthetic choices if not objective criteria can be found in Walter Jackson Bate, _From Classic to Romantic: Premises of Taste in Eighteenth-Century England_ (Harvard University Press 1946). (Another of my teachers, William H. Pritchard, was a student of Bate.)
> 
> I'm very surprised that despite some marathon debates here, only one or two members here accepted my suggestion to do some basic background reading on this subject, and absolutely nobody was interested in my suggestion of a separate forum, or at least thread, for the philosophy of aesthetics (or music).


I think most people have a desire (need?) to continue believing something that offers some kind of psychological solace for dealing with what might otherwise seem a chaotic world, including music. People look for order, for standards, for lack of a better word, truth.

Your offer to read your sources might bring them too much information that would upset the fragile balance they wish to maintain.


----------



## Mandryka

fluteman said:


> absolutely nobody was interested in my suggestion of a separate forum, or at least thread, for the philosophy of aesthetics (or music).


Research into values and their relationship to the concept of self, warranted assertability and realism, are right at the cutting edge of contemporary philosophy. I just don't believe a forum like this is a very good place for exploring them I'm afraid. Indeed I think that the topic is so very difficult that it's probably best dealt with only in the context of a university.

I'm very much of the opinion that philosophy isn't a solitary activity. To do it well, I at least need the cut and thrust of the graduate seminar.


----------



## eljr

Mandryka said:


> Research into values and their relationship to the concept of self, warranted assertability and realism, are right at the cutting edge of contemporary philosophy. I just don't believe a forum like this is a very good place for exploring them I'm afraid. Indeed I think that the topic is so very difficult that it's probably best dealt with only in the context of a university.


Difficult? What are you speaking of? The neuroscience of experience?


----------



## Luchesi

fluteman said:


> This is by far the most surprising thing about TC to me. If music, or other things created purely for aesthetic purposes, could be evaluated according to a specific, finite set of universal, objective criteria, they would be much less interesting to me. I've more than once mentioned a wonderful and famous little essay on just this topic, and here, for the "What is your source?" folks, I'll give the full citation: Morris Weitz, "The Role of Theory in Aesthetics," _The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism_, XV (1956), 27-35. For a less technical discussion of the issue, try "Does traditional aesthetics rest on a mistake?" William E. Kennick, Mind 67 (267):317-334 (1958). Both can be found for free online. (Kennick was one of my teachers.) A wonderful discussion of what lies behind aesthetic choices if not objective criteria can be found in Walter Jackson Bate, _From Classic to Romantic: Premises of Taste in Eighteenth-Century England_ (Harvard University Press 1946). (Another of my teachers, William H. Pritchard, was a student of Bate.)
> 
> I'm very surprised that despite some marathon debates here, only one or two members here accepted my suggestion to do some basic background reading on this subject, and absolutely nobody was interested in my suggestion of a separate forum, or at least thread, for the philosophy of aesthetics (or music).


I strongly suspect that you can look at two scores and discern which one will have more value for humans into the future.


----------



## Mandryka

Luchesi said:


> I strongly suspect that you can look at two stores and discern which one will have more value for humans into the future.


If you can do that you should become an fast! You'll make a killing.


----------



## Luchesi

Mandryka said:


> If you can do that you should become an fast! You'll make a killing.


What's that?

at least 15 characters


----------



## Roger Knox

fluteman said:


> I'm very surprised that despite some marathon debates here, only one or two members here accepted my suggestion to do some basic background reading on this subject, and absolutely nobody was interested in my suggestion of a separate forum, or at least thread, for the philosophy of aesthetics (or music).


Although they are interesting I would be reluctant to get into discussion on aesthetics or philosophy of music without having taken a course on either. So I'm not surprised that there have been few takers. I heard the musicologist Joseph Kerman give a lecture on Music Criticism back when his book Contemplating Music was published (mid-1980's). He was trying to bring more criticism into (historical) musicology, but I think also he saw Music Criticism as an area where people with backgrounds in musicology, theory, performance, composition and other disciplines could interact meaningfully. Also it is at a practical level: writing, evaluating, and keeping up with classical music. And it doesn't require recasting our interests in the direction of quantitative data interpretation. I'm not suggesting that we need a discussion forum on Music Criticism but that it is something to consider.


----------



## RICK RIEKERT

Mandryka said:


> I'm very much of the opinion that philosophy isn't a solitary activity. To do it well, I at least need the cut and thrust of the graduate seminar.


J.L. Austin was the first philosopher I read who said the problems of philosophy were so vast and complicated that philosophy needed an organized 'section', a disciplined team of investigators, very much on the model of his Theater Intelligence Section [of his wartime service]. According to Geoffrey Warnock, Austin saw himself as just the fellow to direct such a section.


----------



## Mandryka

Luchesi said:


> What's that?
> 
> at least 15 characters


An agent, you should become an agent.


----------



## fluteman

Mandryka said:


> Research into values and their relationship to the concept of self, warranted assertability and realism, are right at the cutting edge of contemporary philosophy. I just don't believe a forum like this is a very good place for exploring them I'm afraid. Indeed I think that the topic is so very difficult that it's probably best dealt with only in the context of a university.
> 
> I'm very much of the opinion that philosophy isn't a solitary activity. To do it well, I at least need the cut and thrust of the graduate seminar.


I concede that many philosophers, as well as musicologists and many other academics in the humanities, have the habit of assuming the reader is thoroughly familiar with a sometimes considerable literature that already exists on their topic, making abbreviated references to it with little or no explanation and expecting the reader to nod knowingly and move on. That's unfortunate, and can make things more difficult than necessary. If you have a good idea, you ought to be able to express it reasonably clearly and simply. That's what Professor Kennick tried to do. At the beginning of his course, he handed out a short primer on writing style to his students, urging clarity and simplicity. One of his memorable lines: "Do not use the word 'extremely'. If you wish to exaggerate, 'very' will do."



SanAntone said:


> I think most people have a desire (need?) to continue believing something that offers some kind of psychological solace for dealing with what might otherwise seem a chaotic world, including music. People look for order, for standards, for lack of a better word, truth.
> 
> Your offer to read your sources might bring them too much information that would upset the fragile balance they wish to maintain.


That seems to be true, alas. To many things are interpreted as basically saying, "There Is No God", or otherwise as attempts to undermine ideas that are fundamental to the ability of some to function in the world. So not only do those folks get mad, the moderators become unhappy both with the increasing lack of civility and the broaching of the forbidden topic of Religion.

Too bad, as a lot of threads are infected with some pretty dubious reasoning. One that has managed to stay rather healthy is Current Listening, but then I see the argument that not all music worthy of discussion at TC is worthy of inclusion in Current Listening. SMH.


----------



## Roger Knox

Quote Originally Posted by Luchesi View Post

I strongly suspect that you can look at two stores and discern which one will have more value for humans into the future.

Mandryka: If you can do that you should become an fast! You'll make a killing.

Roger: Two "scores" (actual original Luchesi post) or two "stores?" I assume the first -- but how many agents can read scores anymore?


----------



## fluteman

Luchesi said:


> I strongly suspect that you can look at two scores and discern which one will have more value for humans into the future.


Johann Sebastian Bach was offered the post of Kapellmeister at St. Thomas church in Leipzig only after the job was turned down by Johann Friedrich Fasch. Maurice Ravel failed to win the Prix de Rome five separate times. The winners in those years were Andre Caplet (1901), Ayme Kunc (1902), Raoul Laparra (1903) and Victor Gallois and Marcel Samuel-Rosseau (1905).

So, no.


----------



## eljr

fluteman said:


> Johann Sebastian Bach was offered the post of Kapellmeister at St. Thomas church in Leipzig only after the job was turned down by Johann Friedrich Fasch. Maurice Ravel failed to win the Prix de Rome five separate times. The winners in those years were Andre Caplet (1901), Ayme Kunc (1902), Raoul Laparra (1903) and Victor Gallois and Marcel Samuel-Rosseau (1905).
> 
> So, no.


I cannot recall seeing a point so vividly made. Well done. Great food for thought.


----------



## Josquin13

tdc writes, 'Looks like this phenomena is not just localized to TC. In this survey 174 composers were asked their opinion on who the greatest composers were and Handel's name did not make the (top 50) list."

https://www.classical-music.com/comp...sers-all-time/

tdc,

The BBC list is more or less what I would have expected. It's basically a good list; though of course it is heavily biased towards contemporary composers, & not surprisingly. I don't have a problem with them including modern & contemporary composers per se, but the list does become suspicious when you consider who they've left off--among modern composers (i.e., no Scandinavians? etc., etc.), & how high certain contemporary composers figure on the list, such as Philip Glass and Steve Reich in the top 20 composers that ever lived?, seriously? That is a sly joke. In fact, I'd be surprised if either Glass or Reich would put themselves in the top 50.

Even so, it's shocking to me that Handel didn't even make it into the top 50! (he's in my top 10) while Stephen Sondheim did? Is that for real? It's kind of mind blowing to think that there are actually composers out there that value Sondheim's music more highly than Handel's. (Though nothing against Sondheim, of course.) Are these 174 composers writing for the musical theater, or Hollywood composers? (Well, at least they didn't put Andrew Lloyd-Weber in the top 50...)

Looking further back in music history, nor did Guillaume Dufay, Johannes Ockeghem, Josquin Desprez, Guillaume Machaut, & Orlando Lassus make the list, either. Yet these five composers are widely considered to be the giants of their age, by anyone that knows much about the late Middle Ages & Renaissance. But Carlo Gesualdo did make the list? Nothing against the Gesualdo--except that he murdered a bunch of people, but I find it suspicious that these 174 composers polled don't seem to have any appreciation or respect for the seminal age of Burgundian and Franco Flemish polyphony, along with their glaring disinterest & disrespect for & devaluing of the music of G.F. Handel. Yet they include William Byrd and Thomas Tallis. Well, okay, I'd have included Byrd & Tallis in my top 50, as well. But that may reveal a British bias. Were these British composers, I wonder?

In any event, whether they were British or residing in Britain, or not, most significantly, the 174 don't think that Beethoven knew what he was talking about. Sometimes I feel like I'm living in an upside down world.

I will add--in defense of contemporary composers!--that a late friend of mine, the composer Alan Stout, had a very high regard for the music of Handel. In fact, Alan once told me that he considered Handel's Tamerlano to be the greatest opera ever written!!

