# Positive thread: Why Classical?



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

I only joined recently, but have been quite impressed by some of the negativity on display here.

So I thought I would try a different tack: why do you enjoy Classical? If someone asked to to explain it to them, what would you say? And if they asked for one (and only one) album to buy, or, alternatively, one YouTube video to view, which one would you recommend to them?


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

Impressed but not enough, apparently..

Bring on more negativity!


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

philoctetes said:


> Impressed but not enough, apparently..
> 
> Bring on more negativity!


Actually, one of your recent comments decrying negativity is one that I've liked the most 

OK, I'll try.

*Why Classical: * The modern world, with all its problems, and its news media designed to inflame and enrage, exhausts me. Classical music is a retreat and a reminder that human beings can create beauty. It can calm the passions and enrich the soul. It can explore the minuscule depths of personal space as well as expand out into the cosmos.

*One Album:* The composer that I think best exemplifies the above is probably Beethoven. And while I am sure to be raked over the coals for this, my favorite Beethoven cycle is Karajan 1977. So I would recommend either the Atmos Blu-Ray audio or the CD box set.

* One YouTube video: * Paradoxically, the video I'd recommend is this one, featuring Sir John Eliot Gardiner digging into the history of Beethoven's 5th. I think it does an amazing job situating the music, and the performance is dynamite.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Joining the elite club of classical music listeners has given me the option to elevate myself over the commoners. I can now laugh at them and it gives me great satisfaction. I do not particularly care for the music
And for a classical music album, I would recommend Boulez Piano Sonata 2 and brag about all the great melodies that my superior brain is able to hear in this masterpiece


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

MatthewWeflen said:


> So I thought I would try a different tack: why do you enjoy Classical?


I don't know. Moreso I enjoy opera. But I do listen to some classical. There is not much in non-classical music to satisfy oneself, whereas classical is an immense field of vast and various works that one can listen to many times and still hear new things.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Fritz Kobus said:


> I don't know. Moreso I enjoy opera. But I do listen to some classical. There is not much in non-classical music to satisfy oneself, whereas classical is an immense field of vast and various works that one can listen to many times and still hear new things.


Which opera album would you recommend?


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

When I listen to popular music, it's because I like the song; when I listen to classical music, it's not always about me liking the piece but that I'm intrigued and want to discover the hidden secrets of what I'm hearing.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I don't think one can really explain why they like classical to people in a way that makes sense. It affects the inner world of a person and its not something words can do justice to. One can say the music is beautiful, intense, moving etc. But if the other person has not experienced something similar inside themselves, I don't think they will understand.

I think that the term 'classical' encompasses such a wide variety of music that I am hesitant to recommend things to people because what they will enjoy may very well be very different than what I enjoy. If I do make recommendations it is to search out a variety of things and then pursue what they are interested in. If I give them one recording that to me is somehow representative of classical music at its best, and the individual doesn't like it, they may wrongly infer that most or all classical music is like that.

That said if I was to pick only one recording that to _me _represents most closely what I love about classical music I would probably go with J.S. Bach's _Well Tempered Clavier_ performed by Kenneth Gilbert or Andras Schiff.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

MatthewWeflen said:


> I only joined recently, but have been quite impressed by some of the negativity on display here.
> 
> So I thought I would try a different tack: why do you enjoy Classical? If someone asked to to explain it to them, what would you say? And if they asked for one (and only one) album to buy, or, alternatively, one YouTube video to view, which one would you recommend to them?


You can't possibly buy just one. Be reasonable.


Mari Kodama's complete Beethoven piano sonatas on Pentatone.
Riccardo Chailly's complete Beethoven symphonies on Decca.
Both sets are highly acclaimed.

You're welcome.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

MatthewWeflen said:


> And if they asked for one (and only one) album to buy, or, alternatively, one YouTube video to view, which one would you recommend to them?


Classical music covers such a broad ground in terms of time, style, format, instruments, etc., that there is no possible way to do that without knowing something about the likes, dislikes, biases etc., of the person in question. If I were to pick one album/video without that knowledge, it would only reflect my particular opinions and would stand as much chance of turning the person off as it would attracting them.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Red Terror said:


> You can't possibly buy just one. Be reasonable.
> 
> 
> Mari Kodama's complete Beethoven piano sonatas on Pentatone.
> ...


I own Chailly's Beethoven cycle. It sounds fabulous, and his 8th is terrific. I do think he goes a bit too fast on some of the symphonies that benefit from a somewhat more luxuriant pace (e.g. 3, 5, 6, 9).


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

MatthewWeflen said:


> I own Chailly's Beethoven cycle. It sounds fabulous, and his 8th is terrific. I do think he goes a bit too fast on some of the weightier symphonies (e.g. 5, 6, 9).


The symphonies were performed according to Beethoven's alleged metronome markings. Tempo is a matter of preference in this context.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Red Terror said:


> The symphonies were performed according to Beethoven's alleged metronome markings. Tempo is a matter of preference in this context.


Agreed. Gardiner is about my preferred upper limit.

I'm sure a lot of it comes down to what one first hears and becomes acclimated to.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I would say that I enjoy classical music more than any other genre because it engages my mind while it objectifies and sublimates my emotions, allowing me to experience them as inseparable and making me feel, for the time I'm listening, a finer, more unified creature than I am in the stresses, conflicts and uncertainties of ordinary living.

I could never recommend one example, for the reasons others have stated. I might choose a dozen or so works in different styles to illustrate the vastness of the field we call "classical."


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

MatthewWeflen said:


> And if they asked for one (and only one) album to buy, or, alternatively, one YouTube video to view, which one would you recommend to them?


Definitely something by Karajan. 

I think all you can do is recommend a few starter albums and let them take it from there.

My recommendations would be:

Mozart, Piano concertos 20, 23, 24, 27 - Curzon 
Beethoven, Symphonies Nos. 5 & 7 - Kleiber
Bach/Brahms/Tchaikovsky, Violin concertos - Oistrakh
Monteverdi, Vespers of 1610 - Gardiner
Vivaldi, Four seasons - Marriner
Bach, Cello suites - Fournier
Rachmaninoff, Piano concertos Nos. 2 & 3 - Janis
Debussy/Ravel, String quartets - Melos Quartet
Chopin, Nocturnes - Rubinstein '65
Stravinsky, Rite of spring - Stravinsky
Puccini, Tosca - Callas/De Sabata
Schumann, Dichterliebe/Schubert, Lieder - Wunderlich


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Definitely something by Karajan.
> 
> I think all you can do is recommend a few starter albums and let them take it from there.
> 
> ...


