# The roundabouts of Sisyphus & classical music forums



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

_In Greek mythology *Sisyphus* ... was a king punished by being compelled to roll an immense boulder up a hill, only to watch it roll back down, and to repeat this action forever ...The word "sisyphean" means "endless and unavailing, as labor or a task"._ (from Wikipedia)

Basically, it's like a roundabout where you can't get off, you can't drive away. Like that scene in the Chevy Chase_ American Vacation _film where they're stuck in a roundabout for hours. But all roads lead to Rome, as they say, which is basically a listener's personal bias and taste or perception, etc. (but not many can admit it?).

*So, nominate your favourite arguments of these types, and the types you love to wade into.* Or even maybe the ones that give you gut feeling of being danger signs, and when you know well ahead, the thread will end up being locked.

My ones are Wagner - although I don't know a rat's ar*e about him (ha ha!) - and Modern music. But lately I've been pulling back from that, or at least not getting too emotional about it. Before, it was getting too _sisyphean_, :lol:.

Be aware this thread refers to music only, not politics or religion, etc.!


----------



## Jeremy Marchant (Mar 11, 2010)

Well, the efforts of some of us to inform new posters that not every piece of music is a "song" feel pretty sisyphean.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Ive mentioned this before, but I am a great fan of the philosopher Albert Camus. His essay, 'the Myth of Sisyphus' deals with the meaning and values of life in an existence devoid of absolutes (except death) and god. He concludes:



> "The struggle itself [...] is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy."


If listening to Wagner is a boulder, and I am Sisyphus; then I am certainly happy. The same goes for really all composers.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

The avant-garde music discussion threads usually go around in doughnuts quite well, and get squashed flat towards the end like a doughnut would under all the weights of those chipping in. But at the end of the day, it's often wholly about how the thread's premise presents itself. *StlukesguildOhio's thread** to encourage contemporary art music probably was the most useful thread thus far that I have come across for such purpose. It comes without any high horse prescriptive hallo advice from high priests high on authoritative flatulence, bent on worshipping anything that is written within the last few decades or less automatically qualifying as pure platinum. And I often find the latter group as _the_ most suspicious amongst _any_ posters here keen on sniffing out any mere scent of the English grammar and vocabulary used at attacking contemporary art music, or at least as paranoidly as it appears to them. My advice to them, as some say: "never show your weakness to your enemy, otherwise they will know exactly which buttons of yours to push". 

**this thread:* http://www.talkclassical.com/11807-exploring-modern-contemporary-music.html

Here's the funny Sid James was referring to:-


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

emiellucifuge said:


> Ive mentioned this before, but I am a great fan of the philosopher Albert Camus. His essay, 'the Myth of Sisyphus' deals with the meaning and values of life in an existence devoid of absolutes (except death) and god. He concludes:...


I did not know Camus was a philosopher. But I read his _The Plague_, a novel that does speak to a kind of _Sisyphus_ like situation. Being shut in a town in North Africa that's being ravaged by a disease for which there's no cure. The people die one by one. The town is locked, under quarantine. Quite depressing read. But unfortunately, its a reflection of things metaphorically, on modern existence and all that. But I don't think I'm that deep, to be honest. Well, it's not the thing I usually read, but it was relevant even after about 50 years of its publication.



HarpsichordConcerto said:


> The avant-garde music discussion threads usually go around in doughnuts quite well, and get squashed flat towards the end like a doughnut would under all the weights of those chipping in. But at the end of the day, it's often wholly about how the thread's premise presents itself....My advice to them, as some say: "never show your weakness to your enemy, otherwise they will know exactly which buttons of yours to push".


Well it's the small target thing. But I agree, if the opening post is less inflammatory, so too will be the whole vibe of the thread. Not easy to do sometimes. But we can always try.



> ...
> **this thread:* http://www.talkclassical.com/11807-exploring-modern-contemporary-music.html...


Yes, it did lead me to some things that I want to follow up later. I think it's more constructive than arguing.



> ...
> Here's the funny Sid James was referring to:-....


Well thanks for posting that, I should have posted it myself. The most memorable part of that film for me, even now pretty funny.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

Mozart, Schumann, Lizst - three composers who seem to bring out the Sisyphean worst in people here.

My responses tend to be: I sort of like Mozart, I like Schumann, I don't care much for Liszt. I will occasionally enter these threads to pretty much say that (in a kind of protest that basically, after all the arguments and counter-arguments, it all really comes down to that in the end).


----------



## Klavierspieler (Jul 16, 2011)

^^^ I approve this statement.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Vesteralen said:


> I don't care much for Liszt.


But don't you think this place would be pretty boring if these were the only types of comments made in regard to composers?


----------



## Polyphemus (Nov 2, 2011)

May I propose minimalism, with due deference to devotees of same.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

The near mythic idea that theory, training and technique is all you need to become a successful musician or composer. 
The near mythic idea that one needs no theory, training or technique to become a successful musician or composer.

Trying to use words at all speak meaningfully about any of the abstract and non-verbal and non-representational media (music, visual arts.)

