# Authenticity is a better goal of great art than beauty.



## milk (Apr 25, 2018)

And this one might be directed at the “objectivists” who seem to want to argue that great beauty, as expressed in romantic music, is the standard by which successful classical music should be judged. I find “beauty” as a concept to be vague, boring, and even possibly dangerous because it can be so easily manipulated and sentimentalized. Anyway, authenticity is much more interesting. Is the artist expressing a real feeling that aligns with their true experience and intention? If something is too copied, it becomes inauthentic as well. Is the artist just copying someone else’s sentiment? Or are they really expressing their own honest feelings, beliefs, experiences, etc. 
Actually, I’m not convinced there can be an objective standard for judging what’s a great work of art AND I’m not sure authenticity is any easier than any other standard. As a goal though, and as a way of experiencing art, it seems to have more value. To be honest, “beauty” just turns me off as a discrete goal of art. Full disclosure: this was suggested to me by a friend.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I think whatever makes it float. It can be beauty, sarcasm, or just plain weird.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Why not both? Tchaikovsky's music is both authentic and beautiful - and so is Debussy's.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

This thread reminds me of a quip from George Burns: "The key to success in Hollywood is authenticity. If you can fake that you've got it made."


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

I think authenticity is the ability of a work of art to trigger within a perceiver--due to that perceiver's personal neurology and history--a strong emotional response (other than disgust that the perceiver has been wasting valuable time seeking for what, for them, is not there.) Edmund Burke on the sublime is a good source of long standing. I have a very strong emotional response to cante flamenco and its evocation of strong, deeply-felt emotion, often of despair, hopelessness, loss, but sometimes great joy approaching mania, etc. often sung by people with ragged, hoarse, wracked voices. This is perceived authenticity of quite an order if one is equipped to fully engage it.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

milk said:


> And this one might be directed at the "objectivists" who seem to want to argue that great beauty, as expressed in romantic music, is the standard by which successful classical music should be judged. I find "beauty" as a concept to be vague, boring, and even possibly dangerous because it can be so easily manipulated and sentimentalized. Anyway, *authenticity is much more interesting. Is the artist expressing a real feeling that aligns with their true experience and intention?* If something is too copied, it becomes inauthentic as well. Is the artist just copying someone else's sentiment? Or are they really expressing their own honest feelings, beliefs, experiences, etc.
> Actually, I'm not convinced there can be an objective standard for judging what's a great work of art AND *I'm not sure authenticity is any easier than any other standard. As a goal though, and as a way of experiencing art, it seems to have more value.* To be honest, "beauty" just turns me off as a discrete goal of art. Full disclosure: this was suggested to me by a friend.


If there's a danger of sentimentalizing musical expression, it's by invoking dubious notions like authenticity, sincerity, and "honest feelings." The premise that music should or must express the inner feelings of the composer is a simplistic and sentementalized distortion of reality. Generally speaking, the expressive qualities of musical works relate to the composer in the way the emotions of characters relate to the authors of literary fiction. They are fictional imaginings, personae the composer creates to inhabit musical works. Just as Goethe didn't need to personally feel suicidal despair to create his Werther, so Beethoven didn't need to feel "melancholy" or depression to compose the Largo e mesto of his Sonata Op. 10, #3. In both cases, literary authorship and musical composition, creators draw on their general knowledge of human emotion in creating fictional characters or personae. But knowing how to musically evoke particular emotions is just a set of basic skills and conventions composers, especially composers of opera and songs, must learn along with counterpoint and harmony. Do you really think Verdi had to sincerely and personally feel the emotions of Iago, Lady MacBeth, and Rigoletto before he could create those characters? If music sounds inauthentic or insincere it's not because the composer didn't sincerely feel an emotion, it's just a sign that his technique and musical imagination are wanting.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

milk said:


> Anyway, authenticity is much more interesting. Is the artist expressing a real feeling that aligns with their true experience and intention? If something is too copied, it becomes inauthentic as well. Is the artist just copying someone else's sentiment?


I think it's really hard to make sense of this idea in the context of 18th and 19th century classical music. Given the way that notation evolved, and indeed the way conservatory standards of performance evolved in the c20, following the score is such a restrictive set of rails that it's not obvious to me that there's much room for authenticity in your sense of the term.

Instead in this sort of music, you end up with what Edward mentioned: "basic skills and conventions " for expressing emotions which are not sincerely felt on the part of the musician, but which are "narrated" through his historically informed reading of the music. There is always ironic distance.

If this is right, the next question is to look at whether the idea of an objective reading of the narrative of score is a coherent idea. I doubt it, but this forum is not the place for that . . .


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

...and to add to Edward's post. Although I can't recall who said this, it was a composer who, when remarking about another's highly charged and emotional music, said that when composing as such one needs a cool and controlled head. He suggested the composer in question was as cool as ice when writing the particular passage that was being admired. The point being that as Edward says, a composer does not really need to 'feel' anything other than to follow his honed aesthetic instincts and his labours are far better served attending to the details - the 'music' can more often than not take care of itself.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

> Anyway, authenticity is much more interesting. Is the artist expressing a real feeling that aligns with their true experience and intention?


Define authenticity. Give examples of "authentic" vs "inauthentic". The trick there is that any garbled mess can be given a pass since it's "authentic".


> And this one might be directed at the "objectivists" who seem to want to argue that great beauty, as expressed in romantic music, is the standard by which successful classical music should be judged.


By the way, that's not really an accurate summary. I don't know of anyone who's a complete "objectivist", nor do I know of anyone who has a set definition of "beauty" (structural? melodic? harmonic? what?), nor is the romantic era held up as the acme to the exclusion of Mozart, Bach, Handel or Haydn.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Reminds me of a quote by Ravel when critics said his music was artificial.

„But do these people never come up with the idea that I might be artificial by nature?“

Personally I'm moved by Ravel more than any other composer now. Maybe I'm artificial or superficial?


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Phil loves classical said:


> Reminds me of a quote by Ravel when critics said his music was artificial.
> 
> „But do these people never come up with the idea that I might be artificial by nature?"
> 
> Personally I'm moved by Ravel more than any other composer now. Maybe I'm artificial or superficial?