Hammerclavier,

To reduce the value of Handel's music to mere "dramaticism" & claim that other later composers, such as Mozart did it as well, if not better, is bizarre, to me. Yes, Beethoven was influenced by this "dramaticism", if you want to call it that (I don't, because I don't find anything histrionic in Handel's music)--in his heavy use of brass and woodwinds, & especially in his 'Handelian' 7th Symphony, but there is so much more to Handel's music than that, & both Beethoven and Mozart were influenced by more than that. In fact, towards the end of his life, Beethoven claimed that Handel was the only composer that he was still learning from. Surely, that comment is about more than "dramaticism"?

If we could ask Mozart and Beethoven about what music they'd consider to be the greatest choral work ever composed, IMO, a good argument could be made that they'd each say it was between Bach's Mass in B minor & Handel's Messiah. & among post Renaissance composers, I'd agree with them.

Though some days I agree with pianist Glenn Gould, who believed that Orlando Gibbons was the last vestige of a great spiritual tradition in music that began in the Middle Ages, and after Gibbons, western music went into decline. (Gould wasn't the 'nut' that some people suppose he was.)


----------



## Mandryka

fluteman said:


> I concede that many philosophers, as well as musicologists and many other academics in the humanities, have the habit of assuming the reader is thoroughly familiar with a sometimes considerable literature that already exists on their topic, making abbreviated references to it with little or no explanation and expecting the reader to nod knowingly and move on. That's unfortunate, and can make things more difficult than necessary. If you have a good idea, you ought to be able to express it reasonably clearly and simply. That's what Professor Kennick tried to do. At the beginning of his course, he handed out a short primer on writing style to his students, urging clarity and simplicity. One of his memorable lines: "Do not use the word 'extremely'. If you wish to exaggerate, 'very' will do."


There are lots of good ideas, most or maybe all of Socrates's interlocutors had good ideas in the platonic dialogues. Philosophy's about subjecting ideas to a very rigorous interrogation - and that's where it gets interesting.


----------



## Luchesi

fluteman said:


> Johann Sebastian Bach was offered the post of Kapellmeister at St. Thomas church in Leipzig only after the job was turned down by Johann Friedrich Fasch. Maurice Ravel failed to win the Prix de Rome five separate times. The winners in those years were Andre Caplet (1901), Ayme Kunc (1902), Raoul Laparra (1903) and Victor Gallois and Marcel Samuel-Rosseau (1905).
> 
> So, no.


You're talking about composers and the 'current powers that be' back then. I'm curious about the question of taking many of the scores from Bach and Fasch to see if we can see right in their scores whose music would be the most valuable into the future. Maybe we can't. But where else could we look?


----------



## fluteman

Mandryka said:


> There are lots of good ideas, most or maybe all of Socrates's interlocutors had good ideas in the platonic dialogues. Philosophy's about subjecting ideas to a very rigorous interrogation - and that's where it gets interesting.


True. But the sources I cited above already have been subjected to very rigorous interrogation. Certainly the Weitz and Kennick essays, published in 1956 and 1958, have provoked a long list of published citations, references and discussion over the years. I could have provided a lengthy bibliography. Bate's book was published in 1946, and that too is frequently cited.

Of the other principal sources I've cited on this issue, John Dewey's Art as Experience was published in 1936, and remains one of the most famous books in the field. David Hume's essay Of the Standard of Taste dates back to 1757 and may be the single most famous discussion of the topic after Aristotle.

All of these sources have had an important long term influence on thinking about aesthetics. For example, in his 1946 book Bate quotes and discusses Hume's 1757 essay at length, not surprisingly, as it provides much of the basic underpinning of modern thinking regarding aesthetics.



Luchesi said:


> You're talking about composers and the 'current powers that be' back then. I'm curious about the question of taking many of the scores from Bach and Fasch to see if we can see right in their scores whose music would be the most valuable into the future. Maybe we can't. But where else could we look?


For Bach and Fasch, it already is the future. They were around over 270 years ago. Bach's music now shines brightly while Fasch, though quite popular in his own time, is considered a minor composer today. The accumulated wisdom and judgment of history is a discerning arbiter of aesthetics. That is where the answer lies, to the extent there is an answer, not in the scores. This is the point Hume makes in his important essay, which I recommend to you.


----------



## arpeggio

Yeah, another fan of John Dewey


----------



## Forster

fluteman said:


> I'm very surprised that despite some marathon debates here, only one or two members here accepted my suggestion to do some basic background reading on this subject, and absolutely nobody was interested in my suggestion of a separate forum, or at least thread, for the philosophy of aesthetics (or music).


I think _one _of the reasons you've not been taken up is a practical one. Although members allow for time to pass due to time zone differences, we're generally an impatient lot. Once a thread gets going, you need to keep up, or you can miss the moment to make your point. A number of posters have made reading recommendations in past threads with the idea of informing the debate, but many of us have barely enough time to do a swift check on Wiki, not much more.

I know, I'm generalising. Some members are "slow" contributors and some threads allow contributors time to breathe and reflect, but the general pace of debate is to get in quick, because it's a conversation, not a class.

It's also true that members don't generally wear their credentials on their posts, and even if I did tell everyone that I have a BA (Hons, Upper Second) in English with Drama, there's no proof. What books I have read, TV I've watched, radio I've listened to that has informed my understanding of aesthetics over the years doesn't readily assemble into a simple reference for the authority that backs up what I have to say. Besides, I prefer to know what people think in their own words, not what they can quote from somewhere else.

Lastly, while the Groups could be a place to have a slow thread to discuss philosophy, the main board has an unwritten expectation that everyone can join in, regardless of background. So discussion settles at a general level of "ability": it ain't highbrow, neither is it juvenile (however you might characterise some individual posts!).

In the meantime, I might go away and have a look at what you've recommended - I'm retired and have the time.


----------



## HenryPenfold

Forster said:


> I think _one _of the reasons you've not been taken up is a practical one. Although members allow for time to pass due to time zone differences, we're generally an impatient lot. Once a thread gets going, you need to keep up, or you can miss the moment to make your point. A number of posters have made reading recommendations in past threads with the idea of informing the debate, but many of us have barely enough time to do a swift check on Wiki, not much more.
> 
> I know, I'm generalising. Some members are "slow" contributors and some threads allow contributors time to breathe and reflect, but the general pace of debate is to get in quick, because it's a conversation, not a class.
> 
> It's also true that members don't generally wear their credentials on their posts, and even if I did tell everyone that I have a BA (Hons, Upper Second) in English with Drama, there's no proof. What books I have read, TV I've watched, radio I've listened to that has informed my understanding of aesthetics over the years doesn't readily assemble into a simple reference for the authority that backs up what I have to say.
> 
> Lastly, while the Groups could be a place to have a slow thread to discuss philosophy, the main board has an unwritten expectation that everyone can join in, regardless of background. So discussion settles at a general level of "ability": it ain't highbrow, neither is it juvenile (however you might characterise some individual posts!).
> 
> In the meantime, I might go away and have a look at what you've recommended - I'm retired and have the time.


I find the intellectual challenge a bit daunting, despite having read PPE as an undergraduate. Perhaps if people could put things more simply …… ?


----------



## Forster

Forster said:


> I think _one _of the reasons [etc]


tl:dr .


----------



## Kreisler jr

fluteman said:


> Johann Sebastian Bach was offered the post of Kapellmeister at St. Thomas church in Leipzig only after the job was turned down by Johann Friedrich Fasch.


I think this episode is often slightly misinterpreted. Bach was considered among the top 3 candidates for what was probably the second best cantorial (i.e. in church music, this was no "kapellmeister") position in all of Germany (after Hamburg). He was formally less qualified than some or all of the other candidates because he had never attended university or a degree (his highest "degree" was having completed an elite Latin "prep school"). This was relevant among other things because the cantor had to be available as additional Latin teacher! When Bach was eventually hired he passed an additional test for this teaching requirement but he later apparently hired a substitute for this task which was common practice because the cantor was of course sufficiently busy anyway.

Only because today many people see Bach as high above any other contemporary (or certainly among the candidates for Leipzig) one should not ignore that both in regards to this position as well as in other "rankings" of the time, Bach was almost always mentioned among the top 3-5 German composers. He was not recognized as uber-composer but neither was he unknown or underappreciated.


----------



## JTS

Josquin13 said:


> tdc writes, 'Looks like this phenomena is not just localized to TC. In this survey 174 composers were asked their opinion on who the greatest composers were and Handel's name did not make the (top 50) list."
> 
> https://www.classical-music.com/comp...sers-all-time/
> 
> tdc,
> )


Just shows what a bunch of losers these so called 'composers' are. But what can you expect from the BBC? Like making a list of artists and Michelangelo doesn't make the top 50. A certain Ludwig van Beethoven reckoned that Handel was the greatest composer of all but don't let that influence you!


----------



## janxharris

JTS said:


> Just shows what a bunch of losers these so called 'composers' are. But what can you expect from the BBC? A certain Ludwig van Beethoven reckoned that Handel was the greatest composer of all but don't let that influence you!





Chilham said:


> That so many here believe their opinion is fact.


-------------------------------------


----------



## Forster

JTS said:


> Just shows what a bunch of losers these so called 'composers' are. But what can you expect from the BBC? A certain Ludwig van Beethoven reckoned that Handel was the greatest composer of all but don't let that influence you!


The BBC Music Magazine ran the poll. They didn't make the results.


----------



## JTS

Forster said:


> The BBC Music Magazine ran the poll. They didn't make the results.


They might have picked people who could hear music!


----------



## mikeh375

JTS said:


> *Just shows what a bunch of losers these so called 'composers' are. *But what can you expect from the BBC? Like making a list of artists and Michelangelo doesn't make the top 50. A certain Ludwig van Beethoven reckoned that Handel was the greatest composer of all but don't let that influence you!


That is quite offensive imo. Is there a list of these composers anywhere in order to check their credentials and see if they really are "losers" who can't hear music?


----------



## janxharris

mikeh375 said:


> That is quite offensive imo. Is there a list of these composers anywhere in order to check their credentials and see if they really are "losers" who can't hear music?


Best I could find so far: 50 Greatest Composers by 174 Composers


----------



## Forster

mikeh375 said:


> That is quite offensive imo. Is there a list of these composers anywhere?


I can't find the list of 174 online, but I have the magazine. The list includes (those I've heard of):

Nyman, Panufnik, Portman, Prokofiev, Reich, Richter, Rutter, Thorvaldsdottir, Williams(John), Turnage, Whitacre, Wiseman, Adams JL, Berkeley...

