# popularity.



## breakup

Some pieces of music are popular and are played, and listened to a lot. Other pieces are more obscure and are not played, or listened to very often. There is a reason for this, simply the popular pieces are better musically. Some "Experts" will claim that some of the more obscure pieces are better for some obscure reason, but mostly it's a knee-jerk reaction that what is popular can't be as good because the "unsophisticated" general public just doesn't know any better. Music reaches people on a level that has little to do with music education, and more to do with an emotional connection. The popular pieces are the better pieces.


----------



## brotagonist

I am not an expert, so I will add my own naïve  commentary.

I think that popular pieces are probably very fine musically, in general. That's why they are popular and why they have endured. It does not follow that obscure pieces are deficient. Some may be; some are obviously not. Recall that many of the 'greatest' composers and works have languished in obscurity until being rediscovered.


----------



## Balthazar

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I give you the piece of music most popular at the moment and, therefore, the best musically.

*OMI ~ Cheerleader*






Thanks for coming out. We can all go home.


----------



## brotagonist

That's the straight dope


----------



## KenOC

Sin is usually more popular than goodness. Right now Trump is the most popular Republican. Gives pause for thought. 

Vox populi and all that.


----------



## Guest

breakup said:


> Some pieces of music are popular and are played, and listened to a lot. Other pieces are more obscure and are not played, or listened to very often. There is a reason for this, simply the popular pieces are better musically. Some "Experts" will claim that some of the more obscure pieces are better for some obscure reason, but mostly it's a knee-jerk reaction that what is popular can't be as good because the "unsophisticated" general public just doesn't know any better. Music reaches people on a level that has little to do with music education, and more to do with an emotional connection. The popular pieces are the better pieces.


Oh, OK then. If you say so.


----------



## breakup

Balthazar said:


> Ladies and Gentlemen,
> 
> I give you the piece of music most popular at the moment and, therefore, the best musically.
> 
> *OMI ~ Cheerleader*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for coming out. We can all go home.


The music is OK, but it's the girls that make it. Oh, and "most popular with who"? I've never heard it before.


----------



## breakup

MacLeod said:


> Oh, OK then. If you say so.


I do, prove me wrong, if you can.


----------



## breakup

brotagonist said:


> I am not an expert, so I will add my own naïve  commentary.
> 
> I think that popular pieces are probably very fine musically, in general. That's why they are popular and why they have endured. It does not follow that obscure pieces are deficient. Some may be; some are obviously not. Recall that many of the 'greatest' composers and works have languished in obscurity until being rediscovered.
> 
> Last edited by brotagonist; Today at 00:54. Reason: ...*and even lesser pieces can reach people on an emotional level.*


Most music reaches people on an emotional level, 4'33" reaches me on an emotional level, it makes me angry that some ignorant bozo would want me to waste 4 and a half minutes of my life for nothing.


----------



## Balthazar

breakup said:


> The music is OK, but it's the girls that make it. Oh, and *"most popular with who"? * I've never heard it before.


Billboard Hot 100. You must have very rarefied tastes.

I don't have the statistics at hand, but I believe a super-sized Big Mac meal is also the best meal culinarily. :lol:


----------



## brotagonist

It's all falling apart because you're all comparing apples and oranges. If you stick to classical music, where does the argument go?



breakup said:


> Most music reaches people on an emotional level, 4'33" reaches me on an emotional level, it makes me angry that some ignorant bozo would want me to waste 4 and a half minutes of my life for nothing.


Lucky you! You only wasted 4' 33" once


----------



## breakup

Balthazar said:


> Billboard Hot 100. You must have very rarefied tastes.
> 
> I don't have the statistics at hand, but I believe a super-sized Big Mac meal is also the best meal culinarily. :lol:


Does Billboard hot 100 include classical music? I don't listen to much popular music, does that make my music tastes rarefied?

I think you should go out and get a super-sized Big Mac just to prove your culinary superiority, Ill stick with my more simple meals. Usually with food, the less I spend the better it tastes.


----------



## breakup

brotagonist said:


> It's all falling apart because you're all comparing apples and oranges. If you stick to classical music, where does the argument go?
> 
> Lucky you! You only wasted 4' 33" once


How is comparing one genre of music to another apples to oranges? A base player in a rock band once told me that all the licks that were used in rock and other popular music, had their origins in classical music. All music is apparently the same, it's just the tempo that is altered.

No, once I realized what it was I stopped listening, so it was less than a minute that I wasted.


----------



## Art Rock

brotagonist said:


> It's all falling apart because you're all comparing apples and oranges. If you stick to classical music, where does the argument go?


Beethoven composed only a handful of works better than Fuer Elise.
Ravel's masterpiece is Bolero.
Barber made nothing even approaching the quality of Adagio for strings.
Pachelbel's Canon is one of the ultimate best pieces of music.

Have fun believing all that.


----------



## arpeggio

breakup,

FYI: http://www.talkclassical.com/11989-what-your-purpose-coming.html#post135076

Oh no. Another person who thinks that the music he dislikes is bad.