Isn't all art "artificial" in a sense? It's right there in the name.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

consuono said:


> Isn't all art "artificial" in a sense? It's right there in the name.


Ya, I think so too. It's the myth of the tortured or suffering artist. But it does help bring out something in some artists. Tchaikovsky is one I think it really does.


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

I don't know if my analogies will apply here because I'm not a professional musician (I tried a few times to study the slide trombone but I didn't have the ear or the coordination to master it and I never learned to sight-read vert well). Anyway, I have worked as a high school social studies teacher and chess coach for over twenty years. Whenever I have the opportunity to work with young teachers I always tell them style is very important and that it's also very important that they find the style that works for them. Some teachers are very good at lecturing. They can spin a narrative that engages their students through their delivery and charisma. Other teachers are really good at the student-centered approach where they allow the students to drive the lesson through creative and engaging assignments. Other teachers are very good at having students work in small groups, and developing protocols that keep everyone on task. What works for one teacher may not work for another. 

So what I tell them is to study many different ideas, read books on effective teaching strategies, watch what your colleagues do, but when you decide to incorporate a new teaching strategy always adapt it to a system that is comfortable for you. When young teachers get frustrated because they felt as though a lesson they worked hard to prepare didn't work well, I tell than that teaching is an art that requires patience and practice, and just because the lesson didn't work doesn't mean it's a bad lesson. It may just be that you're not seasoned yet and you need more practice, and that even after 20 years of teaching even *I* have lessons that I've designed that don't work. And that's also part of the joy of teaching that you're always trying new things, taking risks, and working to hone your craft. 

They only thing I tell them that they MUST to do if they want to be a effective teacher is always keep up with the paperwork, the lesson planning, the assessments, and all the other paperwork you get from administration. Teachers have to do a LOT of paperwork, and if you don't keep up with it, it will pile up really fast and once you get buried in paperwork, the added anxiety will effect everything else you're trying to do. 

As a chess coach I'm also very concerned with "style" and lots of beginner and even intermediate chess players are mystified by "style". How do chess players have a "style"? So there's Jose Capablanca who the TC people will appreciate has been identified as the "Mozart of Chess" because Capablanca's games all seem to make perfect sense. Every move seems to fall right into place. Each game appears to be seamless, the same like Mozart's master craftsmanship, where the music seems to compose itself. Other players from the Soviet School of Chess such as Petrosian and Karpov are like boa constrictors who slowly and methodically close in on their opponents and strange them to death often capitalizing on the tiniest positional advantage. Then there are the artists of the chess board such as David Bronstein and Mikhail Tal who sacrifice pieces, create complications, and win through beautiful tactics. 

There are players who start every game as White with pawn to K-4 who enjoy a wide open and adventurous game, and there are other players that start every game as White with pawn to Q-4 who enjoy a more closed, methodical, often long drawn-out game. There are all kinds openings that one can learn such as the Italian Game, Spanish Game, Sicilian Defense, Dutch Defense, French Defense, Evan's Gambit, and so forth that will help you to create the game that will maximize the potentials of your particular style. Here again, YOUR style may not be MY style. 

In teaching and in chess finding one's "authentic style" is very important, and I imagine it's the same in music, but maybe not. 

I don't know if this helps to answer the question, but I'm sure it might answer something.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

> Is the artist expressing a real feeling that aligns with their true experience and intention?


When they perform are artists really expressing feelings? I don't think so.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

consuono said:


> Give examples of "authentic" vs "inauthentic".


There's something about the absurdity of Artur Schnabel's cadenzas for piano concertos, can't remember if they're Mozart or Beethoven concertos, which makes me say that, in some sense, they are "authentic." I mean you wouldn't do that sort of thing unless you really meant something - even if only to get attention.

As far as inauthentic goes, well there's some dreadful things which are just note spinning of the worst kind, the performer was clearly thinking of his laundry list as he was playing: some Chopin things by Hamelin, all sorts of examples of post war Gieseking, Kocsis playing Art of Fugue . . . .


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

I can hit my piano with my fist in frustration and it's very authentic.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> When they perform are artists really expressing feelings? I don't think so.


Maybe not, but they should at least display affects.

However the spontaneous, improvisatory element, which is more or less present in every good performance may be the result of the performers actual mental state, I don't know. With some this seems rather calculated, with others not so.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

consuono said:


> I can hit my piano with my fist in frustration and it's very authentic.


There is a key to every frustration.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

premont said:


> There is a key to every frustration.


It does make a nice reverberation. I need to record it some time as my Opus 1.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

"The measure of the success of a scientific theory is, in fact, a measure of its aesthetic value, since it is a measure of the extent to which it has introduced harmony in what was before chaos. " JWN Sullivan

A science writer and aesthete ("Beethoven: His Spiritual Development") Sullivan's formulation of "aesthetic value" has little to do with beauty in the common sense.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Re chaos, just speaking personally of course, my inner life is pretty chaotic. I have inconsistant desires all the time. That's me, I don't know if I'm the only one. And I don't think there's a unifying principal - a Lacanian _point de capiton_. Whenever I introspect I just can't fine the I which Descartes said he found when he thought, _je pense donc je suis_ isn't true for me - no _je_! So basically I think chaotic music is a bit like my life, it's true.

So now, the real question for me is, what is the function of music? Is it there to reflect in some way my internal chaos, to shed light on my reality? Or is of there to console me, to find some way of resolving all my contradictions - a therapy or a way of forgetting, a drug?


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Mandryka said:


> Re chaos, just speaking personally of course, my inner life is pretty chaotic. I have inconsistant desires all the time. That's me, I don't know if I'm the only one. ...


Everybody's probably is to some extent. Maybe Rilke's archaic torso of Apollo comes into play: "Du mußt dein Leben ändern."


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

milk said:


> And this one might be directed at the "objectivists" who seem to want to argue that great beauty, as expressed in romantic music, is the standard by which successful classical music should be judged. I find "beauty" as a concept to be vague, boring, and even possibly dangerous because it can be so easily manipulated and sentimentalized. Anyway, authenticity is much more interesting.