I'm not sure who is missing that the BBC _should_ have asked, but maybe they did and got no answer.

The last time this was discussed, some members felt that they should have asked the dead composers who would have had better opinions.


----------



## mikeh375

Thanks Jan and Forster.

So, not all losers who can't hear music then. Is it any wonder why wars begin online when one sees insensitive language.


----------



## mikeh375

Forster said:


> .............................
> 
> The last time this was discussed, some members felt that they should have asked the dead composers who would have had better opinions.


LOL.....................................


----------



## JTS

mikeh375 said:


> Thanks Jan and Forster.
> 
> So, not all losers who can't hear music then. Is it any wonder why wars begin online when one sees insensitive language.


Frankly if you think it a 'war' when someone objects strongly to the conclusions of a poll then I hope one day you visit some places in the world where there is a real war going on! There is no 'war' - just giving an opinion. I'm sure if a list of artists excluded Michelangelo from their list there might just be a strong reaction!


----------



## mikeh375

..just a metaphor.
Objections can be stated without insults.


----------



## JTS

mikeh375 said:


> ..just a metaphor.


So was mine!.....


----------



## mikeh375

...and the insults?


----------



## Forster

JTS said:


> Frankly if you think it a 'war' when someone objects strongly to the conclusions of a poll then I hope one day you visit some places in the world where there is a real war going on! There is no 'war' - just giving an opinion. I'm sure if a list of artists excluded Michelangelo from their list there might just be a strong reaction!


So, who was the Michelangelo missing from the list?


----------



## hammeredklavier

Josquin13 said:


> after Gibbons, western music went into decline.


And you accuse other people for having "unpopular opinions" on Handel.



Josquin13 said:


> both Beethoven and Mozart were influenced by more than that
> If we could ask Mozart and Beethoven about what music they'd consider to be *the greatest choral work ever composed*, IMO, a good argument could be made that they'd each say it was between Bach's Mass in B minor & *Handel's Messiah.*


I find statements like that quite exaggerated regarding Handel. (Although I don't deny Handel was great) I don't think Mozart would have *fully* agreed with Beethoven regarding Handel. And the Mozart quote about Handel being "the best at making an effect" is possibly misattributed. For instance, looking at any continuous series of diatonic passages such as the ones singing "Lord of all!" (which are, frankly, slightly repetitive), it's clear Mozart's intrinsic musical tendencies were quite different. There's no evidence he regarded- Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach's Magnificat (I don't see how the "Et misericordia eius" is any less sublime than "The people shall hear" or "He has borne our griefs"), or Die auferstehung und himmelfahrt Jesu (which Mozart conducted in several performances of 1788, with his own modifications) or Michael Haydn's Schrattenbachrequiem (the most Mozartian non-secular work ever composed by anyone other than Mozart), or host of other works such as Missae st. Hieronymi, Aloysii (the "Et incarnatus est - Crucifixus" in G minor is arguably more reminiscent of the "Ach ich fuhl's" than any other sections of vocal works from the 18th century) -any less significant than the Handel.



hammeredklavier said:


> The Michael Haydn requiem also influenced works of Mozart Mozart himself actually considered important such as K.339/iv (from the vespers, which Mozart himself held in high regard) and K.426 (which Mozart later transcribed for strings and added an introductory adagio, and would profoundly affect Beethoven). For instance, K.339/iv (with its subject) is unmistakably reminiscent of the Cum sanctis tuis from the Michael Haydn requiem. Both K.339/iv and K.426 deal with this motivic expression, found in the Michael Haydn:


----------



## JTS

Forster said:


> So, who was the Michelangelo missing from the list?


Thought that was clear from the context


----------



## JTS

mikeh375 said:


> ...and the insults?


Who on TC am I insulting? I find the fact Handel is not included in the top 50 an insult.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Josquin13 said:


> tdc writes, 'Looks like this phenomena is not just localized to TC. In this survey 174 composers were asked their opinion on who the greatest composers were and Handel's name did not make the (top 50) list."
> https://www.classical-music.com/comp...sers-all-time/


Mendelssohn did not make it either, but Cage and Feldman did. I agree with you that it shouldn't be taken seriously.


----------



## mikeh375

JTS said:


> Who on TC am I insulting? I find the fact Handel is not included in the top 50 an insult.


Well.................



JTS said:


> Just shows what a bunch of losers these so called 'composers' are.





JTS said:


> They might have picked people who could hear music!


These statements I find demeaning as a professional and rather absurd when one sees the calibre of some on the list. So yes, someone on TC is calling it. I aint losing sleep over such a blinkered viewpoint about modern composers though.


----------



## Kreisler jr

Forster said:


> So, who was the Michelangelo missing from the list?


Handel? I think I have once read Handel called the Rubens of music because of the old testament subjects of most oratorios.
(Or because Handel was as fat as the figures on Rubens paintings )


----------



## Forster

Ok. You said



JTS said:


> Just shows what a bunch of losers these so called 'composers' are.


Then



> They might have picked people who could hear music!


So, my question was, who should they have asked if you're not happy with the 174 they did ask?

(Forget the Michelangelo bit, that was my bad).


----------



## JTS

Forster said:


> Ok. You said
> 
> Then
> 
> So, my question was, who should they have asked if you're not happy with the 174 they did ask?
> 
> (Forget the Michelangelo bit, that was my bad).


I like to see how many of 174 actually have their compositions listened to by any number of people. Did you find there is something wrong with a poll that excluded a man reckoned to be one of the great geniuses of Western music? .


----------



## Art Rock

Art Rock said:


> What has surprised you the most on TC?
> 
> 
> 
> The ability of people to go off on a tangent in any thread.
Click to expand...

I should have added "even when there's already a dedicated thread on that tangential topic, and the people commenting know it."

How about stopping this particular discussion here, and take it to the thread about that subject?


----------



## BlackAdderLXX

mmsbls said:


> So what surprised you?


I've learned so much here, and met some amazing people.

That said the incessant arguing over minor things has been a surprise. 
Another surprise has been how cool the folks in the weekly SQ thread are


----------



## Forster

Art Rock said:


> I should have added "even when there's already a dedicated thread on that tangential topic, and the people commenting know it."
> 
> How about stopping this particular discussion here, and take it to the thread about that subject?


Well, I would, if I knew which topic - Handel? Top 50 Composers? What surprises us?

I thought the discussion was the surprise that Handel isn't more popular....that in a BBC Music Magazine poll, Handel was not listed...so let's discus whether there is something wrong with a poll that doesn't have Handel on it.

Is it really so tangential? If no substantive discussion is permitted on any of the things that (allegedly) surprise us, it just becomes a list (and I think the list ran out of steam when we started posting things that, plainly, were not a surprise at all).


----------



## Forster

JTS said:


> I like to see how many of 174 actually have their compositions listened to by any number of people. Did you find there is something wrong with a poll that excluded a man reckoned to be one of the great geniuses of Western music? .


I'd like to know if you read the BBC Music Magazine article ehich explained the poll; checked the list of 174 composers; and if you would offer the names of composers you _would _trust to give the right answer. My opinion on Handel is irrelevant. The poll results are what they are, an aggregation of opinions, not a defintive outcome by which we must all abide.


----------



## Art Rock

The moderating team usually allows for some drift, but I would think that a detailed discussion on this particular survey would be more appropriate in the thread on that survey, where people can find it. But whatever floats your boat.


----------



## BlackAdderLXX

BlackAdderLXX said:


> That said the incessant arguing over minor things has been a surprise.


I rest my case.


----------



## Forster

Art Rock said:


> The moderating team usually allows for some drift, but I would think that a detailed discussion on this particular survey would be more appropriate in the thread on that survey, where people can find it. But whatever floats your boat.


I can't find it...Happy to discuss this top 50 in its dedicated thread if it can be found. Thanks


----------



## Art Rock

Forster said:


> I can't find it...Happy to discuss this top 50 in its dedicated thread if it can be found. Thanks


It was quoted in post 601.

50 Greatest Composers by 174 Composers


----------



## Forster

Art Rock said:


> It was quoted in post 601.
> 
> 50 Greatest Composers by 174 Composers


Thanks. I thought the link in 601 was just a functioning link to the BBC Music Magazine article (the previously posted link doesn't work).


----------



## fluteman

Kreisler jr said:


> Bach was almost always mentioned among the top 3-5 German composers. He was not recognized as uber-composer but neither was he unknown or underappreciated.


Indeed, but Bach is recognized as an 'uber-composer' today, while someone like Fasch (who did write some good music) was much more highly regarded in his own time than he is today. And that is not because everyone in 18th century Germany was a tone-deaf dummy while today we are all expert listeners. Again, it's the gradually accumulated wisdom and judgment over a long period of time that has the final say over a culture's artistic icons. The perspective of time is essential.

BTW, I mentioned how Ravel repeatedly lost the Prix de Rome competition to composers who today are unknown, or nearly so. But even while that was happening, he wrote his string quartet (1902-1903) which drew high praise at the time from Debussy (who wrote regular columns as a music critic under a pseudonym). Debussy similarly praised Stravinsky's Le Sacre du printemps when that was first performed in 1913, despite the jeers from the audience at its infamous premiere.

So, despite the immediate recognition, these composers and their works needed to be heard and considered in their full cultural context to be fully appreciated, and usually that doesn't happen, or at least not to the fullest extent, without historical perspective.


----------



## violadude

The most surprising thing is that when I self-identify as a "classical music fan", what that means to me is very often totally, completely different than what it might mean to someone else.


----------



## 59540

fluteman said:


> Indeed, but Bach is recognized as an 'uber-composer' today, while someone like Fasch (who did write some good music) was much more highly regarded in his own time than he is today.


But you're judging from the perspective of a 21st century listener of Bach's entire output over his 65 years, not the perspective of a Leipziger in 1723.


----------



## hammeredklavier

"Even before 1750, that legacy had begun to spread, slowly but steadily and irreversibly, primarily through his students and his sons, and first and foremost in circles of professional musicians. But knowledgeable admirers of Bach's art could be found outside German lands as well. A representative voice in this regard is that of the composer and theorist Padre Giovanni Battista Martini in Bologna, who wrote to a German colleague in April 1750, more than three months before Bach's death: "I consider it superfluous to describe the singular merit of Sig. Bach, for he is thoroughly known and admired not only in Germany but throughout our Italy. I will say only that I think it would be difficult to find someone in the profession who could surpass him, since these days he could rightfully claim to be among the first in Europe."" < Johann Sebastian Bach: The Learned Musician | Christoph Wolff · 2002 | P. 462 >


----------



## BabyGiraffe

dissident said:


> But you're judging from the perspective of a 21st century listener of Bach's entire output over his 65 years, not the perspective of a Leipziger in 1723.