The Kleiber 5/7 is almost what I went with for my choice, but I wanted to cheat and include a whole cycle ;-)


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

MatthewWeflen said:


> The Kleiber 5/7 is almost what I went with for my choice, but I wanted to cheat and include a whole cycle ;-)


I've always like the Karajan '77 over his '63 cycle myself even though most prefer the '63. My favorite cycle is Böhm's, which is beautifully recorded. Unfortunately his 5th is the one clunker of the set. Bernstein's VPO set is also very good.

My patchwork set is:

1 & 2 - Jochum DG
3 - Klemperer stereo EMI
4 & 8 - Karajan '63
5 - Bernstein '76 Amnesty concert
6 - Walter 
7 - Böhm 
9 - Furtwängler '51 Orfeo


----------



## Guest (Jan 28, 2019)

Because, as I posted recently in another thread, I love the effect it can have on the anatomy of my brain. When I'm listening to the music that moves me, certain chord or key changes induce a chemical reaction I can actually feel in my head.

There's no mystery, nothing spiritual, - it just happens that way - and differently for different people, with different music.

Currently, it's Fauré's Nocturne No 4






In fact, listening to it now, I can feel the changes as the whole piece unfolds - not just at specific points.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Firstly, I love music. It is my art form. I listen to a lot of it, all the time (if I can), for as long as I can remember. This is not just classical but classical was my first love (when I was a small child) and I listen mostly to classical. There is a lot of variety and different classical music does different things for me. There is something for most moods, to lift the spirits, to enthrall, to inspire ... . I do think I am lucky for having got to know a lot of music as a child, when you learn new things so easily and don't mind trying a few times before it clicks. We all have music that we relate to easily but no-one relates to all from scratch. I do also listen to a fair amount of jazz (mostly 1940s to 1980s), rock (and its variants) and, as someone who has lived in many places, the music of many other cultures. 

Recommended classical record? This would have to be tailored to the person. Everyone's entry point is different.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

MatthewWeflen said:


> I only joined recently, but have been quite impressed by some of the negativity on display here.
> 
> So I thought I would try a different tack: why do you enjoy Classical? If someone asked to to explain it to them, what would you say? And if they asked for one (and only one) album to buy, or, alternatively, one YouTube video to view, which one would you recommend to them?


Why I enjoy Classical - It simply gives me more to think about, and more to feel. There is such depth, and such variety, compared with other musics, though there are not many genres of music that I don't like.

If someone asked you to explain it to them, what would you say? I'd say that classical music, like other art forms, is 'timeless' because it is trying to make some sense of this life and the universe we live in. It can never be exhausted because there is no 'solution' that we can find, but only exploration with occasional glimpses of the grail.

One album: I couldn't really recommend just one, either for me or for somebody else, and I have different moods so my opinion would change. Possibly (for me, at this point in time) Biber's Rosary Sonatas, the Bizarrie Armoniche version.










And for someone else, to bowl them over - why not the film of Carmen, with Placido Domingo?


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

MatthewWeflen said:


> I only joined recently, but have been quite impressed by some of the negativity on display here.
> 
> So I thought I would try a different tack: why do you enjoy Classical? If someone asked to to explain it to them, what would you say? And if they asked for one (and only one) album to buy, or, alternatively, one YouTube video to view, which one would you recommend to them?


*
Why do you enjoy Classical?* I like early music and Baroque. The romantics leave me cold. I get interested in the early twentieth / late nineteenth century folkies like Greig, Bartók and Vaughan Williams. So I like a good tune and enjoy musical developments like polyphony, fugue and divisions. I enjoy folk tunes and dance music.

*If someone asked to to explain it to them, what would you say?* I wouldn't even begin to try. It's old art music. Some like it some don't.

*An album to recommend?* I've made my tastes clear. I'm a folkie. Depends what they like. It could be some "pop" classics like Fantasia or something heavier like a collection of things like _O fortuna_ or_ Ride of the Valkyries_. Far too broad a topic.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

MatthewWeflen said:


> Which opera album would you recommend?


Hard to recommend an opera because I don't know what your interests are. However, this one is among my favorites and I believe would be enjoyed by most anyone who desires to watch an opera. It is filmed as a movie instead of an opera on the stage, which I think would make it more enjoyable to someone who is not used to opera.

Richard Wagner - Der fliegende Holländer

EDIT: I should add that I watched this Hollander video with my son, who is not a big opera fan (He likes Bernstein's Fidelio and Abbado's La Cenerentola on DVD) and this was his third opera. He and I were mesmerized by it.

MORE EDIT: That Sawallisch Hollander DVD is too expensive on the Amazon link I provided. If you are really interested, go to ebay and you can get a copy for half that price. Also I think it is on You Tube complete, but without subtitles. I recommend having subtitles unless you understand German.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

*Why do you enjoy Classical?* Because it's beautiful, complex, emotional, powerful...it represents some of mankinds greatest efforts.

*If someone asked you to explain it to them, what would you say?* Life is too short to waste on trivial, cheap, vulgar music.

*And if they asked for one (and only one) album to buy?* This one:


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

I listen to 'classical' music because there is a lot under one umbrella. I like the sound of enormous orchestras as in Bruckner, but also the intimate ensemble of a string quartet, or the piano. No other music really has such a highly exploratory, highly structured approach, or so many genres within one enormous genre.

I couldn't recommend a single album, there's just too much.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

We now have a fairly good understanding of why/how music affects people: work on the limbic system and brain chemistry, and the writings of Leonard Meyer supply enough scaffolding to support a view of music as a blend of several factors working together to generate (if we're lucky) strong positive sensations. And besides the direct pleasure certain music arouses in people, there are aroused emotions of both empathy and gratitude that contribute to the euphoria--a feeling that our responses are shared with many like-minded individuals, and a feeling of gratitude toward those composing and/or performing the music that pleases us so. The strength of "classical music" is that it offers (usually) greater scope temporally and in complexity than many other musics, for those individuals who are best satisfied by such at any given time. Otherwise music is music, and if one has grown up in an environment where one has been exposed to a wide spectrum of music from an early age, then the seamless quality of the musical experience is more evident. The situation then becomes one of purely idiosyncratic, personal preference, itself varying in time and intensity.

Assuming someone had the patience to listen and watch, I would recommend they be shown Disney's original _Fantasia_, then asked which pieces pleased them the most. Then I would select similar pieces to reinforce the idea that such music was not a one-off, and thus have them build a foundation of interest and expertise in a particular composer or time period or genre which then, over years and decades, can and will expand to include more and more of the classical canon. I began with the late 19th century-early 20th century Russian composers, and my interest grew from there to include much of the music between Bach and Bartók. The key thing to remember is that there are no rules, and no compulsory time frame, in which one's love of classical (or any) music is required to unfold.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I'd recommend said person attend any classical concert in their town. But if somebody is truly interested they won't need any prodding. And they certainly won't need to experience the negativity found on this forum. That thread that was started the other day on the most disliked pieces of music is really sad. Some folks really need to find a new hobby. Maybe buy a real bulldog and go walking.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

starthrower said:


> I'd recommend said person attend any classical concert in their town. But if somebody is truly interested they won't need any prodding. And they certainly won't need to experience the negativity found on this forum. That thread that was started the other day on the most disliked pieces of music is really sad. Some folks really need to find a new hobby. Maybe buy a real bulldog and go walking.