Take away beauty from CM of the CPT era and you tear the very heart out of it. The statement above infers that beauty and authenticity are mutually exclusive. Besides, I don't know of almost any work that isn't 'authentic'. It's a solution in search of a problem.



> Actually, I'm not convinced there can be an objective standard for judging what's a great work of art AND I'm not sure authenticity is any easier than any other standard...To be honest, "beauty" just turns me off as a discrete goal of art.


Sounds like a good argument for avant-garde..


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

DaveM said:


> Take away beauty from CM of the CPT era and you tear the very heart out of it. The statement above infers that beauty and authenticity are mutually exclusive. Besides, I don't know of almost any work that isn't 'authentic'. It's a solution in search of a problem.
> 
> Sounds like a good argument for avant-garde..


"It may be 'ugly' and inept. But it's AUTHENTIC!!!!"


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

"true" authenticity is impossible to determine, leaving "authenticity" as we know it in music as just a viable aesthetic mode for art to be in


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Phil loves classical said:


> Ya, I think so too. It's the myth of the tortured or suffering artist. But it does help bring out something in some artists. Tchaikovsky is one I think it really does.


I take a middle ground here. In cante flamenco, the singers are quite conscious of their ability to project feelings of pain, pathos, despair, etc. But many if not most of them led marginal lives of sickness and poverty, and thus could draw from personal experience. One of the greatest _cantaores_, Manuel Torres, would point out a woman to a companion in some flamenco gathering and tell the companion that his singing will make her cry--just wait and see. And there are tales of people rending their clothing and leaping out of (ground floor) windows, afflicted by the power of his song. Yet one suspects that artists do or have, to some extent (variable), experienced enough of the emotions they arouse in others. Can we say for sure that Goethe never contemplated suicide, or was never enough in a doomed infatuation to not understand the urge in another? "_Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto_" Terence: "I am human, and I think nothing human is alien to me."


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

DaveM said:


> Take away beauty from CM of the CPT era and you tear the very heart out of it. .











The above cartoon appeared after the premier of Elektra.

Taruskin famously wrote in _The Oxford History of Western Music _that "when Bach's music was pleasing, it was usually in order to indoctrinate or cajole. Just as often Bach aimed to torture the ear." I'm pretty sure there were contemporary criticisms along the same lines. Henry Krehbiel wrote of the first American performance of Strauss's Salome that the opera had a lot of ugly music. I bet I could find tons of other examples for Beethoven, Mahler, Bruckner, Liszt, Wagner . . . . .

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If beauty is at the heart of CPT CM then its heart is subjective.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

we find authenticity in _Tristan und Isolde_ 3rd akt vorspiel, for example, where a disease of the main character is portrayed so the listener himself risks getting ill from just listening to this masterpiece:


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

> The above cartoon appeared after the premier of Elektra.


When it comes to that opera the cartoonist had a point.

OT but I really don't like Android 10. Google needs to cool it with the frequent new-and-improved updates. It's really starting to feel like feature-creep.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Mandryka said:


> View attachment 153155
> 
> 
> The above cartoon appeared after the premier of Elektra.


a common mistake, this actually depicts me listening to Bruckner


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

consuono said:


> Define authenticity. Give examples of "authentic" vs "inauthentic". The trick there is that any garbled mess can be given a pass since it's "authentic".


Is it unobvious?  Authenticity means appeasing one's tastes, inauthentic means appeasing others'.

The beauty of the former lies in coherence. "_Beauty_" is not really an antithesis to authenticity in this thread: one's idea of beauty is one's own philosophy, which can be understood by others through the artist's subjective context. Why write or study music if it is not beautiful or pleasing to oneself? Become an author, an engineer, or a social worker.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

milk said:


> And this one might be directed at the "objectivists" who seem to want to argue that great beauty, as expressed in romantic music, is the standard by which successful classical music should be judged. I find "beauty" as a concept to be vague, boring, and even possibly dangerous because it can be so easily manipulated and sentimentalized. Anyway, authenticity is much more interesting. Is the artist expressing a real feeling that aligns with their true experience and intention? If something is too copied, it becomes inauthentic as well. Is the artist just copying someone else's sentiment? Or are they really expressing their own honest feelings, beliefs, experiences, etc.
> Actually, I'm not convinced there can be an objective standard for judging what's a great work of art AND I'm not sure authenticity is any easier than any other standard. As a goal though, and as a way of experiencing art, it seems to have more value. To be honest, "beauty" just turns me off as a discrete goal of art. Full disclosure: this was suggested to me by a friend.


I don't mean to misunderstand your post. But if "beauty" turns you off, then are you attracted to ugliness or what other means? This would be interesting to discuss further.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

ArtMusic said:


> I don't mean to misunderstand your post. But if "beauty" turns you off, then *are you attracted to ugliness* or what other means? This would be interesting to discuss further.


Isn't everyone, a little?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

science said:


> Isn't everyone, a little?


I like warthogs.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

science said:


> Isn't everyone, a little?


I don't know, I don't think I am.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

ArtMusic said:


> I don't know, I don't think I am.


Just happy-happy-joy-joy all the time then?

I don't believe it.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

Well, I don't like using the word "authentic" because it reminds me of elitist Adorno-type arguments. But I can agree that beauty - and we're talking about conventional beauty - shouldn't be viewed as a subclass of "good" music. Many composers (mainly from the 20th century) make explicit that they are not aiming for conventional beauty; they have different goals in mind, and I refuse to believe that this is nonsensical. The philosopher Jerrold Levinson has a nice article on this subject called "Musical Beauty."


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

Coach G said:


> In teaching and in chess finding one's "authentic style" is very important, and imagine it's the same in music, but maybe not.
> 
> I don't know if this helps to answer the question, but I'm sure it might answer something.


I find your post very interesting and valuable. Style is vitally important in most music. For me, what you identify as style in chess is similar in learning and teaching classical music. Some people have a feel for style without much formal training; others will incorporate a lot of learning and experience into developing their own style, whether as composers, performers, or listeners. Your examples from chess illustrate the integration of technique (e.g. opening moves) into styles of play, progressing together. Without going very far with "authenticity" I think the basic idea of "your own," of "becoming yourself" applies in music as well as chess.