It is not hard to imagine someone like Ferneyhough being appreciated as a Bach-like figure in the future as a representative of current time period.


----------



## Symphonic

How small the number of active musicians that are here.


----------



## fluteman

Symphonic said:


> How small the number of active musicians that are here.


Hah! Speak for yourself. I still practice nearly every day, even in my semi-retired state, but I'm not willing to take the risk of playing in public indoors, though friends and family who are still active performing professionals have recently started again. I recently got an invitation to audition for an orchestra chair, and the conductor is a wonderful lady, she couldn't be nicer. But at this point I don't think so.

I'm still up for a duet, trio or quartet on Jamulus. Any more than four gets a little unwieldy. Let me know by DM if you're up for it, and what instrument(s) you play.


----------



## SanAntone

It has been my experience than musicians prefer playing music as opposed to talking about it.


----------



## fluteman

SanAntone said:


> It has been my experience than musicians prefer playing music as opposed to talking about it.


That used to be the case for me, before my health declined.


----------



## Heck148

SanAntone said:


> It has been my experience than musicians prefer playing music as opposed to talking about it.


I've been a professional musician for my entire adult career...and I've certainly engaged in plenty of conversations, websites, forums, etc in which to communicate with other professionals, engage in "shop talk", technical issues, reed problems, repertoire challenges and so forth...
But I've always valued the views and opinions of the audience, the listeners...musicians tend to get very tunnel-visioned, or myopic in their approach to music...preoccupied with their own problems, issues, how they performed on a particular day...we easily forget that the concert was presented for the enjoyment of the audience...so their response is crucial to the whole picture...

I thank my late wife for keeping me on track with this - she was a very knowledgeable listener, knew lots of repertoire, had played violin in high school, had a good ear...I learned very early on, that what I thought was a big issue, a major problem, was to her, in the audience, either unnoticeable, or very insignificant to the listener out in the hall. She also gave me one of my most memorable compliments, after a performance of "Bolero" - _but it's x-rated, not for public consumption on our worthy forum!! 
_ :lol::devil::tiphat:
She had it down - <<if you played well, then the concert was good, if you think you played badly, then the concert was lousy!!>> :lol: she was so right....and it's something I worked on my entire career, to try to keep the big picture in mind, and not be so preoccupied with my own particular microcosm within it. I did get much better at it; however, musicians are perfectionists...we may play thousands upon thousands of notes in a concert, but we will remember those few that we missed!! We never get away from that entirely.

So, I enjoy the input of the non-musician music lovers, the audience, a great deal - this input is quite different from that of the musicians who perform on stage, but ultimately, it is for the listeners, the audience that we present our concerts...
of course, the audience always loves to mix with the performers, to meet the musicians,, to get their views, their insights on the music to be performed, the concert season, favorite works, most challenging works...I've found that the audience loves to get the "inside story" - what to listen for, what are key parts, what instruments are featured, what is a really difficult part, what are unique points in the score, etc, etc....
Anything that breaks down the invisible "barrier" between performers and audience, to me, is beneficial, and increases the enjoyment for everyone.


----------



## Bulldog

SanAntone said:


> It has been my experience than musicians prefer playing music as opposed to talking about it.


That's a good thing - go with your strength.


----------



## SanAntone

Heck148 said:


> I've been a professional musician for my entire adult career...and I've certainly engaged in plenty of conversations, websites, forums, etc in which to communicate with other professionals, engage in "shop talk", technical issues, reed problems, repertoire challenges and so forth...


I too have been a professional musician my entire adult life and while I do enjoy Internet forums and "shop talk" among peers, I have found that in general musicians don't talk much about "music". We talk about specific aspects of a performance or something technical, but not the kind of abstract debates that regularly occur on TC or other Internet forums.

For two decades I played with Jazz bands, and for over 30 years was in Nashville, and there may be a difference between my experience that found among Classical musicians.


----------



## Heck148

SanAntone said:


> For two decades I played with Jazz bands, and for over 30 years was in Nashville, and there may be a difference between my experience that found among Classical musicians.


Probably pretty similar, all told...


----------



## BlackAdderLXX

SanAntone said:


> It has been my experience than musicians prefer playing music as opposed to talking about it.


I'm a full time music minister but what we play at my church is radically different than what we talk about here.


----------



## JTS

BlackAdderLXX said:


> I'm a full time music minister but what we play at my church is radically different than what we talk about here.


Same at our church! Including lights!


----------



## JTS

My father was a professional musician and so is my son. I have the luxury of being able just to enjoy music! I heard some great stories from dad. My son doesn’t tell me too much but keeps me posted on video of his exploits


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

arpeggio said:


> Interesting.
> 
> Why don't you create a poll on who believes beauty is in the music and who believes it is in the brain?
> 
> I would vote "in the brain".


OK i did it.

do your worst!


----------



## eljr

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> OK i did it.
> 
> do your worst!


No poll is warranted, the answer is not in dispute, objectively. :devil:


----------



## arpeggio

For me a big difference between musicians and non-musicians is that musicians have very eclectic listening habits. We listen to everything.

Non-musicians tend to concentrate on certain genres. They will listen to primarily classical or country or rock, _etc._

I remember going to a band rehearsal and listening to all of these egghead musicians grieving when Prince passed.

I am a member of Apple I Tunes and some of my non-classical playlists include:

ABBA
Willy Nelson
Fleetwood Mac
Mary Chapin Carpenter
Don Ellis big band
Creedence Clearwater Revival
Dave Mathews


----------



## Art Rock

Apparently I should have been a musician. :tiphat:


----------



## Enthusiast

arpeggio said:


> For me a big difference between musicians and non-musicians is that musicians have very eclectic listening habits. We listen to everything.
> 
> Non-musicians tend to concentrate on certain genres. They will listen to primarily classical or country or rock, _etc._
> 
> I remember going to a band rehearsal and listening to all of these egghead musicians grieving when Prince passed.
> 
> I am a member of Apple I Tunes and some of my non-classical playlists include:
> 
> ABBA
> Willy Nelson
> Fleetwood Mac
> Mary Chapin Carpenter
> Don Ellis big band
> Creedence Clearwater Revival
> Dave Mathews


I am (almost proudly) a non-musician. From the musicians I know I would say that non-musician music lovers spend a lot more time listening to music. Listening to music is a very important part of my life. And my listening is very eclectic - everything from Hildegard to Ferneyhough, a lot of jazz, popular music (mostly rock and hip-hop and a lot of African music).... .


----------



## Malx

Art Rock said:


> Apparently I should have been a musician. :tiphat:


Me too Art - perhaps we should form a virtual band, I'll play drums as I feel qualified to do so as in the past I have been referred to as both Animal and a Muppet


----------



## Enthusiast

^ I'm sure you are a great air drummer.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Art Rock said:


> Apparently I should have been a musician.


Of this sort, definitely:


----------



## arpeggio

arpeggio said:


> For me a big difference between musicians and non-musicians is that musicians have very eclectic listening habits. We listen to everything.
> 
> Non-musicians tend to concentrate on certain genres. They will listen to primarily classical or country or rock, _etc._
> 
> I remember going to a band rehearsal and listening to all of these egghead musicians grieving when Prince passed.
> 
> I am a member of Apple I Tunes and some of my non-classical playlists include:
> 
> ABBA
> Willy Nelson
> Fleetwood Mac
> Mary Chapin Carpenter
> Don Ellis big band
> Creedence Clearwater Revival
> Dave Mathews


The above is just an opinion and is probably not true 

Apologies to the non-musicians who have eclectic ears :tiphat:


----------



## SanAntone

Like any large group, musicians come in all types. Some are huge music fans, others not so much. For some musicians, music is their job and they don't listen much when not performing. Others are omnivorous consumers of music. Some are very intellectual and enjoy abstract discussions others are intuitive and not interested in theory.

The one thing I can say with certainty is that there is no way to accurately describe "all musicians" as having a single trait or behavior when it comes to music. And the same is true for non-musicians.


----------



## JTS

SanAntone said:


> Like any large group, musicians come in all types. Some are huge music fans, others not so much. For some musicians, music is their job and they don't listen much when not performing. Others are omnivorous consumers of music. Some are very intellectual and enjoy abstract discussions others are intuitive and not interested in theory.
> 
> The one thing I can say with certainty is that there is no way to accurately describe "all musicians" as having a single trait or behavior when it comes to music. And the same is true for non-musicians.


I think because a non-practising music enthusiast loves music so much he will envy the participants and expect them to occupy every second of their lives with what is their passion. But when I had finished my day job I wanted to get away from it not more of it. I expect many professional musicians feel the same.


----------



## Dan Ante

As an ex musician.
When a gig was finished and we were having a beer the last thing we talked about was music.
I now only listen to the genres that I like.


----------



## starthrower

What has surprised me is that after eleven years hanging around this place I've turned into a huge opera enthusiast. And when I'm not listening to operas, it's string quartets. If anybody I know had predicted that a decade ago I'd have bet a month's pay against it! When I first arrived here it was mostly symphonies and other orchestral music I was seeking more of, but I've hardly listened to any of that stuff all year.


----------



## BlackAdderLXX

Dan Ante said:


> As an ex musician.
> When a gig was finished and we were having a beer the last thing we talked about was music.
> I now only listen to the genres that I like.


I can relate to this.


----------



## Forster

arpeggio said:


> The above is just an opinion and is probably not true
> 
> Apologies to the non-musicians who have eclectic ears :tiphat:


"Apology accepted" say my eclectic ears. :tiphat:


----------



## Malx

arpeggio said:


> The above is just an opinion and is probably not true
> 
> Apologies to the non-musicians who have eclectic ears :tiphat:


An opinion stated with no malice needs no apology, imo


----------



## JTS

As a young person I always dreamed of being a professional classical musician. Of course, youth is allowed to be foolish and fortunately I realised I haven’t the talent. Looking back I’m glad I can just enjoy music as a hobby I can delight i as I see many highly talented people stuck trying to make ends meet, having to teach untalented kids and the like. When a young person I know aspires to do music I always try and advise them to do something else and make music a pastime. It would seem the chances of real success in the music industry are very limited.