----------



## Guest

breakup said:


> I do, prove me wrong, if you can.


Why would I want to try and shake you from your unshakeable? It's your opinion. I disagree with your opinion, but I can hardly 'prove your opinion wrong', can I?

Now, if you'd like to offer some facts - they can be shown to be right or wrong, and I'll happily consider them.


----------



## Mahlerian

breakup said:


> Some "Experts" will claim that some of the more obscure pieces are better for some obscure reason, but *mostly it's a knee-jerk reaction that what is popular can't be as good* because the "unsophisticated" general public just doesn't know any better.


Do you have any proof that these people think in this way?

There is lots of great music that is also popular.
There is lots of great music that is not popular.
There is lots of mediocre/bad music that is popular.
There is lots of mediocre/bad music that is also not popular.

That's why I don't see much of any correlation whatsoever, positive or negative, between popularity and quality.


----------



## breakup

A few months ago I interviewed for a piano teacher, and when the person in question poo pooed popular musical pieces in favor of more obscure ones that were technically more difficult, as being better, I decided not to go with him as a teacher.


----------



## arpeggio

Hummel is not as popular as Beethoven. I wonder if 'breakup' thinks that Hummel is bad.


----------



## Guest

breakup said:


> A few months ago I interviewed for a piano teacher, and when the person in question poo pooed popular musical pieces in favor of more obscure ones that were technically more difficult, as being better, I decided not to go with him as a teacher.


Who's loss, I wonder?


----------



## KenOC

arpeggio said:


> Hummel is not as popular as Beethoven. I wonder if 'breakup' thinks that Hummel is bad.


You can laff at my Raff, but don't pummel my Hummel!


----------



## arpeggio

breakup said:


> A few months ago I interviewed for a piano teacher, and when the person in question poo pooed popular musical pieces in favor of more obscure ones that were technically more difficult, as being better, I decided not to go with him as a teacher.


Give us a break. You are new here and you hardly know us. You are very presumptuous if you think that 99% of us are like this knucklehead.


----------



## breakup

Mahlerian said:


> Do you have any proof that these people think in this way?
> 
> *There is lots of great music that is also popular.*
> There is lots of great music that is not popular.
> There is lots of mediocre/bad music that is popular.
> There is lots of mediocre/bad music that is also not popular.
> 
> That's why I don't see much of any correlation whatsoever, positive or negative, between popularity and quality.


Based on the criticisms of a few movies that I have seen, the most popular with the general public, get the most criticism, and most of it unwarranted. I am extrapolating the criticism of movies to the criticism of music, but to be honest I have stopped listening to critics in general. I will watch or listen and make my own judgement. I do see the correlation between popularity and quality. Your first statement has the most truth in it.


----------



## breakup

arpeggio said:


> Hummel is not as popular as Beethoven. I wonder if 'breakup' thinks that Hummel is bad.


Post a link to something and I'll decide.


----------



## breakup

arpeggio said:


> breakup,
> 
> FYI: http://www.talkclassical.com/11989-what-your-purpose-coming.html#post135076
> 
> Oh no. Another person who thinks that the music he dislikes is bad.


I like classical music, why else would I come here?


----------



## arpeggio

Oh my goodness. I love all of Tchaikovsky's Symphonies. Since the last three are much more popular than the first three, the first three must really stink. What am I to do?


----------



## breakup

MacLeod said:


> Why would I want to try and shake you from your unshakeable? It's your opinion. I disagree with your opinion, but I can hardly 'prove your opinion wrong', can I?
> 
> Now, if you'd like to offer some facts - they can be shown to be right or wrong, and I'll happily consider them.


LOL, there are no facts that I am aware of, it's all opinion, except for the tickets to concerts that are sold.


----------



## Guest

breakup said:


> Based on the criticisms of a few movies that I have seen, the most popular with the general public, get the most criticism, and most of it unwarranted. I am extrapolating the criticism of movies to the criticism of music, but to be honest I have stopped listening to critics in general. I will watch or listen and make my own judgement. I do see the correlation between popularity and quality. Your first statement has the most truth in it.


If you're talking about movies, and think that "the most popular with the general public, get the most criticism", you might try to broaden your sources. If you look at this list, for example, the top 250 movies voted for by regular IMDB visitors, you'll see that most of the top films are also generally well-received (not that they receive _no _criticism, of course).

http://www.imdb.com/chart/top?ref_=nv_wl_img_3

This does not mean, however, that this also shows that the most popular are also the best.

You might then like to compare the list with this BFI members list from 2012...

http://www.bfi.org.uk/news/50-greatest-films-all-time


----------



## breakup

MacLeod said:


> Who's loss, I wonder?


It would have been a waste of time, I wasn't nearly as good a student as he was a teacher, I just didn't like his attitude.


----------



## arpeggio

breakup said:


> Post a link to something and I'll decide.