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

"Our language, our music, and our manners are increasingly raucous, self-centred, and offensive, as though beauty and good taste have no real place in our lives. One word is written large on all these ugly things, and that word is 'me'"
-Sir Roger Scruton

Composers in the earlier eras composed to uplift, glorify, and guide people to God, the romantics viewed the artist and composer as a proverbial Christ figure sacrificing himself to bring his art to humanity for its benefit and now we think the chief element in music is "authenticity" and "telling people about yourself" like a preschool poster telling six-year-olds to "be true to themselves". No longer do artist even adopt the pretence of seeking the divine, the universal, or the beautiful, instead, the self has become the golden calf which the Israelites dance around and the Potemkin village to ferry out when anyone questions if, perhaps, something has gone rather terribly wrong.

Oh well. C'est la vie as the French would say.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

BachIsBest said:


> "Our language, our music, and our manners are increasingly raucous, self-centred, and offensive, as though beauty and good taste have no real place in our lives. One word is written large on all these ugly things, and that word is 'me'"
> -Sir Roger Scruton


Scruton has a lot of bad takes, including his dislike of popular music.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

BachIsBest said:


> "Our language, our music, and our manners are increasingly raucous, self-centred, and offensive, as though beauty and good taste have no real place in our lives. One word is written large on all these ugly things, and that word is 'me'"
> -Sir Roger Scruton
> 
> Composers in the earlier eras composed to uplift, glorify, and guide people to God, the romantics viewed the artist and composer as a proverbial Christ figure sacrificing himself to bring his art to humanity for its benefit and now we think the chief element in music is "authenticity" and "telling people about yourself" like a preschool poster telling six-year-olds to "be true to themselves". No longer do artist even adopt the pretence of seeking the divine, the universal, or the beautiful, instead, the self has become the golden calf which the Israelites dance around and the Potemkin village to ferry out when anyone questions if, perhaps, something has gone rather terribly wrong.
> ...


That's exactly right. The art of composition should be considered in the historical context of its origins to properly assess its merits. Bach certainly did not composer most of his works out of an inner compulsion that was not religiously motivated and or to entertain/impress his employers (or potential employers such as Frederick the Great). The few exceptional masterpieces such as _The Musical Offering_, _Art of Fugue_ and _B Minor Mass_ had elements of musical science. Aspects of craftsmanship, technical challenge all point towards complete mastery of what Bach had to his disposal at that point in time.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Mandryka said:


> Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If beauty is at the heart of CPT CM then its heart is subjective.


Since you've admitted more than once that you don't have much interest in most of it, I'm not surprised you would say that.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

DaveM said:


> Since you've admitted more than once that you don't have much interest in most of it, I'm not surprised you would say that.


_No one_ has an interest in "most of it." The established masters make up a very tiny portion of CPT CM.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Portamento said:


> _No one_ has an interest in "most of it." The established masters make up a very tiny portion of CPT CM.


No one? I do. Maybe you've just given away why you may not know much about it and the people who have been listening to it and/or playing some of it for a long time. And btw, the poster I was addressing has indicated a disinterest in most of the established masters of the 19th century.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

BachIsBest said:


> "Our language, our music, and our manners are increasingly raucous, self-centred, and offensive, as though beauty and good taste have no real place in our lives. One word is written large on all these ugly things, and that word is 'me'" - Sir Roger Scruton


and he is right... once there's egoism set in, things begin turn ugly.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

DaveM said:


> Since you've admitted more than once that you don't have much interest in most of it, I'm not surprised you would say that.


What you or I are interested in is not relevant to the soundness of my point.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

Would you describe Beethoven's _Große Fuge_ as beautiful in the conventional sense? I don't think most people would, but that doesn't make it "bad" music, does it?



DaveM said:


> No one? I do. Maybe you've just given away why you may not know much about it and the people who have been listening to it and/or playing some of it for a long time.


If you read my post carefully, you would notice that I'm talking about CPT CM as a whole.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The OP confuses beauty with prettiness, which may actually be unbeautiful. Beauty, to an artist, means not sensory titillation but integrity and rightness: the fitting together of the parts of a work into a meaningful, satisfying whole. It stands at the opposite pole, not from "authenticity," but from chaos. People show an intuitive awareness of this when they call a solution to a problem "beautiful," or speak of someone's "inner beauty."


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Mandryka said:


> What you or I are interested in is not relevant to the soundness of my point.


Since a lack of interest in a period of music infers a lack of experience with it, yes it is.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Portamento said:


> If you read my post carefully, you would notice that I'm talking about CPT CM as a whole.


If you read the post of mine that you responded to that was a response to another poster you will notice that it was exactly the CPT music I was talking about.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

DaveM said:


> If you read the post of mine that you responded to that was a response to another poster you will notice that it was exactly the CPT music I was talking about.


OK, let's return to the post of yours that another poster responded to that you responded to that I responded to that you responded to that I responded to that you responded to that I am responding to now. :lol:

You make the claim: "Take away beauty from CM of the CPT era and you tear the very heart out of it."

Do you think "beauty" is at the heart of a piece such as Beethoven's _Große Fuge_? (I find it to be quite shocking in many respects.) If we're redefining beauty to mean "integrity and rightness" - as Woodduck suggests - then your claim can be expanded to include modern/contemporary music as well. It's not like Boulez wasn't searching for "integrity and rightness" when writing his _integral_ serialist works.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

DaveM said:


> Since a lack of interest in a period of music infers a lack of experience with it, yes it is.


No it doesn't. 
................................


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

A reminder: politics if directly related to music only in the appropriate sub-forum. Non-music related politics only in the groups. A few posts have been edited.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

milk said:


> And this one might be directed at the "objectivists" who seem to want to argue that great beauty, as expressed in romantic music, is the standard by which successful classical music should be judged.


It is about the effect. Talking about beauty is misleading. Beauty helps most of the time and authenticity too, but it is about the effect.



milk said:


> I find "beauty" as a concept to be vague, boring, and even possibly dangerous because it can be so easily manipulated and sentimentalized.