----------



## mikeh375

JTS said:


> I think because a non-practising music enthusiast loves music so much he will envy the participants and expect them to occupy every second of their lives with what is their passion. *But when I had finished my day job I wanted to get away from it not more of it. I expect many professional musicians feel the same.*


I can relate to that. Working in media composing meant many long hours, sometimes more than 24hours straight in order to meet impossible deadlines. That and the fact that I was working for 3 different time zones meant conference calls at any time, day or night and clashing deadlines. Fortunately, I was a fast writer thanks to my training and managed to keep it and life away from it together for most of the time (not always though). Latterly I was beginning to wear down after almost 30 years of it and was fortunate enough to be able to take early retirement, but yes, the fun slowly eroded away. Even some orchestral recording sessions lost their sparkling excitement later on for me.


----------



## science

I guess we all know that the majority of the history of the western musical tradition pre-dates Vivaldi. Should I be surprised if people who rarely explore any of that celebrate their eclectic listening?

(*** looks around with increasing unease, glances at phone ***) 

Please excuse me, I just got an urgent message and I have to leave immediately.

(*** exits, ducking to present a smaller target ***)


----------



## Kreisler jr

I think we all know that the history of Western literature goes back to Homer. 
Should we really be surprised that in spite of that fact the first ~2600 years are sadly neglected and (with very few exceptions like Shakespeare from 1600 AD) most people read very little written earlier than the early 19th century?


----------



## Forster

science said:


> I guess we all know that the majority of the history of the western musical tradition pre-dates Vivaldi. Should I be surprised if people who rarely explore any of that celebrate their eclectic listening?
> 
> (*** looks around with increasing unease, glances at phone ***)
> 
> Please excuse me, I just got an urgent message and I have to leave immediately.
> 
> (*** exits, ducking to present a smaller target ***)


I'm sorry, but the title of the thread is NOT what should surprise you!


----------



## science

Forster said:


> I'm sorry, but the title of the thread is NOT what should surprise you!


Nor is it what saddens us. I'm afraid I've nearly hijacked this thread again!

I doubt anyone is surprised.


----------



## science

Kreisler jr said:


> I think we all know that the history of Western literature goes back to Homer.
> Should we really be surprised that in spite of that fact the first ~2600 years are sadly neglected and (with very few exceptions like Shakespeare from 1600 AD) most people read very little written earlier than the early 19th century?


An apt analogy! How proud should one be of the diversity of one's reading who hasn't read Virgil or Augustine, _Beowulf_ or _The Song of Roland_, Dante or Chaucer, Malory or Milton, Cervantes or Goethe, the _Tao Te Ching_ or the _Baghavad Gita_?



Kreisler jr said:


> most people read very little


But then this stands true without need for qualification. We should probably congratulate ourselves merely for recognizing the names....


----------



## Forster

I don't take the word 'eclectic' to mean 'comprehensive'. It's not about quantity, but variety, isn't it?


----------



## HenryPenfold

Forster said:


> I don't take the word 'eclectic' to mean 'comprehensive'. It's not about quantity, but variety, isn't it?


Indeed. It's a _qualitative_ concept, not _quantitative_.


----------



## arpeggio

*To play or not to play.*

As an amateur musicians my experiences are radically different than a professional's.

I live in Fairfax, Virginia, which is a suburb of Washington, DC. I have been fortunate to have a great job. I had a career as a pension auditor for the United States Government. As a result I understood how pensions worked in our country. My wife and I knew how to invest our money and as a result we have a great retirement.

As a result I like to tease my professional musician friends. They have talent. We amateurs have money. When we have extra funds instead of buying a set of Tiger Woods Signature Golf Clubs or a boat we buy another horn. Most of us own multiple instruments. I have one friend who owns two alto clarinets. I own six horns including two bassoons.

There are plenty of opportunities to play in Fairfax, Virginia. I am currently a member of three groups.

As a professional one has to play whatever is put on the music stand no matter what. As an amateur if a band or orchestra programs nothing that interests us we move on to another group.

As an amateur I find that we are much happier than many professionals. It is exciting for us when we pull off a great performance.

I play with many retired musicians who are much happier playing for fun than money.

A few years ago I had an awesome experience playing Schubert's _Unfinished Symphony_. I can imagine that it may have lost its luster for a professional who has performed it dozens of times.

I hope the above is helpful.


----------



## science

Forster said:


> I don't take the word 'eclectic' to mean 'comprehensive'. It's not about quantity, but variety, isn't it?


To be fair, since we call it "classical" music, perhaps I should celebrate that we don't restrain ourselves to the period from Haydn to Beethoven.

Probably more of us should say we enjoy "romantic and early modern music plus a few guys from the 1700s."


----------



## science

Forster said:


> I don't take the word 'eclectic' to mean 'comprehensive'. It's not about quantity, but variety, isn't it?


To be sure we're all missing something.

I just like to advocate for medieval, Renaissance, and "Baroque beyond Bach" as often as possible. There's so much more there than a lot of seem to realize, and a fun bonus is that arguable we're living in the golden age of that music. New recordings of absolute masterpieces we never could have heard before are coming out all the time.

I understand that some people like to compare and contrast twenty different recordings of the fifty most famous works, or just discover ever more obscure romantic and early modern works, so de gustibus, cada uno a su gusto, et cetera et cetera et cetera, but another alternative is to dabble in this constantly evolving world of nearly forgotten surprising things works that Chaucer and Mallory and Cervantes and Shakespeare might have heard.


----------



## Kreisler jr

It was actually a pretty poor analogy.  
Because until about 200 years ago there was hardly any notion of "classical music" because almost every music was contemporary or fairly recen wheras the notion of "classical literature" goes back to the hellenistic period (and Homer was a "classic" even before that, and apparently it was quite similar in China with their classics). It became so entrenched that capital C "Classics" is the name of the scholarly subject of the classical literature of ~2000 years ago.

Anyway, I am reading some "old stuff" (both voluntarily and also in school 30 years ago) but I think I have heard far more important music from the 17th and 18th century than read literature. I want to read Don Quixote (in translation) at some stage but the only 17th century literature I read is a few Shakespeare plays, a few poems and one long German novel (Simplicissimus) and while it's a bit more from the 18th (as the first real German classics are from the late 18th century), it's not much compared to the hundreds of musical works I have listened to and many of which I listen to regularly.


----------



## science

Kreisler jr said:


> It was actually a pretty poor analogy.
> Because until about 200 years ago there was hardly any notion of "classical music" because almost every music was contemporary or fairly recen wheras the notion of "classical literature" goes back to the hellenistic period (and Homer was a "classic" even before that, and apparently it was quite similar in China with their classics). It became so entrenched that capital C "Classics" is the name of the scholarly subject of the classical literature of ~2000 years ago.
> 
> Anyway, I am reading some "old stuff" (both voluntarily and also in school 30 years ago) but I think I have heard far more important music from the 17th and 18th century than read literature. I want to read Don Quixote (in translation) at some stage but the only 17th century literature I read is a few Shakespeare plays, a few poems and one long German novel (Simplicissimus) and while it's a bit more from the 18th (as the first real German classics are from the late 18th century), it's not much compared to the hundreds of musical works I have listened to and many of which I listen to regularly.


Don't let me guilt you into anything though. Do it for fun. The works were made for you, not you for the works.


----------



## fluteman

science said:


> Don't let me guilt you into anything though. Do it for fun. The works were made for you, not you for the works.


It should hardly be surprising that even the most iconic works of art fade into the rear view mirror as the centuries, and then the millennia, pass. It becomes increasingly difficult with time to learn and appreciate the context of cultural traditions and values that underlie ancient art. As late as my own grandfather's time, ancient Greek and Latin were routinely taught in high school so that one could "read the classics". No more. But for those so inclined to take the journey, the rewards are as present as they ever were. Presumably. Alas, I know neither language.


----------



## science

fluteman said:


> It should hardly be surprising that even the most iconic works of art fade into the rear view mirror as the centuries, and then the millennia, pass. It becomes increasingly difficult with time to learn and appreciate the context of cultural traditions and values that underlie ancient art. As late as my own grandfather's time, ancient Greek and Latin were routinely taught in high school so that one could "read the classics". No more. But for those so inclined to take the journey, the rewards are as present as they ever were. Presumably. Alas, I know neither language.


I had a few semesters of Greek -- once upon a time I could read any number of sentences along the lines of "O Socrates, sacrifice goats in the marketplace" -- but now there are letters that I have to stare at for fifteen seconds (especially in Byzantine icons) before guessing what they are even supposed to be, so I barely even know enough to be dangerous, but IMO Homer works well enough in translation, and if you pay attention, it is a very eye-opening introduction to the world that produced it.


----------



## fluteman

science said:


> I had a few semesters of Greek -- once upon a time I could read any number of sentences along the lines of "O Socrates, sacrifice goats in the marketplace" -- but now there are letters that I have to stare at for fifteen seconds (especially in Byzantine icons) before guessing what they are even supposed to be, so I barely even know enough to be dangerous, but IMO Homer works well enough in translation, and if you pay attention, it is a very eye-opening introduction to the world that produced it.


I did study Homer and Virgil in translation. With Chaucer, I had the benefit of a "language lab" for Middle English.


----------



## eljr

fluteman said:


> As late as my own grandfather's time, ancient Greek and Latin were routinely taught in high school so that one could "read the classics". .


Latin here.

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


----------



## Dan Ante

In my day it was French and in my last year German was available.


----------



## SanAntone

fluteman said:


> It should hardly be surprising that even the most iconic works of art fade into the rear view mirror as the centuries, and then the millennia, pass. It becomes increasingly difficult with time to learn and appreciate the context of cultural traditions and values that underlie ancient art. As late as my own grandfather's time, ancient Greek and Latin were routinely taught in high school so that one could "read the classics". No more. But for those so inclined to take the journey, the rewards are as present as they ever were. Presumably. Alas, I know neither language.


I graduated high school in 1969; I had four years of Latin. I graduated in a class of 62 students.


----------



## fbjim

Latin was an elective in the early 00s when I went. Most students did Spanish or French instead.


----------



## Sumantra

Hatred for Mozart and lovelessness for Tchaikovsky...


----------



## Forster

Sumantra said:


> Hatred for Mozart and lovelessness for Tchaikovsky...


I don't think I've seen 'hatred' for Mozart. Indifference, perhaps.