You have got to be kidding me. I can not wait to get to orchestra rehearsal in the fall and tell the trumpet section that I ran into a trumpet player who is unfamiliar with Hummel.


----------



## breakup

arpeggio said:


> Give us a break. You are new here and you hardly know us. You are very presumptuous if you think that 99% of us are like this knucklehead.


Not at all, I offered an opinion, I didn't mean it as a criticism of anyone on this forum. You really shouldn't read so much into a post, especially if it isn't there.


----------



## breakup

Wow! 31 posts in just 2 hours, I really must have rubbed you guys the wrong way. Keep up the good work.


----------



## Woodduck

If your statement that the most popular music is the best music is anything more than a completely arbitrary assertion based on nothing, it assumes at a minimum that people can generally recognize quality in music, generally seek to play and listen to music of the highest quality, and have generally had access to the best music that exists.

If you want to make your point convincing, you might want to work on demonstrating the truth of those assumptions.


----------



## Guest

breakup said:


> Some pieces of music are popular and are played, and listened to a lot. Other pieces are more obscure and are not played, or listened to very often. There is a reason for this, simply the popular pieces are better musically. Some "Experts" will claim that some of the more obscure pieces are better for some obscure reason, but mostly it's a knee-jerk reaction that what is popular can't be as good because the "unsophisticated" general public just doesn't know any better. Music reaches people on a level that has little to do with music education, and more to do with an emotional connection. The popular pieces are the better pieces.


"simply the popular pieces are better musically"

What evidence (not opinion or declaration) can you put forward that demonstrates your claimed causal correlation? It must of course be true for ALL classical pieces, if it is a simple, causal link, as you assert.

Or have you changed your mind, mid-thread, and decided it's actually just your subjective opinion?


----------



## Guest

I'd like to thank breakup for prompting me to examine more closely, _Sight and Sound_'s Critics and Directors Poll of Greatest Movies of all time. It's a searchable database, so you can marvel at the fact that 9 movies by Spielberg appear in the top 1000 (including _Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom_), while there is only 1 by Alan J Pakula! (Wot, no _Klute_?)

http://explore.bfi.org.uk/sightandsoundpolls/2012/film


----------



## Tedski

breakup said:


> I do, prove me wrong, if you can.


But you have not proven your point, yet.:tiphat:


----------



## Guest

Tedski said:


> But you have not proven your point, yet.:tiphat:


You need to choose which of breakup's posts to read: the ones that talk of "proof" OR the ones that talk of "opinion." Then you won't feel like you're trying to grab a slippery eel!


----------



## Ingélou

I agree that because a piece is popular and played to death, it doesn't mean that there's something inherently naff in the actual music. It could be 'really good stuff', like Beethoven's Fifth, Vivaldi's Four Seasons, or the 1812 Overture, all of which I like and think are good, but which regularly get sneered at on Talk Classical.

But if something is popular it could also simply mean that it's 'in fashion', and there are some pretty daft fashions. Or it could mean that there's something striking about it, but that doesn't translate to being 'of a higher order musically' - or not necessarily.

As Taggart & I were driving back from Banham Zoo yesterday, we played a compilation of lollipops from the BBC Proms Concerts. It included John Philip Sousa's 'Liberty Bell', the march that became Monty Python's Theme Music;




As that bit with the bell came in, I remarked to Tag: 'This is great fun!' 
It's so clever, the way the bell changes tone (on our proms version), and fits in with the other tunes. But I don't really *like* the tune per se, and I don't think it's great or subtle music.

Popular, though - or was. Actually, marches have somewhat 'gone out', and are often played to be laughed at, rather than appreciated.

So I don't (completely) agree with the OP :tiphat:, though I do think that the topic could be interesting, so long as it's a question of discussion rather than assertion.


----------



## KenOC

I think there's some truth in the OP's assertion. How many pieces that we consider "great" haven't proved their worth by their popularity over a long time? And how many "not so great" pieces have faded and even been lost due to a lack of enduring popularity?

Compared with more evanescent forms of music, like pop, it's largely a matter of time scale. One of these days, though, the most hard-bitten of us may realize that some of the Beatles, Stones, or Pink Floyd's work is "great music." Or, of course, maybe not.


----------



## Proms Fanatic

I think OP is thinking in too much of a "black and white" way about this whilst also committing a logical fallacy.

It's probably true that most popular works _are_ 'great' by some definition. However it does not follow that all unpopular works are not great.

Bach was not recognised as a particularly gifted composer in his time - he was just one of many average schmucks. Now his work stands above all those from his time. He was unpopular for a long time - did that make his music not great?


----------



## breakup

dogen said:


> Then you won't feel like you're trying to grab a *slippery eel*!


Can I put that on my resume?