I think it's a good idea, but it depends on the town and on the material. I can't imagine going to something atonal as your first experience.

Chicago is great in the summer, because they have free concerts in the park. You bring wine and cheese or carryout from Michigan Avenue, and they always sandwich the modern stuff with classics of the canon.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

MatthewWeflen said:


> I think it's a good idea, but it depends on the town and on the material. I can't imagine going to something atonal as your first experience.


Why not? If someone has no point reference and no prejudices, it could be a great experience. It beats coming here and reading a thread about most disliked pieces including La Mer, and Beethoven's 9th. Is this how we promote the music we claim to love?


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

starthrower said:


> Why not? If someone has no point reference and no prejudices, it could be a great experience. It beats coming here and reading a thread about most disliked pieces including La Mer, and Beethoven's 9th. Is this how we promote the music we claim to love?


Oh, I certainly agree, the negativity serves no good purpose. I just know for my part I wouldn't send a neophyte to something ultra-challenging -- which is not to say it isn't worthwhile, just that having a grounding in the canon first might help. When I taught philosophy, I would not subject students to stuff like Hegel or Derrida without having first exposed them to Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, and the like.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

MatthewWeflen said:


> Oh, I certainly agree, the negativity serves no good purpose. I just know for my part I wouldn't send a neophyte to something ultra-challenging -- which is not to say it isn't worthwhile, just that having a grounding in the canon first might help.


I've already done it and it worked out fine. I took a friend of mine to a new music concert and he loved it. But he has no baggage to contend with. He's open minded and enjoys progressive music. But he was previously exposed to electric music only, so this was a new and interesting experience that he thoroughly enjoyed.


----------



## jenspen (Apr 25, 2015)

Strange Magic said:


> We now have a fairly good understanding of why/how music affects people: work on the limbic system and brain chemistry, and the writings of Leonard Meyer supply enough scaffolding to support a view of music as a blend of several factors working together to generate (if we're lucky) strong positive sensations. And besides the direct pleasure certain music arouses in people, there are aroused emotions of both empathy and gratitude that contribute to the euphoria--a feeling that our responses are shared with many like-minded individuals, and a feeling of gratitude toward those composing and/or performing the music that pleases us so. The strength of "classical music" is that it offers (usually) greater scope temporally and in complexity than many other musics, for those individuals who are best satisfied by such at any given time. ...


You say it so well. I must look up Leonard Meyer. I had been going to write that classical [sic] music, for me, triggers the happiness neurotransmitters - the best of all addictive drugs - and tickles whatever those parts of the brain are that are teased by and appreciative of complex patterns and of being surprised.

And I agree about the satisfaction that sharing gives us and the pleasure of having, as our objects of love and awe, the likes of Schubert, J.S.Bach....pick your own....


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

mbhaub said:


> *Why do you enjoy Classical?* Because it's beautiful, complex, emotional, powerful...it represents some of mankinds greatest efforts.
> 
> *If someone asked you to explain it to them, what would you say?* Life is too short to waste on trivial, cheap, vulgar music.
> 
> ...


Great choice and one of the first pieces I grew to love as a teenager.

Others that I liked as a youth:

Beethoven, Piano concerto No. 3 & Moonlight sonata
Mozart, Piano concerto No. 20
Gershwin, Rhapsody in blue


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Because it speaks to me in ways much other music doesn't?

No rhyme or reason. We had a lot of different musics available around the house, and from an early age I gravitated to classical, which expanded and blossomed as I grew up. Who knows how an individual mind works? The other thing I was cursed with was an inability to pretend to like something I didn't generally (some-to-much popular music) for the sake of getting along and being popular.

Couldn't recommend a "starter record" if my life depended on it becaise there's too much to choose from and everyone's different, and I might just as easily suggest a piece you couldn't stand.


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

If you break CM down into sub-genres you might have more luck with one-off recommendations. I could actually attempt to recommend one opera since I'm not an opera fanatic but go there occasionally. I'll go with two:

Strauss: Salome
Verdi: Rigoletto


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Why Classical? Why _not_ Classical? Just don't tell anyone and you'll always be OK.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

MatthewWeflen said:


> I only joined recently, but have been quite impressed by some of the negativity on display here.
> 
> So I thought I would try a different tack: why do you enjoy Classical? If someone asked to to explain it to them, what would you say? And if they asked for one (and only one) album to buy, or, alternatively, one YouTube video to view, which one would you recommend to them?


Negativity? This is the worst thread ever. :lol:


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Fritz Kobus said:


> I don't know. Moreso I enjoy opera. But I do listen to some classical. There is not much in non-classical music to satisfy oneself, whereas classical is an immense field of vast and various works that one can listen to many times and still hear new things.


This is wrong; there is a LOT in non-classical to satisfy oneself. OP, it's great that you have discovered the joy in classical music, but please keep an open mind towards other genres as well. I've actually been able to appreciate other genres coming FROM my love for classical!

Regarding the negativity on this forum, I've also noticed a lot of it. It's really just people arguing to the bitter end about their (often uninformed and slightly pretentious) tastes. That being said, some threads are better than others. The "Current Listening" and "Pieces that have blown you away recently" are generally good ones.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

I don't remember exactly why, I just had to listen to my fathers Mozart lp's ca. 44 years ago. Now I say I'm addicted to sound. If you like metal (I do), you just have to hear this...


----------



## bharbeke (Mar 4, 2013)

I love the melodies and sounds of the instruments used in classical music. It's the same reason I listen to country, rock, etc.

One recording: Tchaikovsky's The Sleeping Beauty by Mikhail Pletnev and the Russian National Orchestra

One YouTube video: 




Liszt's Rigoletto Paraphrase - Adam Gyorgy


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> This is wrong


It is NOT wrong, it is personal opinion only. It is those types of absolute right/wrong statements when they are in fact opinion which cause many of the argumentative threads (probably including this one :lol


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Becca said:


> It is NOT wrong, it is personal opinion only. It is those types of absolute right/wrong statements when they are in fact opinion which cause many of the argumentative threads (probably including this one :lol


Whelp, I suppose we should have a personal opinion warning icon or something. I think it is human nature to spout out personal opinion without prefacing it as such. I don't have an answer, but I can see how I got the reaction, and perhaps I am wrong.