----------



## arpeggio

There have been a small number who dislike Mozart.

No matter how great a composer is there will always be a few distractors.


----------



## Forster

eljr said:


> Latin here.
> 
> ..............


As late as my time, Latin was taught in my school for one year, then as an option (which I took up). French was taught to all years, German and Spanish as options (which I also took up).

Back in my grandfathers' days, I doubt they were taught Latin or Greek - I'm pretty sure they left school at 14 to work and then join up!


----------



## JTS

eljr said:


> Latin here.
> 
> ..............


Yes same here. Badly taught too


----------



## Chilham

Amo
Amas
Amat
Amamus
Amatis
Amant

Oh and, "Canis et in via dormit".

The sum total of my recollection of two years of Latin 1969-71.


----------



## Kreisler jr

It depends on the country and the school system. In Germany there were supposedly schools with commencement speeches given in Latin as late as the 1950s (at least I have personally met people, now in their 70s who had to recite/learn by heart Homer or similar stuff as "punishment" when cited to the principal's office) When I was in school in the mid-late 1980s one could choose but had to do two, usually three foreign languages for several years, the most common/obligatory was English, then French or Latin or both. Ancient Greek was an elective option, depending on the school, similar for Spanish, Italian, Russian. 

For me, the point is less how within half a century we basically abolished or pushed into a niche what was supposed to be the core of higher education for 4-5 centuries without a break (or maybe even two millenia although this is stretching it because most of the Western middle ages ignored Greek but it's true for Virgil and a few other Latin authors) but how long literary classics could dominate cultures, even successor cultures.


----------



## Sid James

It was already pretty much a niche, for the rich in their private/grammar schools. This scene from the film version of Jude (based on Hardy's novel) is telling:


----------



## Kreisler jr

If you need something for any higher position in society, even middle level civil service or so, it's misleading to describe it as niche. 

People also underestimate the extent to which Latin was a common second language in science and humanities far into the 19th century (and it still is, although only in Classics and the Catholic church), despite publications in the vernacular already in the late 17th century.


----------



## Dan Ante

arpeggio said:


> There have been a small number who dislike Mozart.
> 
> No matter how great a composer is there will always be a few distractors.


I often have digs at Mozart but he produced some great music which I love.


----------



## Forster

Sid James said:


> It was already pretty much a niche, for the rich in their private/grammar schools.


Grammar schools were not/are not for the rich - not in the UK at any rate. They are, however, for a selected minority of the population, roughly 25-30%. In England, selection for grammar schools is no longer practised across all local authorities, most of which operate a comprehensive system. There are only 163 such schools scattered across the country. At the time I started at my grammar school (1970), local authorities were already turning away from the countrywide 'tripartite' system in England and Wales, though central government didn't pass legislation until 1976.


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

The Sumerian language prevailed as a liturgical, scientific, and official language for 2000 years after becoming extinct as a living one. Latin lasted for about just as long. It was a good run, but considering the volume of modern curriculum to learn, maybe it's time to let go.


----------



## Sid James

Despite whatever natural intelligence they had, people like Jude where shut out of that ruling class which used Latin (clergy, doctors, lawyers, etc.). Social structures are no longer as rigid, obviously mass education aims to serve the needs of the many rather than just a few. If we still lived in a world which put such a high value on the classics we'd probably also have to buy into the sorts of values which perpetuated the social inequalities of the past.


----------



## Malx

Chilham said:


> Amo
> Amas
> Amat
> Amamus
> Amatis
> Amant
> 
> Oh and, "Canis et in via dormit".
> 
> The sum total of my recollection of two years of Latin 1969-71.


Even in my Scottish Comprehensive of the early seventies I took two years of Latin. Kids were streamed in those days only one grade (class) in each year was subjected to Latin.
Your post brought back memories of declining Latin nouns and verb conjugations - all of which is now a very distant and foggy memory.


----------



## Enthusiast

When I went to university it was a very new thing that you could be accepted for a science degree course without having a foreign language (normally French) O-level (to go with the 2-4 A-levels in subjects related to your proposed subject of study. Many had also required a Latin O-level on top of that. I guess that's why schools taught Latin even though they often found it difficult to get competent teachers (we had a man who had been a monk but had left his order so as to get married).


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

I was classically educated and received 6 years of Latin instruction. If nothing else it’s an amazing tool for understanding the English language. I can look at words that are unfamiliar and piece out a meaning from derivatives.


----------



## Kreisler jr

I am not denying that nowadays Latin and Greek are niche and for plausible reasons. 

Nevertheless, I think that if a connection to languages and their poetry, history and philosophy that was central for a civilization in one way or another for two millenia is so strongly severed that today Classics are considered almost as niche as studying Egyptology or cuneiform or the ancient Inka culture or whatever, this is quite remarkable and not obviously a good thing. 
I also think classical languages were a sensible hurdle (because of the long influence on our culture and because one learns a lot about the structure of language) for people wanting to get into humanities that didn't have a clear job description attached, although it is very unpopular idea that only a very dedicated, gifted minority should study humanities at college lvl or higher.

Because if one is honest, it's not that nowadays the people who 50 or 100 years ago would have learned Latin and two living languages at school, are nowadays speaking or reading three living languages, so skipping Latin/Greek made room for something more practical. Most of the time in most countries they read/speak their mother tongue and mediocre international English and in the Anglophone world only mediocre English  and no foreign language at a reasonable level.


----------



## eljr

Forster said:


> As late as my time, Latin was taught in my school for one year, then as an option (which I took up). French was taught to all years, German and Spanish as options (which I also took up).
> 
> Back in my grandfathers' days, I doubt they were taught Latin or Greek - I'm pretty sure they left school at 14 to work and then join up!


So true, although my mom went to university, my dad saw no school post grammar school.

(mom was taught polish in grade school)


----------



## Merl

We had a Latin teacher called Mr. Holleran. He was a giant with the personality of a carrot. No one took Latin as an option at school. All I remember of the dreadful subject was 'Bam, Bas, Bat, Bamus, Batis, Bant'. I also remember the firemen from Trumpton 'Pugh, Pugh, Barney McGrew, Cuthbert, Dibble and Grub' (I didn't learn that one at school). The latter piece of knowledge has served me better over the years and once won me free drinks for the night as we won the pub quiz. :lol: :cheers:


----------



## eljr

Merl said:


> We had a Latin teacher called Mr. Holleran.


At prep school, Mr. Thaddeus S. Bruchalski did the honors. Conservative, anti-communism and a devote Catholic were his identifying characteristics. Flew bombing mission over Japan in his day.


----------



## mmsbls

I took three years of Latin in school, but I wish I had been able to take other courses such as economics, philosophy, or various social sciences instead. I will say that Latin has not helped me in life with the exception of appreciating one of the funniest moments on film:


----------



## SanAntone

Merl said:


> We had a Latin teacher called Mr. Holleran. He was a giant with the personality of a carrot. No one took Latin as an option at school. All I remember of the dreadful subject was 'Bam, Bas, Bat, Bamus, Batis, Bant'. I also remember the firemen from Trumpton 'Pugh, Pugh, Barney McGrew, Cuthbert, Dibble and Grub' (I didn't learn that one at school). The latter piece of knowledge has served me better over the years and once won me free drinks for the night as we won the pub quiz. :lol: :cheers:


I was taught by a series of Jesuit priests:

Fr. Elsner ("Snerd" also the Prefect of Discipline)
Fr. Walsh (odd man, who later cracked up)
Fr. Welch (Drac)
and young Novice, Mr. Bernard ("Boo-Boo") - we all thought was just trying to avoid the draft (I was in high school from 1965-1969).

The nicknames were not signs of affection.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

All the talk about Latin surprised me a little bit just now  Never learned any myself, but sometimes look up the meaning of motet and mass lyrics.


----------



## SixFootScowl

If I answer the thread title question I likely will be banned from the site, so....


----------



## elgar's ghost

When going to my high school one of the consequences of being streamed into the 'top third' was that pupils had to choose between Latin or German as a compulsory 'o'-level subject for the first year of attendance (age 13-14). I can't recall too many who lasted beyond that, but at least the option was there to bale out after one year - when my older brother was at grammar school some fifteen years earlier Latin was compulsory for the whole of his time there whether a pupil showed aptitude or not.


----------



## SanAntone

elgars ghost said:


> When going to my high school one of the consequences of being streamed into the 'top third' was that pupils had to choose between Latin or German as a compulsory 'o'-level subject for the first year of attendance (age 13-14). I can't recall too many who lasted beyond that, but at least the option was there to bale out after one year - when my older brother was at grammar school some fifteen years earlier Latin was compulsory for the whole of his time there whether a pupil showed aptitude or not.


Can you explain to me the organization of British schools? I have no idea what "O" level means.


----------



## Luchesi

SixFootScowl said:


> If I answer the thread title question I likely will be banned from the site, so....


What?
that bad huh?


----------



## Oldhoosierdude

Sunburst Finish said:


> Surprises... surprises... Let me see...
> 
> That the subtraction of three members could do so much to alter the tone and tenor - the genial civility - of the threads under discussion.
> 
> That all it took for peace, love, and understanding to reign supreme was the exile of one member who apparently couldn't resist appending "and Hitler" to every composer under discussion... even Hildegard of Bingen, Duke Ellington and the guy who wrote the theme song to the Lone Ranger.
> 
> That there are still people who will enter a thread on a subject that they have no interest in for the express purpose of telling you that they have no interest in the subject under discussion.
> 
> That I lack the administrative power to immediately delete all threads that begin with the words "I Really Hate..."
> 
> That people continue to tell us more about who they dislike than about who they do like - and they do so as if somehow we've given them the impression that we actually care... We don't... and we're never going to despite however many times you find a way to write the exact same thing six different ways.
> 
> That there hasn't been a change to the Terms of Service officially banning the word "Subjective"...
> 
> That there hasn't been a change to the Terms of Service officially banning a member who uses the word "subjective" as if it were a synonym for the word "objective".
> 
> That a copy and paste photo of an album cover from a CD that someone is only pretending to be currently listening to will receive 15 "Likes" while well-written deeply insightful threads and posts may as well be written in invisible ink for all that they accomplish.
> 
> That writing "Wilhelm Furtwängler was a philosopher at rehearsals and a poet during performances" wasn't enough to explain the fascination with Furtwängler - It took 116 pages and 1726 posts to do what I just did with one sentence and that thread came back to life more times than Christopher Lee playing Dracula in those vintage 70's Hammer horror films.
> 
> That people throw "Likes" around as if they were manhole covers...
> 
> That STEM programs don't get the respect here that they deserve - STEM = Science, Technology, whatever the E stands for, and math.
> 
> And lastly... That I'm going to have to return to explain at least one and possibly two of the jokes contained within this post.