----------



## breakup

breakup said:


> Some pieces of music are popular and are played, and listened to a lot. Other pieces are more obscure and are not played, or listened to very often. There is a reason for this, simply the popular pieces are better musically. Some "Experts" will claim that some of the more obscure pieces are better for some obscure reason, but mostly it's a knee-jerk reaction that what is popular can't be as good because the "unsophisticated" general public just doesn't know any better. Music reaches people on a level that has little to do with music education, and more to do with an emotional connection. *The popular pieces are the better pieces.*


If you will note, at no time have I said that unpopular pieces were not good, just that they were probably "not as good" as the more popular pieces. Don't get your nose out of joint over something that I didn't say, don't infer something that I didn't say.


----------



## SixFootScowl

arpeggio said:


> breakup,
> 
> FYI: http://www.talkclassical.com/11989-what-your-purpose-coming.html#post135076
> 
> Oh no. Another person who thinks that the music he dislikes is bad.


On that note, I remember seeing a bumper sticker that read,

"I HATE THE MUSIC YOU LISTEN TO."

I thought, what if someone who listens to the same music he listens to reads it?

That sticker is almost as bad as the one, "It's a Jeep Thing. You Wouldn't Understand."


----------



## Celloman

Ravel's _Bolero_ is much more popular than Berg's _Lulu_. Therefore, _Bolero_ is better.

Oh, that's completely logical.


----------



## MrTortoise

breakup said:


> Wow! 31 posts in just 2 hours, I really must have rubbed you guys the wrong way. Keep up the good work.


Naw, it's just popular


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> Compared with more evanescent forms of music, like pop, it's largely a matter of time scale. *One of these days, though, the most hard-bitten of us may realize that some of the Beatles, Stones, or Pink Floyd's work is "great music."* Or, of course, maybe not.


I think I was bitten harder than you were.


----------



## breakup

MrTortoise said:


> Naw, it's just popular


Are you saying I'm popular? Should I take that as a compliment?


----------



## Proms Fanatic

The perpetual problem with threads like this is that adjectives like "great" are so vague and subjective. 

You could quite easily define "great" as "being popular with the public over a considerable period of time", in which case the OP is correct - the "great" works are the popular ones!


----------



## breakup

Celloman said:


> Ravel's _Bolero_ is much more popular than Berg's _Lulu_. Therefore, _Bolero_ is better.
> 
> Oh, that's completely logical.


No, I just listened to bits of Lulu, and that is a fair assessment. Some works should be obscure.


----------



## Art Rock

arpeggio said:


> Oh no. Another person who thinks that the music he dislikes is bad.


Page 1, spot on.


----------



## MrTortoise

breakup said:


> Are you saying I'm popular? Should I take that as a compliment?


Just having fun, I don't take threads that deal with what is best or great too seriously.


----------



## Mahlerian

breakup said:


> No, I just listened to bits of Lulu, and that is a fair assessment. Some works should be obscure.


Lulu is not in the least obscure. It's in the standard operatic repertory, and the suite adapted from it is also performed pretty frequently.


----------



## breakup

Proms Fanatic said:


> The perpetual problem with threads like this is that adjectives like "great" are so vague and subjective.
> 
> You could quite easily define "great" as "being popular with the public over a considerable period of time", in which case the OP is correct - the "great" works are the popular ones!


Terms like "Great" are quite subjective and often have different qualities depending on the subject, just as my description of "better than" can have different meanings to different people, though I did try to narrow it down to "Musically". The other problem is that different music can be popular with different groups of people, I don't always appreciate my daughters choice of "music". and it is especially true when you are referencing the music of different countries, that are completely different styles and formats.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

I like how all of us here get so defensive when it comes to "our" composer being put down for being obscure. 

Are any of you all bitter about when some favorite composer or work is "neglected"? What is just and unjust anyhow? Does it all really matter? Should your self-esteem be wrapped up in the respect of a composer?

Only a few things matter to me on this topic:

1. The music doesn't need fame. But it needs love.
2. The appropriate level of love should be only determined by individuals and not a whole society's impression of it
3. The music's only true harm is not false accusation against it (because it will eventually stand tall against anything like that), but omission of it from history. Music cannot be loved if it cannot be known. Hence the performance and recording of obscure works is what's so important for "neglected" music today.

It's ok that my favorite composers are obscure. What's not ok is that their music is hard to find, or isn't even recorded in some instances. It just follows usually that as soon as a piece or composer comes to light, it will eventually gain proper momentum as it is shared between individuals, and this can cause a chain reaction towards what people call fame. Any piece of music has this potential.


----------



## breakup

Mahlerian said:


> Lulu is not in the least obscure. It's in the standard operatic repertory, and the suite adapted from it is also performed pretty frequently.


From the little that I heard, it wouldn't be on my listening list.


----------



## breakup

MrTortoise said:


> Just having fun,* I don't take threads that deal with what is best or great too seriously.*


 And Neither do I.


----------



## TurnaboutVox

Mahlerian said:


> There is lots of great music that is also popular.
> There is lots of great music that is not popular.
> There is lots of mediocre/bad music that is popular.
> There is lots of mediocre/bad music that is also not popular.





breakup said:


> Your first statement has the most truth in it.