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

MatthewWeflen said:


> Oh, I certainly agree, the negativity serves no good purpose. I just know for my part I wouldn't send a neophyte to something ultra-challenging -- which is not to say it isn't worthwhile, just that having a grounding in the canon first might help. When I taught philosophy, I would not subject students to stuff like Hegel or Derrida without having first exposed them to Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, and the like.


This implies that listening to music is like schoolwork, as if it were equivalent to learning music theory. It's not, and one doesn't have to go through a series of composition courses to appreciate Schoenberg. Not that a little knowledge of theory won't advance music appreciation further... this is even true with Mozart.

Perhaps this is the diff between philosophy and art. As art, music is one of those intellectual pursuits that can be approached from many angles, and appreciated without being practiced.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

philoctetes said:


> This implies that listening to music is like schoolwork, as if it were equivalent to learning music theory. It's not, and one doesn't have to go through a series of composition courses to appreciate Schoenberg. Not that a little knowledge of theory won't advance music appreciation further... this is even true with Mozart.
> 
> Perhaps this is the diff between philosophy and art. As art, music is one of those intellectual pursuits that can be approached from many angles, and appreciated without being practiced.


I'm not trying to say that music appreciation generally is like work, or at least not the appreciation of material like Beethoven or Mozart. I just think that the average uninitiated listener will respond a lot more favorably to something euphonious than to something more difficult (which still may be valuable).

But then, I never viewed philosophy as work, either...


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

MatthewWeflen said:


> But then, I never viewed philosophy as work, either...


Neither did I, until I tried Heidegger's "Being and Time."  I quickly changed jobs and have never regretted it.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> Neither did I, until I tried Heidegger's "Being and Time."  I quickly changed jobs and have never regretted it.


Hegel is where I said "noooope, I'll be sticking with the Greeks, thanks."


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

MatthewWeflen said:


> Hegel is where I said "noooope, I'll be sticking with the Greeks, thanks."


We all have our breaking points where we feel, "I just Kant take any more."


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Becca said:


> It is NOT wrong, it is personal opinion only. It is those types of absolute right/wrong statements when they are in fact opinion which cause many of the argumentative threads (probably including this one :lol


OK, sorry. My bad.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Music shouldn't be work. It should be within you. When I hear something that resonates with me I listen and my emotions respond. If they don't then chances are I don't like it. Why do I like CM? Just listen to the Czech Philharmonic during a Dvorak performance or the BPO playing a Beethoven symphony and if you feel the same way as me the music moved you.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Merl said:


> Music shouldn't be work. It should be within you. When I hear something that resonates with me I listen and my emotions respond. If they don't then chances are I don't like it. Why do I like CM? Just listen to the Czech Philharmonic during a Dvorak performance or the BPO playing a Beethoven symphony and if you feel the same way as me the music moved you.


One of the reasons people love classical music is that it has the capacity to transcend nationalism, even while sometimes extolling it. I do not need to be a Finn for the spirit evoked by _Finlandia_ to resonate within me.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Merl said:


> Music shouldn't be work. It should be within you. When I hear something that resonates with me I listen and my emotions respond. If they don't then chances are I don't like it. Why do I like CM? Just listen to the Czech Philharmonic during a Dvorak performance or the BPO playing a Beethoven symphony and if you feel the same way as me the music moved you.


I agree - not work - but it can take time. Quite a lot of my favourite music didn't resonate with me at first. I never "worked" at it but I did give it several tries. And even music that does resonate with me from the first might take some time to fully deliver what it has to offer. So, not work. But not instant gratification either.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

MatthewWeflen said:


> I only joined recently, but have been quite impressed by some of the negativity on display here.
> 
> So I thought I would try a different tack: why do you enjoy Classical? If someone asked to to explain it to them, what would you say? And if they asked for one (and only one) album to buy, or, alternatively, one YouTube video to view, which one would you recommend to them?


For me, the music that I value the most just happens to be certain classical pieces. Quite a few in fact.

Regarding which YouTube video - Sibelius's 7th Symphony (Lief Segerstam and the Danish National Symphony Orchestra).


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Strange Magic said:


> One of the reasons people love classical music is that it has the capacity to transcend nationalism, even while sometimes extolling it. I do not need to be a Finn for the spirit evoked by _Finlandia_ to resonate within me.


When I hear Sibelius I want to lash myself with birch branches, roll in the snow, and declare independence from Sweden. When I hear Elgar I want to hoist the Union Jack, buy passage to Injah, and sip Beefeater on the verandah of my bungalow. When I listen to Copland I want to wake up and realize that Trump was just a bad dream.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> When I hear Sibelius I want to lash myself with birch branches, roll in the snow, and declare independence from Sweden. When I hear Elgar I want to hoist the Union Jack, buy passage to Injah, and sip Beefeater on the verandah of my bungalow. When I listen to Copland I want to wake up and realize that Trump was just a bad dream.


Indeed, listening to Copland has been difficult over the past two years or so. I turn instead lately to Strauss' Metamorphosen when I want to feel the spirit of the times.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

MatthewWeflen said:


> Indeed, listening to Copland has been difficult over the past two years or so. I turn instead lately to Strauss' Metamorphosen when I want to feel the spirit of the times.


Why would anyone want to feel the spirit of the times? I imagine millions of us are medicating ourselves to avoid doing so. Me, I just come to TC and have pointless debates about atonality.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> Why would anyone want to feel the spirit of the times? I imagine millions of us are medicating ourselves to avoid doing so. Me, I just come to TC and have pointless debates about atonality.


Oh, usually I don't want to feel the spirit of the times. But when I do, it's with Metamorphosen.

Normally I'd prefer to feel the spirit of 1808 ;-)


----------



## Zofia (Jan 24, 2019)

I am impressed if you listen to your teachers at my school it should only be classical music nothing more. Not so here it is nice to see as it agrees with my view. Although 90% of my taste is Classical or Early Music I do like EDM, Techno etc.

Why do I like classical well in my family most are involved with either Science or Music. So nature or nurture I do not know but I like mathematics very much and I like classical music very much I see similarities they appeal to my personality I think.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Zofia said:


> I am impressed if you listen to your teachers at my school it should only be classical music nothing more. Not so here it is nice to see as it agrees with my view. Although 90% of my taste is Classical or Early Music I do like EDM, Techno etc.
> 
> Why do I like classical well in my family most are involved with either Science or Music. So nature or nurture I do not know but I like mathematics very much and I like classical music very much I see similarities they appeal to my personality I think.


Oh yes, classical is a respite from modernity for me. I quite like various pop, rock, and electronic artists. I came from parents with diverse musical tastes.