I was hoping you were serious.


----------



## Oldhoosierdude

I am pleasantly surprised that most people behave themselves and I don't have to threaten to pull this car over.


----------



## Rogerx

Lack of humour , let's leave it at that.


----------



## science

SanAntone said:


> Fr. Walsh (odd man, who later cracked up)


This is what my students will be saying about me in a couple years, if not sooner.


----------



## Enthusiast

Oldhoosierdude said:


> I am pleasantly surprised that most people behave themselves and I don't have to threaten to pull this car over.


If you are posting while driving and have survived long enough to read this then you _should _at least pull over now.


----------



## SanAntone

How often I see a thread asking for our nominations for the "most overrated" composers or works.


----------



## fbjim

I greatly dislike "overrated" discussions because they seem combative and toxic by nature. Naturally this sort of thing features heavily in modern media clickbait.


----------



## fluteman

fbjim said:


> I greatly dislike "overrated" discussions because they seem combative and toxic by nature. Naturally this sort of thing features heavily in modern media clickbait.


Yes. Even if intended as some harmless humor, these topics often aren't taken that way. People don't like to see their favorite music ridiculed or finish last in a poll. I was conscious of that in a recent thread asking whether one preferred the music of Mahler or that of Bruckner. I did say I felt Bruckner had certain shortcomings as a composer as compared with Mahler (for instance), but was careful to explain what I meant in reasonable detail, and that I didn't mean to belittle his achievements.

I didn't vote in the poll, however, as I didn't see why my vote, or anyone else's, without discussion or explanation, would be of any value.


----------



## Roger Knox

I've been surprised most by the variety of backgounds, abilities, and interests among members of TC. If you project back to the beginning of this discussion site, the sheer volume of excellent contributions is striking. 

But it has taken quite a while for me to get a sense of the different personalities here and of how things work -- or don't work. Over 50 years nearly every organization I've been involved with has had a serious crisis at some point. Some have survived and some not. TC has done very well in terms of longevity.


----------



## mmsbls

I have always viewed the statement "composer X is overrated" or "Work X is overrated" as essentially saying "I enjoy composer X less than most other people" or "I enjoy work X less than most other people." It's hard to imagine what else it can mean. I do find it interesting that some people will state explicit reasons why a composer or work should be rated or liked less as though the rest of the world will suddenly say, "Oh, yes, you are right. I didn't think of that. Now I'll like the composer/work less."

I started this thread saying I was surprised on coming to TC that people did not place Mozart, Beethoven, and Bach in or near their top 3. Well, lots do not, and I understand that now. If people can find any of those 3 overrated, then people can find any composer overrated.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

mmsbls said:


> I have always viewed the statement "composer X is overrated" or "Work X is overrated" as essentially saying "I enjoy composer X less than most other people" or "I enjoy work X less than most other people." It's hard to imagine what else it can mean.


The composer's merits do not live up to his reputation, or perhaps the composer's influence is generally overstated.


----------



## mmsbls

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> The composer's merits do not live up to his reputation, or perhaps the composer's influence is generally overstated.


You are right. Those statements could mean what you wrote, and I suppose, some other things. What I should have said was that I believe people who make the overrated statements make them, in part, because they do not enjoy the composer or work as much as others do. I have seen many say that they do not enjoy a particular composer but believe the composer deserves the acclaim he or she gets. I'm not sure I have ever seen someone say they enjoy a composer, but that composer is overrated.


----------



## fbjim

honestly the most common responses I see to "overrated" threads are a) just listing Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms etc, or b) confusingly stating a composer that 90% of people here don't like is somehow "overrated" (Philip Glass gets this a lot, for some reason)


----------



## Dan Ante

Roger Knox said:


> Over 50 years nearly every organization I've been involved with has had a serious crisis at some point. Some have survived and some not. TC has done very well in terms of longevity.


Geez Roger does that make you feel just a wee bit responsible


----------



## hammeredklavier

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> perhaps the composer's influence is generally overstated.


I agree that when we explicitly state or imply that composers or works are overrated, there should be some (attempt at) discussion of objective elements. I think the statement (by a certain member), "Most Mozart symphonies are overrated", in the context of <Most Overrated and Underrated Symphonies> is just plain silly when no one seriously rates them highly (the general consensus is that a lot of the earlier ones, before K.297, are mundane juvenilia), and can be seen as a part of that member's continued ax-grinding against some other people's unprovable, meaningless rhetoric "Mozart is divine perfection". I also had tried to understand NLAdriaan ("Mozart is elevator music"), who had such strict standards even to one his favorites, Mahler, "the Adagietto from the 5th is the Eine Kleine Nachtmusik of his ouevre", but when it came to Schubert, those standards simply never applied.


----------



## Luchesi

mmsbls said:


> You are right. Those statements could mean what you wrote, and I suppose, some other things. What I should have said was that I believe people who make the overrated statements make them, in part, because they do not enjoy the composer or work as much as others do. I have seen many say that they do not enjoy a particular composer but believe the composer deserves the acclaim he or she gets. I'm not sure I have ever seen someone say they enjoy a composer, but that composer is overrated.


We should look more critically at why we 'enjoy' something. But music seems to be one of those subjects wherein people have the freedom to just 'enjoy'. Like spectator sports.


----------



## Forster

SanAntone said:


> Can you explain to me the organization of British schools? I have no idea what "O" level means.


Did this get answered? There are three education systems in the UK one each for Scotland, Northern Ireland, and England and Wales together. There are some things in common, but some significant differences. I can only speak about England, where children generally start 'compulsory' primary school when they are 4 (though technically, statutory school age is 5); they switch to a secondary school when they are 11/12. The law says that it is the parents' responsibility to ensure their children are educated either by attending school "or otherwise" (allowing for home education).

Parents can send their children to state school for free (the majority, as you might imagine). A minority send their children to private, fee-paying schools, some of which are actually known as 'public' schools. Don't ask me why.

Most secondary schools are comprehensive - all ability - schools. A small number of local authorities still operate selective systems where children take an exam at 11 to see if they are suited to go to a grammar school, generally regarded as offering a more intense academic environment. There's only 163 of them now as this was scrapped as a national system during the 60s and 70s.

GCE 'O' (Ordinary) Levels were the exams taken by 16 year olds just before they left school. If it was thought that you weren't up to this level, you could instead take 'CSEs". In the mid 80s, they were scrapped and replaced by GCSEs, which are still taken today. 16 is the official age for leaving school. If you intend to go to university, you then study 'A' (Advanced) Levels for two years.

There are a number of other qualifications that can be taken, mostly vocational, which may be easier than, equivalent to, or harder than GCSEs and A Levels.

It seems to be the case that most TC members from England were old enough to take O levels and not GCSEs. That _doesn't_ surprise me!


----------



## Agamenon

1. Many posters hate Wagner and also some of them ignore the importance of this composer in the last 150 years.

2. Hip hop and rap music: In TC forums, this music is considered as one of the supreme achievements of the human spirit. 
confused

3. Bach underrated. (Michael Jackson is a greater musician. Bach, a clown).

Unbelievable!!!!


----------



## Forster

Agamenon said:


> 1. Many posters hate Wagner and also some of them ignore the importance of this composer in the last 150 years.
> 
> 2. Hip hop and rap music: In TC forums, this music is considered as one of the supreme achievements of the human spirit.
> confused
> 
> 3. Bach underrated. (Michael Jackson is a greater musician. Bach, a clown).
> 
> Unbelievable!!!!


On points 2 and 3, I'd love to read the posts you're referring to. Any chance of a link?


----------



## Rogerx

The ever going on meddling in others business, get you own life in order.


----------



## philoctetes

I got my first callouses on Amazon, thanks to Henry James, MR, Oscar Wilde, etc... some guy who thought he was a droogie... years later, like much of the world, TC is more narrow-minded and acute to any aberration so now I think of everybody as a droogie... each with a little bit of Alex inside...


----------



## SONNET CLV

There are some posts I simply do not understand.

But they make me laugh, too.


----------



## arpeggio

That some members think we should only listen to or talk about great music, whatever that is.

There is a great deal of good music that is not great.


----------



## eljr

arpeggio said:


> That some members think we should only listen to or talk about great music, whatever that is.
> 
> There is a great deal of good music that is not great.


 and it is best when a composer does as Coll: "The Concerto encouraged me to face things that I had never done before. It seemed to be telling me: 'don't try to please a conservative public, or the institutionalized avant garde, just write what you hear, and dare to fail'." Francisco Coll.

Point is, mush of what is not "great music" to many, really is great music after all, to more open eras.


----------



## AaronSF

...That some people actually think Lang Lang is a great Bach interpreter.


----------



## HenryPenfold

The terrible spelling; neighbor, center, apologize, diarrhea, color, caliber etc. Possibly the worst one I've seen is 'esthetic'.

And the really surprising thing about all this, the poor spelling does not seem to impair their ability to make reasoned, interesting arguments. So we could be talking about educated people here ........


----------



## FrankinUsa

HenryPenfold said:


> The terrible spelling; neighbor, center, apologize, diarrhea, color, caliber etc. Possibly the worst one I've seen is 'esthetic'.
> 
> And the really surprising thing about all this, the poor spelling does not seem to impair their ability to make reasoned, interesting arguments. So we could be talking about educated people here ........


Typing on any internet post has a notorious companion. Auto-spelling etc. it requires a heightened level of vigilance upon the writer. Perhaps some amount of forgiveness and leeway can be asked for. 
Or are you asking for perfection?


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

So the complaint is in essence about common American spellings? I'm sure this has something to do with the diminished power of the United Kingdom as of late.


----------



## HenryPenfold

The second most surprising thing on TC was the remarkable ignorance of irony with many people.


----------



## BachIsBest

HenryPenfold said:


> The terrible spelling; neighbor, center, apologize, diarrhea, color, caliber etc. Possibly the worst one I've seen is 'esthetic'.
> 
> And the really surprising thing about all this, the poor spelling does not seem to impair their ability to make reasoned, interesting arguments. So we could be talking about educated people here ........