Mmm, I don't think he was offering these as alternatives for you to decide which was truest...


----------



## breakup

Huilunsoittaja said:


> I like how all of us here get so defensive when it comes to "our" composer being put down for being obscure.
> 
> Are any of you all bitter about when some favorite composer or work is "neglected"? What is just and unjust anyhow? Does it all really matter? Should your self-esteem be wrapped up in the respect of a composer?
> 
> Only a few things matter to me on this topic:
> 
> 1. The music doesn't need fame. But it needs love.
> 2. The appropriate level of love should be only determined by individuals and not a whole society's impression of it
> 3. The music's only true harm is not false accusation against it (because it will eventually stand tall against anything like that), but omission of it from history. Music cannot be loved if it cannot be known. Hence the performance and recording of obscure works is what's so important for "neglected" music today.
> 
> It's ok that my favorite composers are obscure. What's not ok is that their music is hard to find, or isn't even recorded in some instances. It just follows usually that as soon as a piece or composer comes to light, it will eventually gain proper momentum as it is shared between individuals, and this can cause a chain reaction towards what people call fame. Any piece of music has this potential.


One thing that seems to be lacking in the world today is tolerance. Not that everyone should be expected to like what everyone else likes, but to allow that others like something different. It's really OK that others want to listen to music that I don't like, but I think it's a bit rude when they play it loudly where I can't avoid hearing it as well. I often wonder what the reaction would be if I were driving in my car, with the windows down, playing Opera very loudly. Right now I drive a pickup truck and I don't even have a radio in it, just a hole in the dash board, so that is not an option. Years ago my father got a theater speaker and hooked it up to a powerful amp and record player, set it outside aimed at the town and played Christmas music in season. Several people said they could hear it down town, about a half a mile away and over the edge of a hill. No-one complained.


----------



## breakup

TurnaboutVox said:


> Mmm, I don't think he was offering these as alternatives for you to decide which was truest...


That could be true, but he didn't exclude me from choosing.


----------



## norman bates

I wonder... Bach isn't been very popular for a very long time (in his time he wasn't certainly famous as composers like Thelemann), and now he's one of the most famous composers of all time. That means that after he died his music was bad but at some point its value incresead?


----------



## Dr Johnson

Are we allowed a luxury object?

Oh dear, hang on a moment......


----------



## Triplets

breakup said:


> I do, prove me wrong, if you can.


It's your assertion that popular pieces are better. The burden of proof is on you to prove the assertion.


----------



## Guest

Triplets said:


> It's your assertion that popular pieces are better. The burden of proof is on you to prove the assertion.


There'll be a teapot soon won't there.


----------



## Dim7

gogogogo goblin goblin goblingoh


----------



## norman bates

Dim7 said:


> gogogogo goblin goblin goblingoh


it sounds like the theme of Rocky Joe


----------



## breakup

norman bates said:


> I wonder... Bach isn't been very popular for a very long time (in his time he wasn't certainly famous as composers like Thelemann), and now he's one of the most famous composers of all time. That means that after he died his music was bad but at some point its value incresead?


Yea, it's really funny how bad music can get better over the years?


----------



## breakup

dogen said:


> There'll be a teapot soon won't there.


I thought we were already in it?


----------



## Woodduck

Celloman said:


> Ravel's _Bolero_ is much more popular than Berg's _Lulu_. Therefore, _Bolero_ is better.
> 
> Oh, that's completely logical.


I think it's the responsibility of all champions of the best in classical music to remind any neophytes who still enjoy pieces of music with clever, infectious melodies, superb orchestration, and easily comprehended structures - pieces such as _Bolero_ - that they must learn to view the popularity of such music with skepticism, try to suppress their enjoyment (or at least have the good taste and consideration of the feelings of others to keep it to themselves), and speak of such pieces, if they must, with a studied roll of the eyes and a subtle lift of the upper lip. These innocents must also learn that, if they ever want full membership in the fellowship of Appreciators of Greatness in Music, they must be prepared to state publicly and with informed conviction that _Lulu_ is one of the greatest operas ever written, and be able to sing extended passages from it in the shower.

I must confess that I've resigned myself to falling forever short of deserving membership in this fellowship. And with all due respect such as a gentleman should pay to that sociopathic nymphette of easiest virtue, her morally atrophied admirers who think with their gonads and get exactly what they deserve, and the intricately contrived blend of gutter sensuality and tuneless yammering whose arcane dodecaphonic and palindromic architecture is perceptible only to those who have brought a score, an explanatory essay, and a miner's helmet to the opera house...Ravel sounds much more agreeable in the shower than Berg. Unless of course your showers are directed by Alfred Hitchcock.

But wait...Isn't Hitchcock the most popular film director of all time?

Obviously someone needs to do something about that.


----------



## breakup

MacLeod said:


> Oh, OK then. If you say so.





Triplets said:


> It's your assertion that popular pieces are better. The burden of proof is on you to prove the assertion.