Dangerous? Maybe call your mommy for help then if you fear beautiful music.

Good music has an effect, so it can be used and abused. Bad music has no effect and is useless. That is the entire problem of serial music.



milk said:


> Anyway, authenticity is much more interesting. Is the artist expressing a real feeling that aligns with their true experience and intention? If something is too copied, it becomes inauthentic as well. Is the artist just copying someone else's sentiment? Or are they really expressing their own honest feelings, beliefs, experiences, etc.


Who cares. What are *you* feeling when you hear it? That is the only thing you can really experience and that should matter. Music is art not historical studies.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus (Aug 8, 2020)

ArtMusic said:


> I don't mean to misunderstand your post. But if "beauty" turns you off, then are you attracted to ugliness or what other means? This would be interesting to discuss further.


Within human nature we have both the capacity to appreciate the beautiful and to love that which is ugly.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Strange Magic said:


> I like warthogs.


Me too.

View attachment 153204


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> Within human nature we have both the capacity to appreciate the beautiful and to love that which is ugly.


Ugly, shocking or disturbing art can also provoke feelings of catharsis, or simply visceral voyeuristic thrill.

This isn't even some avant-garde thing- you know who likes those swedish crime novels, and true crime books where bodies get chopped up and there's blood everywhere and all that? Average (frequently female) book-buyers!


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

This is just one of those threads where, in relation to beauty, we are just using the same word to mean different things, and then arguing about it as though we are talking about the same thing because we're using the same word.

At least, though, authenticity has been less of a focus of the discussion. I don't even know how you would go about identifying that, and the most profound comments about that were about (i) how if you can fake that that you've got it made, and (ii) the rise of rampant egotism in the modern world.

If we are all islands of ego with our own authentic truths which are what matters, then I don't see the point of authenticity in music - because I won't be able to understand your authentic expression of your truth, because it is not my truth and I cannot experience yours. And yet, the idea that authenticity is what matters, seems to come from that same focus on the ego. It seems a bit self-defeating.

Surely a composer should compromise their authenticity to the extent of recognising that there is a listener who matters too, and with whom they are seeking to communicate. If not, then we have achieved such a pinnacle of solipsism that the point of the exercise largely escapes me. Feel free to compose authentic music, but don't expect anyone else to listen, as they are ploughing their own authentic furrows too.

I would suggest that the goal of great art is to achieve some sort of communion between creator and listener/viewer/reader. With music, the thing communicated may be ineffable, but isn't that the point - as otherwise we could eff it instead.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

Aries said:


> Who cares. What are *you* feeling when you hear it? That is the only thing you can really experience and that should matter. Music is art not historical studies.


I agree, which is why the idea of judging composers "objectively" is so silly.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Mandryka said:


> So now, the real question for me is, what is the function of music? Is it there to reflect in some way my internal chaos, to shed light on my reality? Or is of there to console me, to find some way of resolving all my contradictions - a therapy or a way of forgetting, a drug?


Music _is_ your reality. Or part of it at least. That we tend to tell ourselves otherwise is a product of our own deficiencies.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Eclectic Al said:


> Surely a composer should compromise their authenticity to the extent of recognising that there is a listener who matters too, and with whom they are seeking to communicate. If not, then we have achieved such a pinnacle of solipsism that the point of the exercise largely escapes me. Feel free to compose authentic music, but don't expect anyone else to listen, as they are ploughing their own authentic furrows too..


Isn't the connection more meaningful if it isn't contrived? Have you ever found a work of art that absolutely affected you deeply because it communicated something so specific that it felt like it had been created specifically for you, and felt that sense of relief that someone out there feels the same way as you?


----------



## Tikoo Tuba (Oct 15, 2018)

We will have respect for craftsmanship . However , any musician may consciously ignore this . We might
recognize the artist' awareness or not .


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

milk said:


> And this one might be directed at the "objectivists" who seem to want to argue that great beauty, as expressed in romantic music, is the standard by which successful classical music should be judged. *I find "beauty" as a concept to be vague, boring, and even possibly dangerous because it can be so easily manipulated and sentimentalized.* Anyway, authenticity is much more interesting. Is the artist expressing a real feeling that aligns with their true experience and intention? If something is too copied, it becomes inauthentic as well. Is the artist just copying someone else's sentiment? Or are they really expressing their own honest feelings, beliefs, experiences, etc.
> Actually, I'm not convinced there can be an objective standard for judging what's a great work of art AND I'm not sure authenticity is any easier than any other standard. As a goal though, and as a way of experiencing art, it seems to have more value. To be honest, "beauty" just turns me off as a discrete goal of art. Full disclosure: this was suggested to me by a friend.


Bold mine.

I have been trying to express this for years.

I can listen to all the music (Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, etc., etc.,) that the anti-modernists here say is beautiful, and I not only can I understand why they think that, I can hear what they are referring to, yet, it does almost nothing for me. I can't help but hear it as being trite, contrived and predictable.

And on the other hand, I can find beauty in a lot of the music that they find ugly, but it is beauty found in other aspects besides the obvious melodies, motifs and themes. And even if there is music that I listen to, that is not beautiful, that does not mean it is not artistically satisfying in many other ways.

I have yet to hear a satisfying explanation on why beauty should always be the goal of any art form. There are an almost endless continuum of human experiences, to only think of music as one to appeal to our appreciation of beauty, is not only short sided, but limiting.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

*Authenticity is a better goal of great art than beauty.*

I agree. 
An authentic piece of crappy art is certainly much better than one I find beautiful. 
Which explains why my pre-schooler grandson's pounding on the piano keys delights me more as great art than anything by Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Rachmaninov ....


----------



## milk (Apr 25, 2018)

SanAntone said:


> When they perform are artists really expressing feelings? I don't think so.


One can have authentic and inauthentic ideas as well. And perhaps it's better to talk about the composers in this regard. What is it in your personal experience of a piece of music that elevates it for you? You never have a sense of, that's a "put on" or "this is so real"?


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

fbjim said:


> Isn't the connection more meaningful if it isn't contrived? Have you ever found a work of art that absolutely affected you deeply because it communicated something so specific that it felt like it had been created specifically for you, and felt that sense of relief that someone out there feels the same way as you?