My favo*u*rite part of this post was at the end it said: Last edited by HenryPenfold; Today at 16:00. Reason: typo. It made the joke, to me, even better.


----------



## Luchesi

Someone said, "Dying is easy, comedy is difficult!"


----------



## ido66667

A thing that surprised me in here is that many users insist that a certain composers or sometimes classical music as a whole (especially common practice) is objectively beautiful and/or great.

I mean, I always took it for granted that "different strokes for different folks" and that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". It seems that thinking otherwise denies emperic reality. If it's all objective then why can no one agree on it?

Besides, it's not like you can convince someone who thinks, I don't know, that the Grosse Fuge isn't that great that actually it's Beethoven's magnum opus. These kinds of discussions never get anywhere.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

ido66667 said:


> A thing that surprised me in here is that many users insist that a certain composers or sometimes classical music as a whole (especially common practice) is objectively beautiful and/or great.
> 
> I mean, I always took it for granted that "different strokes for different folks" and that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". It seems that thinking otherwise denies emperic reality. If it's all objective then why can no one agree on it?
> 
> Besides, it's not like you can convince someone who thinks, I don't know, that the Grosse Fuge isn't that great that actually it's Beethoven's magnum opus. These kinds of discussions never get anywhere.


The only thing objective in music when it comes to determining merit is craftsmanship. That is definitely quantiable and concrete. Which is why I don't get how some people on here can so flippantly dismiss the merit of modern and contemporary composers craft. It's one thing to not like it, but to insinuate its all pretentious BS (which some of it is, if we're being real) and comparing it to children banging on a keyboard like the "Bubbles Experiment" is not only really narrow minded but also demonstrably false.

But at the end of the day, it's taste that should determine your enjoyment. The craftmanship is part of where we derive our enjoyment, because it's so well made and the skill is what also brings out the expressiveness and musicality, but it's not the end all be all of appreciating music. I will say though that a higher level of skill can help bring out more expressiveness and emotion though. You can have two musicians with the same amount of soul but the one with more talent has more ability to express it. But it always depends, there's no absolutes or generalizations. Maybe the more talented one makes showboaty, overly technical bullsh*t music and the less talented has an original sound and tons of emotion.

Take this guy for instance. Is he objectively talented? Sure, of course. Do I like how he sounds? No, I think it's frikkin obnoxious. There's countless musicians who are light years less talented than him that I'd rather listen to.

[video]https://youtube.com/shorts/3V8CKOujNXg?feature=share[/video]


----------



## hammeredklavier

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> The only thing objective in music when it comes to determining merit is craftsmanship.


With certain idioms, even that is hard to determine. The music of certain pre-common practice "greats" reminds me of: 
1. an autistic person trying to talk in proper sentences
2. uncivilized cavemen chanting
3. a film composer trying out various random chord progressions on his synthesizer
I don't "dislike" it (there's nothing in classical music I particularly "dislike", btw), but again, music (appreciation) is largely subjective.


----------



## Knorf

^ The piece of the puzzle you're missing is a beginner (or undergraduate-level) course on modal counterpoint.


----------



## Luchesi

ido66667 said:


> A thing that surprised me in here is that many users insist that a certain composers or sometimes classical music as a whole (especially common practice) is objectively beautiful and/or great.
> 
> I mean, I always took it for granted that "different strokes for different folks" and that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". It seems that thinking otherwise denies emperic reality. If it's all objective then why can no one agree on it?
> 
> Besides, it's not like you can convince someone who thinks, I don't know, that the Grosse Fuge isn't that great that actually it's Beethoven's magnum opus. These kinds of discussions never get anywhere.


"beauty is in the eye of the beholder" but musical logic? Originality? Craftsmanship? Progress across musical eras?


----------



## 59540

ido66667 said:


> A thing that surprised me in here is that many users insist that a certain composers or sometimes classical music as a whole (especially common practice) is objectively beautiful and/or great.
> ...


And round and round it goes. I don't think "many users" insist that at all. Most of the time it's recognizing that a consensus forms around certain composers/works and trying to find the basis for that consensus.


----------



## Ariasexta

I never have seen people so open-minded like TC people, maybe it is just an internet representation. I argued quite bitterly but they suffered and absorbed so well. This site deserves its subject so well.


----------



## Luchesi

dissident said:


> And round and round it goes. I don't think "many users" insist that at all. Most of the time it's recognizing that a consensus forms around certain composers/works and trying to find the basis for that consensus.


Yes, as with other technical subjects, fans and/or detractors should be committed to understanding the subject. Instead they ask, why would I need to know the theory?


----------



## Phil loves classical

Some real bad usage of one-liners.


----------



## elgar's ghost

HenryPenfold said:


> The second most surprising thing on TC was the remarkable ignorance of irony with many people.


I saw what you did, Henry - our UK sense of humo(u)r can be a bit enigmatic sometimes.


----------



## arpeggio

The number of people who think classical music is dying.


----------



## HenryPenfold

elgars ghost said:


> i saw what you did, henry - our uk sense of humo(u)r can be a bit enigmatic sometimes.



:d

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


----------



## Waehnen

I am surprised that people here are generally very friendly and appreciative of one another. In social media that unfortunately seems to be a rarity.

(There is only one user here I have spotted who likes to pick up a fight whenever possible. Usually there are many more!)


----------



## Heck148

Waehnen said:


> I am surprised that people here are generally very friendly and appreciative of one another. In social media that unfortunately seems to be a rarity.
> 
> (There is only one user here I have spotted who likes to pick up a fight whenever possible. Usually there are many more!)


Some of the other music threads were notorious - esp rmcr....constant warfare!! It seems to have toned down a bit....two main perpetrators apparently passed to the great beyond...


----------



## SanAntone

How much interest there appears to be for John Williams and David Hurwitz. Prior to joining TC neither of these individuals ever crossed my mind, I hadn't even heard of Hurwitz. Now just about everyday I see one of their names on a thread here.


----------



## FrankinUsa

SanAntone said:


> How much interest there appears to be for John Williams and David Hurwitz. Prior to joining TC neither of these individuals ever crossed my mind, I hadn't even heard of Hurwitz. Now just about everyday I see one of their names on a thread here.


I find the obsession with Hurwitz to be unbelievable,perplexing. IDK. I think I went over the line in the ever-going Hurwitz hurricane. I got a warning so I'm walking on thin ice about that subject. But I guess the discussion about Alma(I forgot the last name. The young person/girl etc).


----------



## SanAntone

FrankinUsa said:


> I find the obsession with Hurwitz to be unbelievable,perplexing. IDK. I think I went over the line in the ever-going Hurwitz hurricane. I got a warning so I'm walking on thin ice about that subject. But I guess the discussion about Alma(I forgot the last name. The young person/girl etc).


Deutscher.

The level of interest for these three people on a Classical music forum should be enough to shatter the myth that people who listen to Classical music have good taste.


----------



## FrankinUsa

Omg. LMFAO. Quite an entertaining day on TC. Put a smile on my face-and more.


----------



## mikeh375

SanAntone said:


> Deutscher.
> 
> The level of interest for these three people on a Classical music forum should be enough to shatter the myth that people who listen to Classical music have good taste.


I like Williams' work (especially his concert work) and admire very much his compositional facility. I don't consider my tastes to be superior to anyone's but at the same time, I don't believe my taste is so mis-informed neither.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

SanAntone said:


> Deutscher.
> 
> The level of interest for these three people on a Classical music forum should be enough to shatter the myth that people who listen to Classical music have good taste.


LMAO. Tell 'em SanAntone.


----------



## Botschaft

SanAntone said:


> Deutscher.
> 
> The level of interest for these three people on a Classical music forum should be enough to shatter the myth that people who listen to Classical music have good taste.


But then the reception of these is far from unanimously positive.


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

Erratic, amnesiac crusaders who don't remember the spirit (never mind the content) of their own posts written just a while ago in the neighbouring threads.

*Edit: *This nameless condition seems more eerie to me than the obsessiveness others can display, arguing about something over a hundred pages of a thread. At least the latter posters are usually very consistent and one can get used to them.


----------



## clavichorder

I joined TC like a decade ago and I haven't been around in a long time. I'd have to think hard to actually remember what surprised me back then, and I'm not sure I want to.


----------



## eljr

clavichorder said:


> I joined TC like a decade ago and I haven't been around in a long time. I'd have to think hard to actually remember what surprised me back then, and I'm not sure I want to.


The very first thing that struck me is the reservoir of musical knowledge that has assembled here. (also, the general educational level here seems to be far advanced to typical sociaty)


----------



## SixFootScowl

eljr said:


> The very first thing that struck me is the reservoir of musical knowledge that has assembled here. (also, the general educational level here seems to be far advanced to typical sociaty)


Think we had a poll thread not long ago surveying education level of members.


----------



## clavichorder

Educational level in the conventional sense is overrated anyways, but I digress. Mine isn't terribly high, and I've found and am finding other ways about the world and the mind.


----------



## Dan Ante

Take a fool and educate him and all you have is an educated fool.


----------



## mmsbls

I realize that forums are unusual places and don't necessarily abide by the normal rules of societal interactions, but I am always surprised when someone enters a thread to post that they are not interested in the topic. I've always viewed those posts as similar to hearing a group of people at a party discussing something and then entering simply to say you find the topic dumb or boring.


----------



## Luchesi

mmsbls said:


> I realize that forums are unusual places and don't necessarily abide by the normal rules of societal interactions, but I am always surprised when someone enters a thread to post that they are not interested in the topic. I've always viewed those posts as similar to hearing a group of people at a party discussing something and then entering simply to say you find the topic dumb or boring.


heh heh I expect you realize that it's more complicated than that. People are merely chatty, when they feel comfortable with the other contributors in here (and some posts have nowhere else to go). 
Some other chat venues make you wait a day or two while they're 'approving' your posts. To me that's unacceptable, but there are plenty of contributors. Now Reddit will raise money as a stock investment (going public). It's worth billions, I hear.


----------



## clavichorder

mmsbls said:


> I realize that forums are unusual places and don't necessarily abide by the normal rules of societal interactions, but I am always surprised when someone enters a thread to post that they are not interested in the topic. I've always viewed those posts as similar to hearing a group of people at a party discussing something and then entering simply to say you find the topic dumb or boring.


You had better stay here and not move into discord servers. Things just get worse when things become instantaneous(combined with a forum layout). LOL.

Coming back from the wilds of discord which includes classical servers, this is really quite civilized.


----------