But you already accepted it without proof.


----------



## breakup

Woodduck said:


> I think it's the responsibility of all champions of the best in classical music to remind any neophytes who still enjoy pieces of music with clever, infectious melodies, superb orchestration, and easily comprehended structures - pieces such as _Bolero_ - that they must learn to view the popularity of such music with skepticism, try to suppress their enjoyment (or at least have the good taste and consideration of the feelings of others to keep it to themselves), and speak of such pieces, if they must, with a studied roll of the eyes and a subtle lift of the upper lip. *These innocents must also learn that, if they ever want full membership in the fellowship of Appreciators of Greatness in Music, they must be prepared to state publicly and with informed conviction that Lulu is one of the greatest operas ever written, and be able to sing extended passages from it in the shower.*
> 
> *I must confess that I've resigned myself to falling forever short of deserving membership in this fellowship.* And with all due respect such as a gentleman should pay to that sociopathic nymphette of easiest virtue, her morally atrophied admirers who think with their gonads and get exactly what they deserve, and the intricately contrived blend of gutter sensuality and tuneless yammering whose arcane dodecaphonic and palindromic architecture is perceptible only to those who have brought a score, an explanatory essay, and a miner's helmet to the opera house...Ravel sounds much more agreeable in the shower than Berg. Unless of course your showers are directed by Alfred Hitchcock.
> 
> But wait...Isn't Hitchcock the most popular film director of all time?
> 
> Obviously someone needs to do something about that.


I'll pass as well. And I used to watch Hitchcock when it was on, in spite of how bad it was.


----------



## Dr Johnson

dogen said:


> _There'll be a teapot soon won't there_


Unless _Curiosity_ knocked it out of whack....


----------



## TurnaboutVox

breakup said:


> Some pieces of music are popular and are played, and listened to a lot. Other pieces are more obscure and are not played, or listened to very often. There is a reason for this, simply the popular pieces are better musically. Some "Experts" will claim that some of the more obscure pieces are better for some obscure reason, but mostly it's a knee-jerk reaction that what is popular can't be as good because the "unsophisticated" general public just doesn't know any better. Music reaches people on a level that has little to do with music education, and more to do with an emotional connection. The popular pieces are the better pieces.





breakup said:


> I do see the correlation between popularity and quality.


But, breakup, is it not possible that several things are in play here?

Perhaps some music becomes popular when it is accessible, or when the composer is already well known (surely an indisputable factor in the popularity of some 'pop' music over other other 'pop' songs), or when it responds or corresponds to current events which capture the public's imagination - or any combination of these and other factors.

Now, I'm not going to argue against the proposition that some popular classical music is, and remains, popular because it is good music, but equally I can think of quite a lot of classical music I consider both good and accessible that is not popular because the majority of the general public just don't know about it or the composer.

Then again there is music I consider very good that I think would have little popular appeal to the general public. Clearly there are parallels in visual art, television programming, cinema, novels, theatre etc.

One of the factors which I think has a major effect on popularity is whether the work of art tends to evoke pleasant or unsettling, even unpleasant feelings, or comforting versus challenging thoughts, in the people who experience it. And I think that we as human beings tend either to seek contact with, and understanding of, unpleasant feelings, or to escape from them (and perhaps even criticise or condemn cultural experience that evokes them).

A good example not infrequently encountered here on TC is a feeling that Shostakovich's e.g. string quartets are dark and depressing. Some people tend to dislike this experience and the music, whilst others, including myself, have a more positive response. I find myself relatively comfortable with feelings of sadness and despair, and so can enjoy an artistic experience which puts me in touch with, say, grief over losses in my own life. This is to simplify things for the purpose of making an argument, obviously.


----------



## norman bates

breakup said:


> Yea, it's really funny how bad music can get better over the years?


ah ok, you're just trolling!


----------



## Blancrocher

Woodduck said:


> Ravel sounds much more agreeable in the shower than Berg.


When listening to Bolero in the shower, I often start the water at an intermittent trickle and gradually increase the pressure.


----------



## Woodduck

Blancrocher said:


> When listening to Bolero in the shower, I often start the water at an intermittent trickle and gradually increase the pressure.


:lol: :tiphat: ..............


----------



## breakup

TurnaboutVox said:


> But, breakup, is it not possible that several things are in play here?
> 
> Then again there is music I consider very good that I think would have little popular appeal to the general public. Clearly there are parallels in visual art, television programming, cinema, novels, theatre etc.
> 
> One of the factors which I think has a major effect on popularity is whether the work of art tends to evoke pleasant or unsettling, even unpleasant feelings, or comforting versus challenging thoughts, in the people who experience it.


Yes, music and all art touches people on many levels. I hope you don't mind that I edited your post, but this is the section I wanted to respond to. Many years ago I would hear the song "The days of Wine and Roses" and enjoyed listening to what I perceived as a very nice song. Then I saw the movie, and now I can't comfortably listen to the song. The same applies to "Madam Butterfly", after I listened to it with the libretto in hand. I then decided that I would only follow the Libretto's of comic Operas. The common theme that got to me was that of the parent and child. I still feel that they are both good music, but the emotional content is just too much, I will not watch the movie again or follow the Libretto of a tragedy again.