----------



## Zofia (Jan 24, 2019)

MatthewWeflen said:


> Oh yes, classical is a respite from modernity for me. I quite like various pop, rock, and electronic artists. I came from parents with diverse musical tastes.


I agree ai feel connected to the past with classical. Maybe if more would appreciate it they would take better care for the cultural legacy in Europe and less so America. It is sad to see it replaced with garbage.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Zofia said:


> I agree ai feel connected to the past with classical. Maybe if more would appreciate it they would take better care for the cultural legacy in Europe and less so America. It is sad to see it replaced with garbage.


I am actually somewhat optimistic about this. I think it's easier to get into classical now than it has ever been, with YouTube and streaming services, and anecdotally, interest seems high, at least among people I know.

No other musical genre has lasted 3-400 years with any measure of continued popularity. Something about the music and the form must be speaking to people.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

MatthewWeflen said:


> No other musical genre has lasted 3-400 years with any measure of continued popularity. Something about the music and the form must be speaking to people.


It's worth remembering this whenever you're tempted to feel ashamed of being a cultural snob. (I've never been tempted.)


----------



## Guest (Jan 30, 2019)

MatthewWeflen said:


> No other musical genre has lasted 3-400 years with any measure of continued popularity. Something about the music and the form must be speaking to people.


Which other musical genres were there that were competing with classical for something approaching that length of time and petered out?


----------



## Frank Freaking Sinatra (Dec 6, 2018)

MatthewWeflen said:


> I only joined recently, but have been quite impressed by some of the negativity on display here.


Thank you! - the negativity would have been substantially more impressive had I not been banned for a week but I shall attempt my very best to make up for lost time...

I enjoy music in general whether Medieval, Renaissance, Classical, Romantic, or Contemporaty - whether '50's Pop Vocals or nascent rock and roll or R & B or blues - whether '60's Top 40 or the emergence of every possible qualifier used in front of the word "rock" e.g. folk-rock, blues-rock, country-rock - whether '70's everything from "Have A Nice Day" type pop singles or even disco (which despite its musical shortcomings was great fun and had the added bonus of being able to hold your partner whilst dancing which was sorely missed by me at least as I rather fancied holding women whist dancing and still do come to think of it) and just about everything else that has followed since except for "gangsta rap" which while catchy is difficult to dance to...

My life needs a soundtrack - it makes it sound a hell of a lot more exciting than it actually is - and the great thing about music of all kinds is that it allows me to relive an exact moment of an exact time and thus with the hearing of just one note I can return to a time and place long gone populated by people long lost - sometimes that's a comforting blessing and other times it's a curse of extreme anguish... but that's life, eh?

I actually prefer "Classical" because the wider sound palette leads to a wider range of emotions... even though much like "gangsta rap" while catchy its kind of hard to dance to - and please don't post endless videos of minuets despite however much you're tempted to do so... The minuet is not now nor shall it ever be dancing to "At Last" by Etta James with the person that you love more than life itself... for me it was Ava but I'm not going to go there... not because of heart-break but rather because I want to post a video about a Scots drum and pipe band for MacLeod...


----------



## Frank Freaking Sinatra (Dec 6, 2018)

MacLeod said:


> Which other musical genres were there that were competing with classical for something approaching that length of time and petered out?


The first genre that was competing with classical (and giving it a fairly good run for it's money by the way) for something approaching that length of time (3 to 4 hundred years give or take a month or so) and petered out was street pipe and drum bands specifically those from Glasgow -

Clanadonia performing "The Last of the Glaswegians" -






Now, that's what I call music!


----------



## Guest (Feb 6, 2019)

hi matthew, 
if i were you i would try to get a feeling for classical music thru time: you can consult my blogspot: marcbollansee.blogspot.com 
i list my 100 favourite works; it would be a great starting point for you


----------



## Flamme (Dec 30, 2012)

I wrote this once 'ere...It puts me back into ''normal'' state, an predictable, a ''perfect'' shape of things, order and harmony as opposed to total chaos and destruction of virtues and values of the ''modern'' world...


----------



## Flamme (Dec 30, 2012)

I haven't listened to classical music for months now and when I was faced with crisis and uncertainty it lended a hand, it's not much of a help it cannot just ''change your life'' but it can change the way you look on things, chase away the fog and smog of the everpresent pollutions of all kinds...I have never made a bad or hasty decision while listening to classical music, that's a fact.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Flamme said:


> I wrote this once 'ere...It puts me back into ''normal'' state, an predictable, a ''perfect'' shape of things, order and harmony as opposed to total chaos and destruction of virtues and values of the ''modern'' world...


We are in complete agreement here


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

MacLeod said:


> Which other musical genres were there that were competing with classical for something approaching that length of time and petered out?


Probably very difficult to identify without written scores. Most other musics were handed along by ear and example, and all we know about them are contemporary descriptions, of varying degrees of vagueness. Nobody really knows how old flamenco is, nor Gharnati or Malhun or any number of non-notated musics.


----------



## Guest (Feb 7, 2019)

Strange Magic said:


> Probably very difficult to identify without written scores. Most other musics were handed along by ear and example, and all we know about them are contemporary descriptions, of varying degrees of vagueness. Nobody really knows how old flamenco is, nor Gharnati or Malhun or any number of non-notated musics.


In other words, the post I was replying to was nonsense.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

MacLeod said:


> In other words, the post I was replying to was nonsense.


Please, enlighten me as to the other genres which are more than 400 years old and have multimillion dollar institutions around the world that still pack customers into seats at $50 a pop or more.

I would dearly like to improve my Sense:Nonsense ratio, and you seem like just the expert who might help me.


----------



## Guest (Feb 7, 2019)

MatthewWeflen said:


> Please, enlighten me as to the other genres which are more than 400 years old and have multimillion dollar institutions around the world that still pack customers into seats at $50 a pop or more.


Folk?

https://insights.spotify.com/uk/2015/04/02/loyalest-music-fans-by-genre/http://ukfolkfestivals.co.uk/england.php
https://www.folk.org/
http://www.topeventsusa.com/top-folk-music-festivals-USA.html


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

MacLeod said:


> Folk?
> 
> https://insights.spotify.com/uk/2015/04/02/loyalest-music-fans-by-genre/http://ukfolkfestivals.co.uk/england.php
> https://www.folk.org/
> http://www.topeventsusa.com/top-folk-music-festivals-USA.html


Huh. I must have missed the buildings for the Chicago Folk Orchestra and the New York Folkharmonic. I'll keep my eyes out for them next time.

I guess I also foolishly overlooked those famed million selling folk musicians Anne Folkie Mutter and Folk-Folk Ma.