Like someone rightly concluded about Camus' 'Sisyphus' -- we have to accept that Sisyphus is both resigned _and_ happy trying to get that rock to the top of the summit.

I suppose one very apt parallel is endeavoring to be any kind of worthwhile musician or composer, painter, creative artist at all.

Excellence is the summit; trying to get anywhere near, no matter how brilliant, talented and successful the creative endeavor may be, is that boulder which is pushed toward the apex, but never makes it.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Vesteralen said:


> Mozart, Schumann, Lizst - three composers who seem to bring out the Sisyphean worst in people here...


I didn't notice that, I think I haven't gone to those threads, or not recently. I don't see them as that controversial, except maybe the usual accustation of Liszt being_ shallow _and _superficial,_ and Schumann being a _bad orchestrator_. Mozart usually gets less flack in my experience, he's one of those composers who seem to have near-universal admiration (as does J.S. Bach). I say this as a non-groupie or idolator of either of these composers (or of any composer for that matter).


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

tdc said:


> But don't you think this place would be pretty boring if these were the only types of comments made in regard to composers?


It's not that, those comments are okay, but it's when people try to
- Convince eachother that you are right, the other person is wrong
- Try to make such statements into some sort of objective fact
- Say what they are saying in rude and arrogant manner - eg. **** hits the fan
- Goes on and on, _ad nauseum_, with people making like half a dozen or a dozen posts on the same thread


----------



## MaestroViolinist (May 22, 2012)

Sid James said:


> ...and Modern music.


Here's something you might like:


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

MaestroViolinist said:


> Here's something you might like:


Ha ha, looks like James Joyce! Was he a composer...of music, that is?


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

tdc said:


> But don't you think this place would be pretty boring if these were the only types of comments made in regard to composers?


Certainly...I'm a very boring guy....


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

tdc said:


> But don't you think this place would be pretty boring if these were the only types of comments made in regard to composers?


All right...now I'll give this a more serious response.

I only post these kind of innocuous statements when it seems obvious that the thread has deteriorated into two camps warring with each other and each insisting that their viewpoint of a particular composer is more logical/more informed/more thoughtful/more educated, etc etc. when in reality, all it is is a lack of or an excess of an emotional response on the part of the listener.

Poster X expresses an appreciation for Composer A. Poster Y says they don't appreciate Composer A, and here's why. Poster X says Poster Y is full of it. Poster Y restates his opinion in other words and gives a few examples to back it up. Poster X says Poster Y is full of it. Poster Y tries again. Poster X says Poster Y is full of it and starts giving examples of why Composer A is great. Poster Y says Composer A is not that great and gives more examples to prove it, thinking, no doubt, if he/she can keep giving examples he/she is going to get either Poster X or the people who are listening to Poster X to change sides. What Poster Y fails to realize is that Poster X already sees what Poster Y is trying to tell him, but *it doesn't matter *to him/her. He/she doesn't like Composer A because he/she doesn't _*see*_ Composer A's faults - he/she likes Composer A _*in spite of *_his faults. So, the argument just goes on and on and on. Then I come in with my innocuous comment. 

(I will also occasionally post these innocuous statements when I'm feeling uncharacteristically goofy.)


----------



## Polyphemus (Nov 2, 2011)

All praise to the noble art of being Goofy.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Polyphemus said:


> May I propose minimalism, with due deference to devotees of same.


 -- Goofy, verily, indeed.

*May I propose Romanticism, with due deference to devotees of same?*

_What I'm saying is your proposal is ridiculous, non-specific, and does not hold any water at all._ -- all with due deference, of course


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Vesteralen said:


> Mozart, Schumann, Lizst - three composers who seem to bring out the Sisyphean worst in people here.
> 
> My responses tend to be: I sort of like Mozart, I like Schumann, I don't care much for Liszt. I will occasionally enter these threads to pretty much say that (in a kind of protest that basically, after all the arguments and counter-arguments, it all really comes down to that in the end).


Well, in that case let's close this whole place down, it is obviously pointless.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

moody said:


> Well, in that case let's close this whole place down, it is obviously pointless.


Hey, good idea! 

On second thought, better read my last post on the topic where I wimp out even more and attempt to explain myself...


----------



## Polyphemus (Nov 2, 2011)

PetrB said:


> -- Goofy, verily, indeed.
> 
> *May I propose Romanticism, with due deference to devotees of same?*
> 
> _What I'm saying is your proposal is ridiculous, non-specific, and does not hold any water at all._ -- all with due deference, of course




By all means, you may propose what you will. I however rebound the ridiculous to you, in that it should have been obvious that I was expressing the fact that I find minimalism as a sub genre of music to be utterly pointless, in fact positively sisyphean or words to that effect. Can I be more specific than that.
With due deference I hope you are soon cured of your pointless acerbity and realise that this is a free speech forum and that opinions expressed are to be either accepted or rejected or indeed debated in a civilised manner. 
Lighten up its more fun that way.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Polyphemus said:


> ...this is a free speech forum and that opinions expressed are to be either accepted or rejected or indeed debated in a civilised manner...


Yes, as a general point I agree, I like to be able to express things here naturally. Of course it's free speech but everyone has to go by the rules.


----------