I don't disagree with you. In fact, I think that's precisely what I'm trying to say. As a listener you want to feel that you are being communicated with.

"Authenticity" is not, therefore, the goal: the goal is the communication. Authenticity comes in because as a listener you want to feel that the composer is being genuine in some sense, as otherwise you have a false communication going on. Hence, you want the composer to be being authentic (or to be good at faking it ).


----------



## milk (Apr 25, 2018)

SONNET CLV said:


> *Authenticity is a better goal of great art than beauty.*
> 
> I agree.
> An authentic piece of crappy art is certainly much better than one I find beautiful.
> Which explains why my pre-schooler grandson's pounding on the piano keys delights me more as great art than anything by Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Rachmaninov ....


I don't get it. You don't think think Bach's music is authentic? You don't think his fugues express his true intent or that his B minor Mass expresses real emotional content in its intention?


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Simon Moon said:


> Bold mine.
> 
> I have been trying to express this for years.
> 
> ...


Do you consider this to be the prevailing view of classical music listeners?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

milk said:


> I don't get it. You don't think think Bach's music is authentic? You don't think his fugues express his true intent or that his B minor Mass expresses real emotional content in its intention?


How would you ever know? How would you know what his real intention was behind his contribution -- the music -- in the mass? What I'm suggesting is, that the question "Is Bach's music authentic?" is a bad question.

How do I know what you intend? How do you know what you intend?


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

milk said:


> I don't get it. You don't think think Bach's music is authentic? You don't think his fugues express his true intent or that his B minor Mass expresses real emotional content in its intention?


The question is not so black and white, there are thousands of composers to consider who are more authentic than Bach. He is more authentic compared to whom?

I generally agree with this:



fbjim said:


> Isn't the connection more meaningful if it isn't contrived? Have you ever found a work of art that absolutely affected you deeply because it communicated something so specific that it felt like it had been created specifically for you, and felt that sense of relief that someone out there feels the same way as you?


For some this is JS Bach, but it would strike me suspicious if lots of people claim one composer as their absolute number 1, unless there are some authoritative measures messing with their sense of identity.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

What the **** does "authentic" mean? Someone please define that for me.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

well Bach is weird because a lot of his most acclaimed works weren't even intended for performance, they were studies


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

SONNET CLV said:


> *Authenticity is a better goal of great art than beauty.*
> 
> I agree.
> An authentic piece of crappy art is certainly much better than one I find beautiful.
> Which explains why my pre-schooler grandson's pounding on the piano keys delights me more as great art than anything by Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Rachmaninov ....





milk said:


> I don't get it. You don't think think Bach's music is authentic? You don't think his fugues express his true intent or that his B minor Mass expresses real emotional content in its intention?


Let me clarify. I don't invest in art work for my home because I can always have the grandkids over for free to finger paint all over the walls. Heck! The place looks a lot like MoMA. _Better_ than MoMA! I don't have to buy a ticket to get in!

Nothing like authenticity in art. Nothing like authentic grandkids' art.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

DaveM said:


> Do you consider this to be the prevailing view of classical music listeners?


No, of course not. However, I do wish there were more classical listeners that were a bit more adventurous, and were able to appreciate music of this sort.

However, I do have a bit of a selfish reason why I care that there isn't a bigger audience for the music I listen to, is because I'd get to go to more LA Phil performances of said music.

I came to my love of classical music with the mindset of a progressive music listener, where, the norm is to seek out music that pushes boundaries, and may not always be an easy listen* but has other artistically satisfying attributes. Music that uses many of the same compositional techniques used by contemporary composers, but in the context of 'rock' instrumentation (as well as: sting, woodwind, double reed instruments, etc).

I've pointed it out before, but there is a long running thread over on the progressiveears.com forums, on classical music. It doesn't take too long to realize by looking at this thread, that many more prog fans (by percentage), are into classical music from the mid 20th century to the present era, than there are among classical music fans here.


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

Simon Moon said:


> I can listen to all the music (Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, etc., etc.,) that the anti-modernists here say is beautiful, and I not only can I understand why they think that, I can hear what they are referring to, yet, it does almost nothing for me. I can't help but hear it as being trite, contrived and predictable.


Claiming that the music of Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, etc. is too predictable for you to enjoy seems a bit rich. If you can intuitively grasp what the composer is going to do in the next moment from the previous (i.e., predict the music) then surely it wouldn't be too challenging for you to write music that anyone would mistake for, say, Mozart's own. Just start with a contrived classical opening and then predict what Mozart would write from there!


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

fbjim said:


> well Bach is weird because a lot of his most acclaimed works weren't even intended for performance, they were studies


What is your source on this? What works are you referring to?


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Simon Moon said:


> No, of course not. However, I do wish there were more classical listeners that were a bit more adventurous, and were able to appreciate music of this sort.


But it seems like you only have a surface and superficial understanding of the composers of the past. You might be able to convince more listeners to be 'adventurous' if they perceived that you understood the music better that the tradition is based on.


----------



## milk (Apr 25, 2018)

Mandryka said:


> How would you ever know? How would you know what his real intention was behind his contribution -- the music -- in the mass? What I'm suggesting is, that the question "Is Bach's music authentic?" is a bad question.
> 
> How do I know what you intend? How do you know what you intend?


 yeah well I have to laugh at myself because I'm not sure my post really makes sense. I think all of this is so hard and these are really very subjective values. I think it might be my own delusion but I feel like I can sense when a composer is sort of bullshitting. Maybe a performer too. You're going to laugh but I have a good memory for some things. I once remarked that I like Blandine Rannou's Goldberg's because of her ornaments. You had some critique of it that I took as saying there was something unnatural in it. After that, I started hearing it so clearly: her interpretation wasn't sounding authentic or congruous with the music. After that, I never listened again. This concept might be more workable with pop music. Look how an authentic folk idea gets co opted by companies looking to package something and sell it. Or look what happened to punk rock as it moved from its inception in the 70s to something like Green Day. Or start with David Bowie and end up with something like Lady Gaga. Or start wit Zeppelin and end up with something like Kiss. But I can't argue this is clear and objective. It's just a sense I have. And when I'm listening to something, I don't really want beauty as the main thing. I think it's one thing I can find in music that's pleasing: a sense of aesthetic beauty. But I'm not necessarily turned off if music also incorporates something totally different or even opposite. But if it seems like a cheap copy, or a put-on, or a pose, or a sales pitch, then I'm turned off. Then I feel like I'm being duped. Anyway, I kind of rely on the community here to see if there's any way to better articulate this and some already have. Sorry I have to go through and do more likes. I know the good critiques are going to come and I want to "like" those too.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

fbjim said:


> well Bach is weird because a lot of his most acclaimed works weren't even intended for performance, they were studies


These most acclaimed works were studies that were to Bach had inherent beauty, because the fugue was his principal means of composition.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

tdc said:


> But it seems like you only have a surface and superficial understanding of the composers of the past. You might be able to convince more listeners to be 'adventurous' if they perceived that you understood the music better that the tradition is based on.


This comes down to the individual. Take me for example, when I started listening to Baroque and Classical music, I wanted to branch out to listen to more music by other composers, for example Michael Haydn after listening to much by Joseph Haydn and of Bach's sons etc.


----------



## milk (Apr 25, 2018)

ArtMusic said:


> These most acclaimed works were studies that were to Bach had inherent beauty, because the fugue was his principal means of composition.


I think Bach very clearly intended to evoke a range of emotion. Sometimes, he seems to be showing great sorrow, other times, terror. I can't be sure of this but I think it's probably explicit in places. I'm sure he appreciate a sense of beauty too.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

milk said:


> I think Bach very clearly intended to evoke a range of emotion.


One thing we do know is that in the time that Bach was working, there were well established conventions for evoking emotions in music, associations with key signatures, certain types of gestures etc.



milk said:


> I'm sure he appreciate a sense of beauty too.


This is something that I've never explored -- I mean, I have no idea whether a concept like "beauty" had anything to do with what composers in Bach's time were interested in. For all I know, it may be a totally anachronistic idea. I can't remember anything from the period which talks about beauty . Maybe others will come up with something.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

milk said:


> And this one might be directed at the "objectivists" who seem to want to argue that great beauty, as expressed in romantic music, is the standard by which successful classical music should be judged. I find "beauty" as a concept to be vague, boring, and even possibly dangerous because it can be so easily manipulated and sentimentalized. Anyway, authenticity is much more interesting. Is the artist expressing a real feeling that aligns with their true experience and intention? If something is too copied, it becomes inauthentic as well. Is the artist just copying someone else's sentiment? Or are they really expressing their own honest feelings, beliefs, experiences, etc.
> Actually, I'm not convinced there can be an objective standard for judging what's a great work of art AND I'm not sure authenticity is any easier than any other standard. As a goal though, and as a way of experiencing art, it seems to have more value. To be honest, "beauty" just turns me off as a discrete goal of art. Full disclosure: this was suggested to me by a friend.


Authenticity is a good enough word, and I like how it is all-encompassing. Art has to have some sort of real meaning. Who wants to be fake? However, Western classical music goes back around a thousand years, so no word will be really be adequate in itself to describe its diversity. It also has many different aspects, e.g. aesthetics, technique, context. We can branch out even further. There are so many layers.

What you say about beauty and the discussion of objectivity and subjectivity made me think of the sublime, which takes in all these things and more. There is a sense there of being overwhelmed by art as we are by nature. Art critic Robert Hughes wrote a great deal about this and there is a great line in one of his books, _The Fatal Shore_ where he says that art is there "to close the gap between you and everything that is not you and in this way to pass from feeling to meaning." Art is a dialogue between the creator and observer, between the past and the present. It translates a whole multitude of experiences and emotions across time like nothing else.

At the end of the day I'm just a listener so I try not to do too much navel gazing. I think that the search for the right word is a bit of a wild goose chase anyway.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

ArtMusic said:


> This comes down to the individual. Take me for example, when I started listening to Baroque and Classical music, I wanted to branch out to listen to more music by other composers, for example Michael Haydn after listening to much by Joseph Haydn and of Bach's sons etc.


That sounds more like "Keeping it in the family" than branching out.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

tdc said:


> But it seems like you only have a surface and superficial understanding of the composers of the past. You might be able to convince more listeners to be 'adventurous' if they perceived that you understood the music better that the tradition is based on.


I am not sure what you mean by superficial understanding?

I have a fairly large collection (50+ recordings) of composers from the past: Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, Hayden, etc. I have made, and continue to make, regular attempts to get into this music by playing some recordings from time to time, in hopes that it will finally click with me.

While I have not given up, my hopes are waning a bit. On the other hand, there is so much great music, and composers, to discover, I am not wanting for classical music to listen to.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Simon Moon said:


> I am not sure what you mean by superficial understanding?
> 
> I have a fairly large collection (50+ recordings) of composers from the past: Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, Hayden, etc. I have made, and continue to make, regular attempts to get into this music by playing some recordings from time to time, in hopes that it will finally click with me.
> 
> While I have not given up, my hopes are waning a bit. On the other hand, there is so much great music, and composers, to discover, I am not wanting for classical music to listen to.


It is a pernicious idea that through prolonged exposure we will eventually come to like music that initially, and maybe even for some time, we have disliked. I think the presumption is that the music is objectively good and cannot fail to convince any listener of that fact.

There are problems with this kind of thinking: sometimes it may be true that after more time with a composer's music we come to enjoy it more than we originally did, but I think that is not always the case. More importantly, there is nothing wrong with someone not liking music by Mozart, Beethoven or other music from the past.

The funny thing is that often it is the same people who have rejected this advice when they are told to spend more time with avant-garde music, or non-classical music, in order to come to a greater appreciation of it.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

SanAntone said:


> there is nothing wrong with someone not liking music by Mozart, Beethoven


before deciding whether to like it or not, one has to know well the music.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

Zhdanov said:


> before deciding whether to like it or not, one has to know well the music.


Do you know well pop music or hip hop?


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

chu42 said:


> Do you know well pop music or hip hop?