BTW, I watched "Gianni Schicchi" with subtitles and enjoyed it a lot.

I have not encountered many people, who do not regularly listen to classical music, that are familiar with Chopin's "Trauermarsch". I play the middle section, but the first and 3rd only enough for people to recognize it, but most do not. I read a comment that Chopin intended the middle section to be more upbeat, so that is the way I play it.


----------



## breakup

norman bates said:


> ah ok, you're just trolling!


Not really, just a reply in kind.


----------



## breakup

Dr Johnson said:


> Are we allowed a luxury object?
> 
> Oh dear, hang on a moment......


Is it an Island with electricity?


----------



## Celloman

breakup said:


> I still feel that they are both good music, but the emotional content is just too much, I will not watch the movie again or follow the Libretto of a tragedy again.
> 
> BTW, I watched "Gianni Schicchi" with subtitles and enjoyed it a lot.


So, you won't listen to a tragedy because it's too "emotional"? Tragedy has the ability to touch the human experience in a way that comedy cannot. We relate to the characters on many different levels and can sympathize with them, and this can become a cathartic experience rather than a painful one. It reveals our deepest weaknesses and fears and enables us to face them rather than to ignore them.


----------



## norman bates

breakup said:


> Not really, just a reply in kind.


Mine was logic objection. Bach was not popular at all, and now he's one of the most popular composers ever. At the same time Thelemann was the most popular musician of his time and now his name is known only to very few persons. If your measure of value is popularity, then you have to explain why the popularity of the same music changes with time.


----------



## breakup

norman bates said:


> Mine was logic objection. Bach was not popular at all, and now he's one of the most popular composers ever. At the same time Thelemann was the most popular musician of his time and now his name is known only to very few persons. * If your measure of value is popularity, then you have to explain why the popularity of the same music changes with time.*


Sorry, but I don't see that in my contract.


----------



## breakup

Celloman said:


> So, you won't listen to a tragedy because it's too "emotional"? Tragedy has the ability to touch the human experience in a way that comedy cannot. We relate to the characters on many different levels and can sympathize with them, and this can become a cathartic experience rather than a painful one. It reveals our deepest weaknesses and fears and enables us to face them rather than to ignore them.


I understand that some people want to indulge in a bit of therapy, but I choose not to, but it's OK with me if others want to do it. Is it really so important to face and conquer our fears, if they are having no effect on our lives? If your fears are controlling or effecting your life in some way, then yes you should deal with them, but if not, "Let a Sleeping Dog Lie".


----------



## norman bates

breakup said:


> Sorry, but I don't see that in my contract.


It's hard to believe that you're not trolling but it's not a contract: if you can't explain that it simply means that you're completely wrong.


----------



## EdwardBast

Blancrocher said:


> When listening to Bolero in the shower, I often start the water at an intermittent trickle and gradually increase the pressure.


Once, a bassoonist named Lola and I decided to share an apartment and before moving in, my partner in cohabitation introduced herself to the elderly woman who would be living above us, and I went along. Lola informed Evelyn that she was a bassoonist and that she hoped she wouldn't mind her practicing downstairs at reasonable hours of the day. Evelyn said: "Oh, that's no problem. I love the bassoon - as long as you don't play that f-----g Bolero!" I have no idea how she felt about _Lulu_, but I have a marginally relevant anecdote: My friend Pete, a retired teacher, while serving dessert to a gathering of relatives and friends, was addressed by his son-in-law Rich about the naming of his impending daughter: "So, Pete, we're thinking of naming her Lulu." Pete, deadpan and with perfect timing, responded: "Well, sure Rich, that'll be her stripper name, but what are you going to call her around the house?" The lucky darling was named Elizabeth a few weeks later.


----------



## DaveM

Popularity is such a broad topic. Many clasical pieces that are popular to the masses because they have appeared in movies (eg. Fantasia, many movies of the 1940-50s) or cartoons -think Fuer Elise, Brahms Lullaby, Beethoven's 5th Symph opening, Rossini's Figaro Aria etc.- are probably not regular listening by most of those of us here. 

Most people who have some limited exposure to classical music are completely unaware of the truly most popular works that get frequent references in forums such as this (eg. A very long thread in another forum on the best version of Beethoven's #32 piano sonata).


----------



## breakup

norman bates said:


> It's hard to believe that you're not trolling but it's not a contract:* if you can't explain that it simply means that you're completely wrong.*


I don't see the connection between a lack of explanation and the correctness of a statement.

Also, I'm probably not qualified to comment on this because I am familiar with both composers.