Point taken.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

MacLeod said:


> Folk?
> 
> https://insights.spotify.com/uk/2015/04/02/loyalest-music-fans-by-genre/http://ukfolkfestivals.co.uk/england.php
> https://www.folk.org/
> http://www.topeventsusa.com/top-folk-music-festivals-USA.html


I hasten to add that "folk" is the best possible answer to this query, and I salute you for coming up with it. There just seems to be something about "classical" that inspires people to pay $500 for a box seat that isn't true of "folk."

My wife called me out for potential question begging (she properly used the term, this is why I married her) in simply defining success in such a way that only "classical" could meet it, as well as restricting genre definitions which have considerable overlap. I don't think I am begging the question here, because the question is narrowly construed as "which forms are as successful as classical over time," which requires using the features of classical music for comparison. But it's still a worthy topic for debate.

Nonetheless, I've never heard of world-renowned folk conductors Leonard Folkstein or Herbert von Folkajan. :tiphat:


----------



## Boychev (Jul 21, 2014)

MatthewWeflen said:


> I hasten to add that "folk" is the best possible answer to this query, and I salute you for coming up with it. There just seems to be something about "classical" that inspires people to pay $500 for a box seat that isn't true of "folk."
> 
> My wife called me out for potential question begging (she properly used the term, this is why I married her) in simply defining success in such a way that only "classical" could meet it, as well as restricting genre definitions which have considerable overlap. I don't think I am begging the question here, because the question is narrowly construed as "which forms are as successful as classical over time," which requires using the features of classical music for comparison. But it's still a worthy topic for debate.
> 
> Nonetheless, I've never heard of world-renowned folk conductors Leonard Folkstein or Herbert von Folkajan. :tiphat:


Well that's not how folk music functions though. First of all it's regional so it will never be as world-famous as classical music, and second of all the focus there is not so much on big performers, or even on recordings, but on actively participating in the culture - by dancing, by singing, by dressing up, by attending festivals. The biggest propagators of folk music nowadays would be folk dance classes, I think. It's about the tradition, not about the worship of genii.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Boychev said:


> Well that's not how folk music functions though. First of all it's regional so it will never be as world-famous as classical music, and second of all the focus there is not so much on big performers, or even on recordings, but on actively participating in the culture - by dancing, by singing, by dressing up, by attending festivals. The biggest propagators of folk music nowadays would be folk dance classes, I think. It's about the tradition, not about the worship of genii.


In keeping with the question of the original post, I am curious as to why there is a difference in how these genres manifest themselves. If "classical" is the province of wealthy elites, film score composers, and so on, _why _is this so? Is it an accident of history, or is it something intrinsic to the genre?


----------



## Haydn70 (Jan 8, 2017)

Why Classical…or to be more precise Western Art Music?

Got any better music? No. Not even close.

It is the greatest music that has been produced in the history of this planet. It is reaches higher, goes deeper than any other music. From aesthetic, expressive and technical perspectives, it is superior to any other music…it is the best.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

Why I like classical music?

Well because it's really so good. The best pieces of classical music give me such a strong, immersive experience, I can be totally immersed in it and lost. And it can be all from very mind stimulating (like when I listen to a Beethoven symphony, I keep playing whole day afterwards various parts of it in my mind, and my brain shifts in higher gear), to really beautiful (like Goldberg variations), to Epic (like Carmina Burana), to really whimsical, triumphant, sad, aggressive, meditative, spiritual all sorts of things.

It can communicate so many different emotions to such a high degree.

It also has a very good replay capabilities, as its complexity allows it to be interesting on 20th hearing as well.


----------



## Guest (Feb 8, 2019)

MatthewWeflen said:


> Nonetheless, I've never heard of world-renowned folk conductors Leonard Folkstein or Herbert von Folkajan. :tiphat:


Nor have I. But then, folk isn't my favourite genre. And I wonder how many of those for whom folk is exclusively theirs, with no knowledge of classical would recognise Karajan or Bernstein? What you and I take for granted is surprisingly unknown outside of classical or "rounded eudcation" circles. As a member of a local quiz team, Steeleye Span and Fairport Convention, Bob Dylan and Donovan are much more likely to come up than even Ludwig Van or Wolfie.



MatthewWeflen said:


> In keeping with the question of the original post, I am curious as to why there is a difference in how these genres manifest themselves. If "classical" is the province of wealthy elites, film score composers, and so on, _why _is this so? Is it an accident of history, or is it something intrinsic to the genre?


Accident of history at least 60%. If you were an aristocrat with time on your hands, money to spend and the Ffoulkes-Smythes to impress, you're more likely to want to showcase your own string quartet than a banjo and fiddle. And obviously, the real aristos had so much more time and money than that, so they afforded real orchestras.


----------



## Guest (Feb 8, 2019)

MacLeod said:


> Bob Dylan


Wait a minute...I think he's pretty well known for folk, isn't he? And then there are the slightly lesser-known artists popularised by their association with either pop or rock - but then we get into genre-defining and crossover.

https://www.ranker.com/list/folk-music-bands-and-musicians/reference

Have you really never heard of any of these?


----------



## Boychev (Jul 21, 2014)

MatthewWeflen said:


> In keeping with the question of the original post, I am curious as to why there is a difference in how these genres manifest themselves. If "classical" is the province of wealthy elites, film score composers, and so on, _why _is this so? Is it an accident of history, or is it something intrinsic to the genre?


The elites liked it because it was (in different ways throughout the different periods) ornate, complex, grandiose, and sensitive (e. g. CPE Bach's "empfindsamer Stil"). So naturally if the entire social order is based around the idea of the aristocracy and clergy being, well, human beings, with the rest of society being comprised of peasants, craftsmen, and merchants who can rarely amount to being much, the ruling classes will prefer music that expresses their dominant social status. Go to any museum where you can see the art of the 17-18. centuries and you'll see a lot of it is comprised of portraits of the aristocracy - because the aristocracy liked to look at itself. It's the same with music. I don't think that's an _accident of history_, I think that's consistent with a materialist conception of history.

I don't know what _intrinsic to the genre_ would mean. The music itself has no meaning outside of its social context. Nowadays classical music is more the province of the academia, the white-collar working class, the small business owners, and the so-called "middle" class of people on various bureaucratic and managerial positions. I don't think nowadays ruling classes are very interested in art music, since nowadays power is more expressed in abstract terms like how big one's net worth is, and how _expensive_ the things they have are, rather than how complex or beautiful they are. Think abstract paintings (not to say that those are bad, I love them) which sell for millions. A Pollock seen in purely aesthetic terms in no way expresses the dominant position a multimillionaire has in society, but the price it has on the market does. Someone like Trump making a spectacle of having a "vulgar" taste also showcases this in a quite novel and postmodern way - so long as you have the bank account and assets to back you up, you can afford to be as vulgar and "low" in your sensibilities as you like, and furthermore ironically synthesize both what once was bad and good taste (think fast food in the White House).