Checkmate......


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

chu42 said:


> Do you know well pop music or hip hop?


yes i do, that is my past.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

Zhdanov said:


> yes i do, that is my past.


Sure, but you hate it. Therefore you don't know it well enough.

(this is your logic)


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

chu42 said:


> Sure, but you hate it. Therefore you don't know it well enough.


i know it very well and that is why i hate it.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

Zhdanov said:


> i know it very well and that is why i hate it.


No no no. See, if you _really_ knew it well, you would appreciate it.

Clearly you must not know it as well as you think you do!


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

SanAntone said:


> It is a pernicious idea that through prolonged exposure we will eventually come to like music that initially, and maybe even for some time, we have disliked. I think the presumption is that the music is objectively good and cannot fail to convince any listener of that fact.


In the past, I have had experiences with listening to music for a prolonged period, and having come to like it. In fact, some of my favorite bands, artists and composers, took me repeated listening, over an extended period of time, before they clicked for me.



> There are problems with this kind of thinking: sometimes it may be true that after more time with a composer's music we come to enjoy it more than we originally did, but I think that is not always the case. More importantly, there is nothing wrong with someone not liking music by Mozart, Beethoven or other music from the past.


I personally have no problems not liking the music of Beethoven or Mozart, but I was responding to someone that felt that, I may have more credibility trying to get someone that is not into modern and contemporary classical, to listen and possibly enjoy it, if I had more knowledge of past era music.



> The funny thing is that often it is the same people who have rejected this advice when they are told to spend more time with avant-garde music, or non-classical music, in order to come to a greater appreciation of it.


I always try to keep an open mind, and this is the reason why I will always give music* that I don't initially like, quite a bit of repeated listening, over a period of time.

*as long as the type of music has the criteria I listen for: complexity, high level of musicianship, broad range of emotional content. This is why I give older eras of classical music repeated listening time, because it has those criteria. And this is why I do not have to give pop or hip hop repeated listening time, because it has none of those criteria.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

SanAntone said:


> It is a pernicious idea that through prolonged exposure we will eventually come to like music that initially, and maybe even for some time, we have disliked. I think the presumption is that the music is objectively good and cannot fail to convince any listener of that fact.


Well, I've been waiting for 35 years and countless tries to be able to like Beethoven's 9th. Has not happened yet. Somehow I think it's not going to happen anymore..... and I'm OK with that. :tiphat:


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

chu42 said:


> if you _really_ knew it well, you would appreciate it.


i knew it well and used to be the biggest fan of it.



chu42 said:


> Clearly you must not know it as well as you think you do!


clearly you must not know the subjects and so think them as equals.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Art Rock said:


> I've been waiting for 35 years and countless tries to be able to like Beethoven's 9th. Has not happened yet.


to get into that music, it takes listening strictly to classical, this is a completely different approach than anything else.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Thank you. I did not know that.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

Zhdanov said:


> i knew it well and used to be the biggest fan of it.


No, no, no. It doesn't matter if you used to like it or not, clearly if you _truly_ understood it then you would still like it!

Or perhaps music is subjective and we can enjoy whatever we want without being bound to objective ideas of "greatness".


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Art Rock said:


> Well, I've been waiting for 35 years and countless tries to be able to like Beethoven's 9th. Has not happened yet. Somehow I think it's not going to happen anymore..... and I'm OK with that. :tiphat:


Well, my only response to _that_ is a sternly voiced "Götterfunken!"


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

SONNET CLV said:


> "Götterfunken!"


Gesundheit!
......................................


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

chu42 said:


> if you _truly_ understood it then you would still like it!


for your information, to understand mass culture is not rocket science, for it's made to be accessible, but you seem to be struggling with it, hence 'truly' etc.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

Art Rock said:


> Well, I've been waiting for 35 years and countless tries to be able to like Beethoven's 9th. Has not happened yet. Somehow I think it's not going to happen anymore..... and I'm OK with that. :tiphat:


You're in good company with that likable fellow Adorno.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

chu42 said:


> music is subjective and we can enjoy whatever we want without being bound to objective ideas of "greatness".


that's because you simply don't get the great music.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

Zhdanov said:


> that's because you simply don't get the great music.


I am a classical pianist. I have performed hundreds of works from all eras of music.

I also enjoy hip hop, and to a lesser extent, some pop music.

Please, try to tell me what I "get" and "don't get".


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

Zhdanov said:


> for your information, to understand mass culture is not rocket science, for it's made to be accessible, but you seem to be struggling with it, hence 'truly' etc.


Not all hip-hop is mass culture.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

Perhaps chu42 and Zhdanov could debate the merits of Kendrick Lamar's GKMC in a separate thread. Since Zhdanov knows hip hop well, of course.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

Portamento said:


> Perhaps chu42 and Zhdanov could debate the merits of Kendrick Lamar's GKMC in a separate thread. Since Zhdanov knows hip hop well, of course.


Lamar is so respected as being "good" that he has, in some ways, penetrated mass culture. Like Bach or Picasso.

I was thinking more along the lines of:


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Zhdanov said:


> for your information, to understand mass culture is not rocket science, for it's made to be accessible, but you seem to be struggling with it, hence 'truly' etc.


Mass culture is also manufactured for one other matter: to make a lot of money quickly. Art music on the hand, if composed today /same time as a mass culture work has far less monetary motive.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

ArtMusic said:


> Mass culture is also manufactured for one other matter: to make a lot of money quickly. Art music on the hand, if composed today /same time as a mass culture work has far less monetary motive.


A lot of art music was written to make a lot of money quickly. It's just that today we have more technology and statistics and polling that can make money quicker.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

milk said:


> I think Bach very clearly intended to evoke a range of emotion. Sometimes, he seems to be showing great sorrow, other times, terror. I can't be sure of this but I think it's probably explicit in places. I'm sure he appreciate a sense of beauty too.


Without any doubt indeed. Well said. Bach suffered the death of his first wife, he had to raise a young (and large) family, all of these are incredible feats for a middle class family. No doubt, his strong religious views would have also had tremendous impact on his views towards beauty and masterful craftsmanship.


----------