Meanwhile classical music as an ethos speaks to the "middle" classes of people, because they tend to be people brought up with the idea of moving up in society based on your intelligence and skills, unlike the lower classes who rarely have illusions of "social mobility" (and so are more comfortable with simply adopting whatever culture they are surrounded by as their own, and expressing their own tastes and sensibilities through what they spend their leisure time with). So if you're white collar worker you believe you too can one day be part of the ruling class based on your competence. Therefore you care about appearing sophisticated and intelligent, and you want to separate "low culture" from "high culture" (the class connotations are right there in the terms) and simple-minded entertainment from art that "enriches" you.

Blue-collar workers and the unemployed and the rest of the low classes do what they've always done throughout history - struggle to survive and meanwhile listen to whatever they like, be it Wolfgang Amadeus or Waka Flocka Flame. Folk music naturally has a wider audience among that demographic because, well, it's folk.

At least that would be my vulgar attempt at class analysis of the question.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

^^^^I mostly agree with this, though the linkage of socio-economic class to musical preference is becoming weaker all the time as the availability of any sort of music anywhere, any time, becomes more widespread. I heard many sorts of music in my youth at home via radio and recordings and absorbed those I liked like a fish in water. But my love of classical came directly from my mother--she was definitely of working-class background and limited formal schooling. However, she was determined to "rise" socially, and saw that classical music and legitimate theater were both paths of transformation. And yet the means to the end became the ends in themselves, as her acquired love of music and theater were both quite genuine.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Boychev said:


> Meanwhile classical music as an ethos speaks to the "middle" classes of people, because they tend to be people brought up with the idea of moving up in society based on your intelligence and skills, unlike the lower classes who rarely have illusions of "social mobility" (and so are more comfortable with simply adopting whatever culture they are surrounded by as their own, and expressing their own tastes and sensibilities through what they spend their leisure time with). So if you're white collar worker you believe you too can one day be part of the ruling class based on your competence. Therefore you care about appearing sophisticated and intelligent, and you want to separate "low culture" from "high culture" (the class connotations are right there in the terms) and simple-minded entertainment from art that "enriches" you.


Well, when efforts were made to provide education and opportunity to the poorer classes - as happened in the middle of the 20th century in Britain through the unions and as happened in much of the Soviet empire - a proportion of the working classes developed a love for CM. Now the message is covertly or overtly "this is not for you".


----------



## Boychev (Jul 21, 2014)

^I don't know about Britain, but in the Soviet bloc there just wasn't much other music around if you were a music lover. There were some Western jazz musicians who came to play now and then, there were some releases of Anglo-American pop and rock music, there were local "estrada" performers (basically a kind of schlager music) and that was pretty much it. My guess is if you were really passionate about music in the Soviet bloc, you got into it through classical. The music lessons your kid could get and the music-oriented primary and high schools taught classical instruments, solfege, and theory, as far as I know. The bolshieviks were very conservative in their tastes when it came to music (even though modernist architecture, sculpting, and painting had no problem developing here). 

Is the message "this is not for you"? Around here tickets for the local philharmonic are dirt cheap, especially for students. They're only slightly more expensive when some big foreign performer visits. You're bound to spend more money going to a club than for a ticket for listening to a symphony. And I've never met classical listeners in real life who behave the same way some snobs behave on Internet forums and comment sections.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

I have read several accounts of the spread of western classical music, and training for it, throughout contemporary China. China may become, for a while, the central locus for interest in classical music appreciation and performance.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

ArsMusica said:


> Why Classical…or to be more precise Western Art Music?
> 
> Got any better music? No. Not even close.
> 
> It is the greatest music that has been produced in the history of this planet. It is reaches higher, goes deeper than any other music. From aesthetic, expressive and technical perspectives, it is superior to any other music…it is the best.


I like classical music, but not to the point that it overshadows all other music, as above. Music is the expression of being, and as such is tied to human existence. "Genius" is something that someone else can do that I can't. Therefore, we are all geniuses in this relative sense.

So it is with music: classical music can't "groove" like Miles Davis, it can't rock like Led Zeppelin, it can't be the harmonica of Kim Wilson. There are a ton of things classical music _can't_ do.

Learn to appreciate people for what they are, as unique beings who can do things you can't do. And do the same with music.


----------



## Haydn70 (Jan 8, 2017)

ArsMusica said:


> Why Classical…or to be more precise Western Art Music?
> 
> Got any better music? No. Not even close.
> 
> It is the greatest music that has been produced in the history of this planet. It is reaches higher, goes deeper than any other music. From aesthetic, expressive and technical perspectives, it is superior to any other music…it is the best.


An outstanding post...I agree 100%. It is so refreshing to see there are a few people on TC that have standards!


----------



## Guest (Feb 10, 2019)

Haydn70 said:


> An outstanding post...I agree 100%. It is so refreshing to see there are *a few people *on TC that have standards!


Arsmusica certainly expresses a positive view about CM - exactly what this thread is about. It's certainly true that only a few out of the many who subscribe to TC have contributed to this thread, but there were still quite a few: I missed the one who wrote negatively about CM.


----------



## Haydn70 (Jan 8, 2017)

I have read numerous post of yours...you are one of many here who does not believe in objective standards.


----------



## Guest (Feb 10, 2019)

As the post to which I was replying (#88) has been significantly edited, I withdraw my comment.


----------



## Haydn70 (Jan 8, 2017)

MacLeod said:


> Well I'm certainly clear that you have the manners of a troll.


In what way did I exhibit bad manners? As I stated I have read many of your posts. Many of these posts show you to be a relativist. As such, you believe there are no objective standards. As such I was merely stating the truth.


----------



## Guest (Feb 10, 2019)

Haydn70 said:


> In what way did I exhibit bad manners? As I stated I have read many of your posts. Many of these posts show you to be a relativist. As such, you believe there are no objective standards. As such I was merely stating the truth.


Except that isn't what you said in post #88.


----------



## Haydn70 (Jan 8, 2017)

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


----------



## Haydn70 (Jan 8, 2017)

MacLeod said:


> Except that isn't what you said in post #88.


My apologies. You are correct. Post #88 has been edited accordingly.


----------



## Guest (Feb 10, 2019)

Haydn70 said:


> My apologies. You are correct. Post #88 has been edited accordingly.


Thank you - so has my reply.


----------



## Haydn70 (Jan 8, 2017)

MacLeod said:


> Thank you - so has my reply.


Thank you...............


----------



## Guest (Feb 10, 2019)

In the meantime, back to post #87 - you didn't point out who had been writing negatively here about CM, as implied by your "one of the few who" observation.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

The question of the possibility of objective standards is one I find fascinating, but ultimately am agnostic on.

I imagine a future world, in which humans are rebuilding thousands of years after some apocalypse. They come across some fantastic sound system from the past which had been programmed with all of Earth's music. They listen to "Baby" by Justin Bieber, Beethoven's fifth symphony, sitar music from India, and an African tribal dance. Which do they find most compelling? Are there biologically ingrained qualities that predispose them towards one piece? Or will it be an accident of how their culture had evolved?

What if the archive has been found by aliens investigating our extinct species and how we killed ourselves? Assuming they can hear, which piece most moves them? Do they have different emotions from a biological standpoint, and does this influence their choice?


----------



## Haydn70 (Jan 8, 2017)

Haydn70 said:


> An outstanding post...I agree 100%. It is so refreshing to see there are a few people on TC that have standards!


Many thanks, Haydn70. And I really like your username. Haydn is one of my very favorite composers. Bravo!


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

> MatthewWeflen: "The question of the possibility of objective standards is one I find fascinating, but ultimately am agnostic on."


There are all kinds of objective facts about works of music and art. We can state who composed/created them, how long they are, when created, how complex, how big/long they are, what they weigh, what color(s) they are, and so on, almost _ad infinitum_. We can even conduct polls and scientific studies measuring who likes them, or doesn't, or even how much. But only in this sense are there "objective standards". There are no standards otherwise determining who actually likes what, or, more important, who ought to like what. In all sincerity, is there a rule, a standard that tells you, or me, that we must/ought to like something that we don't? Conversely, and something all of us feel quite personally, is there a rule/standard that dictates what we should not like? I repeat: aesthetics is purely personal, and this is just as it should be.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Strange Magic said:


> There are all kinds of objective facts about works of music and art. We can state who composed/created them, how long they are, when created, how complex, how big/long they are, what they weigh, what color(s) they are, and so on, almost _ad infinitum_. We can even conduct polls and scientific studies measuring who likes them, or doesn't, or even how much. But only in this sense are there "objective standards". There are no standards otherwise determining who actually likes what, or, more important, who ought to like what. In all sincerity, is there a rule, a standard that tells you, or me, that we must/ought to like something that we don't? Conversely, and something all of us feel quite personally, is there a rule/standard that dictates what we should not like? I repeat: aesthetics is purely personal, and this is just as it should be.


But still, as I said in another thread, there's great music that provides inspiration for creation of other great music, with influence lasting over centuries. As well as music that doesn't require much musical talent or skills to create. Also there are various types of music that sit somewhere between them in the middle of the spectrum. Anybody who denies this completely seems like a "naked emperor" to me.



hammeredklavier said:


> I think there's no need for us to explain. History will decide what they'll be remembered as.
> Watch what progressive rock can do in centuries of time. I'll be remembering this discussion and looking forward to seeing Genesis becoming known and considered as the "Beethoven" of this era by the future generations.
> 
> http://blogs.springeropen.com/sprin...ata-reveals-classical-music-creation-secrets/
> ...





hammeredklavier said:


> The key is not just to write complexity, but to write complexity in a way that would *inspire* hundreds of thousands of other serious music-makers (people who actually make "music" and able to think clearly about "music") rather than a fandom of half-braindead teenagers who daydream thinking about their idol pop stars "whose music takes no actual musical talent or skills to write", believing they're actually "musicians".
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Strange Magic said:


> There are all kinds of objective facts about works of music and art. We can state who composed/created them, how long they are, when created, how complex, how big/long they are, what they weigh, what color(s) they are, and so on, almost _ad infinitum_. We can even conduct polls and scientific studies measuring who likes them, or doesn't, or even how much. But only in this sense are there "objective standards". There are no standards otherwise determining who actually likes what, or, more important, who ought to like what. In all sincerity, is there a rule, a standard that tells you, or me, that we must/ought to like something that we don't? Conversely, and something all of us feel quite personally, is there a rule/standard that dictates what we should not like? I repeat: aesthetics is purely personal, and this is just as it should be.


Hey, man, I'm with you. In this imagined future, I can totally see these aliens arguing with each other over Bieber vs. Beethoven, based on the individual aliens' emotional responses.

The objective aspect of aesthetics is simply the accumulation of individual subjective opinions. Classical music has achieved a certain critical mass of subjective opinions, one capable of sustaining a commercial industry around it. Things get really dicey when one tries to use one's own subjective standard as a means for evaluating and ranking things in communications to others who don't share those same standards.


----------



## Guest (Feb 11, 2019)

hammeredklavier said:


> But still, as I said in another thread, there's great music that provides inspiration for creation of other great music, with influence lasting over centuries. As well as music that doesn't require much musical talent or skills to create. Also there are various types of music that sit somewhere between them in the middle of the spectrum. Anybody who denies this completely seems like a "naked emperor" to me.


You'll find many who would agree with all of these statements, wholly, or to some degree. But that doesn't mean there are objectively "provable" standards to show which is which.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

> hammeredklavier: "But still, as I said in another thread, there's great music that provides inspiration for creation of other great music, with influence lasting over centuries. As well as music that doesn't require much musical talent or skills to create. Also there are various types of music that sit somewhere between them in the middle of the spectrum. Anybody who denies this completely seems like a "naked emperor" to me."


I'll grant all that, and more. I deny you nothing: influence lasting centuries; inspiration etc. Yet, in the end, it comes down to popularity contests, voting, polling--who likes this, who hates that--and bell curves. And then to your opinion versus mine. It's not about whether the emperor is clothed (and with what) or naked; there is no emperor at all. "There's only you and me, and we just disagree."


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Here are the nine most popular flavors of ice cream right now . . .

Mint chocolate chip, 16% of people say it's their favorite flavor.
Chocolate, 15%
Cookies and cream, 15%
Vanilla, 12%
Butter pecan, 11%
Rocky road, 10%
Strawberry, 10%
Chocolate chip, 5%


----------



## Guest (Feb 11, 2019)

Strange Magic said:


> Here are the nine most popular flavors of ice cream right now . . .
> 
> Mint chocolate chip, 16% of people say it's their favorite flavor.
> Chocolate, 15%
> ...


Well, you're wrong. Mint chocolate chip is not the greatest ice cream ever, whatever your poll says. Personally, I've found strawberry to be far more influential. :devil:


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

MacLeod said:


> Well, you're wrong. Mint chocolate chip is not the greatest ice cream ever, whatever your poll says. Personally, I've found strawberry to be far more influential. :devil:


Vanilla is best.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

You guys are fools. Rainbow sherbet is far more complex and satisfying. The colors! the moods! Everybody who answered your poll is a Philistine whose senses have been deadened to true beauty.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

How did a positive thread get choked up with negative comments about some members and some types of classical music. Doesn't good classical music cure the grumps?


----------