----------



## norman bates

breakup said:


> I don't see the connection between a lack of explanation and the correctness of a statement.


this is a DISCUSSION (a discussion you've opened by the way), so the fact that in a discussion you don't want to reply to a question and you try to use a weird sort of irony seems a big clue that you don't know how to answer to that.
You say that the value of a musician or a piece of music is in his popularity. Than it means that a piece that it's not popular and after a while became very popular has at first not value at all, and then after a certain amount of time it magically has a lot of value. That's the absurdity implied by what you're saying.


----------



## KenOC

norman bates said:


> ...Than it means that a piece that it's not popular and after a while became very popular has at first not value at all, and then after a certain amount of time it magically has a lot of value. That's the absurdity implied by what you're saying.


Not so absurd. In real life, that's exactly what "value" means. A diamond has exactly the value we place on it. Intrinsically, it's no more valuable than a shard of glass.


----------



## breakup

norman bates said:


> this is a DISCUSSION (a discussion you've opened by the way),


I made a post, I didn't oblige myself to answer everyone who responds.


----------



## echmain

Some pieces of music are popular and are played, and listened to a lot. Other pieces are more obscure and are not played, or listened to very often. There is a reason for this, simply the unpopular pieces are better musically. Some "Experts" will claim that some of the more popular pieces are better for some obscure reason, but mostly it's a knee-jerk reaction that what is unpopular can't be as good because the "sophisticated" general public just doesn't know any better. Music reaches people on a level that has little to do with music education, and more to do with an emotional connection. The unpopular pieces are the better pieces.


----------



## TurnaboutVox

breakup said:


> Many years ago I would hear the song "The days of Wine and Roses" and enjoyed listening to what I perceived as a very nice song. Then I saw the movie, and now I can't comfortably listen to the song. [...] The common theme that got to me was that of the parent and child. I still feel that they are both good music, but the emotional content is just too much, I will not watch the movie again or follow the Libretto of a tragedy again.





breakup said:


> I understand that some people want to indulge in a bit of therapy, but I choose not to, but it's OK with me if others want to do it. Is it really so important to face and conquer our fears, if they are having no effect on our lives? If your fears are controlling or effecting your life in some way, then yes you should deal with them, but if not, "Let a Sleeping Dog Lie".


Well, but consider this: you can see that something about a theme of parent and child is 'too much', and you have decided not to expose yourself again to certain artworks as a result. The effect might not be to trigger an overt 'problem' (in the sense I think you might mean it) but is it not a problem that you are having to restrict your artistic experience because of this? And are you really so sure this will not also have an effect elsewhere in your inner and outer life (managing feelings and relationships, for example)


----------



## norman bates

KenOC said:


> Not so absurd. In real life, that's exactly what "value" means. A diamond has exactly the value we place on it. Intrinsically, it's no more valuable than a shard of glass.


Personally I see artistic and commercial value as different things. I guess that from a certain point of view even artistic value (or things like beauty) don't exist at all and Justin Bieber is better than Bach just because today he is more popular, but while I'm for a good relativism (artistic value certainly is debatable) I'm not for a so extremely nihilistic view.


----------



## Lord Lance

Since Raff's Fantasiestuck, Op. 86, No. 1 and Duo for Cello and Piano are obscure are rarely heard, therefore the vast majority of listeners and the general population are idiots.


There, case closed!


----------



## Vesteralen

.....an experiment in how to remain emotionally detached in a potentially emotionally involving situation, l guess. Is that what this is all about?


----------



## breakup

echmain said:


> Some pieces of music are popular and are played, and listened to a lot. Other pieces are more obscure and are not played, or listened to very often. There is a reason for this, simply the unpopular pieces are better musically. Some "Experts" will claim that some of the more popular pieces are better for some obscure reason, but mostly it's a knee-jerk reaction that what is unpopular can't be as good because the "sophisticated" general public just doesn't know any better. Music reaches people on a level that has little to do with music education, and more to do with an emotional connection. The unpopular pieces are the better pieces.


Nice, but can you prove it.


----------



## Bulldog

Popularity can be measured to a degree; quality cannot be measured. So, trying to find a positive or negative correlation between the two is futile.


----------



## mmsbls

I've long thought about the idea that popularity could indicate, if not greatness, at least superior works. In the arts, how can one argue that a work that is extremely popular is not, in some sense, a superior work? Arts are meant to strongly affect people. If large numbers of people find a particular work wonderful, the work has indeed strongly affected many people in a positive way. I know people here will then ask if Justin Bieber's _Baby_ (I had to look that up) is superior to Beethoven's 32nd Piano Sonata. I would say the comparison must be to comparable works.

One should not compare the popularity of _Baby_ to Beethoven. One should compare Beethoven to other composers of his era. Or maybe even his 32nd Piano Sonata to a Hummel, Mozart, or Spohr Sonata. And the comparison ought to be between works that are known (admittedly sometimes hard to do). Saying that the Moonlight Sonata is better than Stockhausen's Gruppen because the Moonlight is more popular doesn't quite count because so many who adore the Moonlight have presumably never heard Gruppen or probably any Stockhausen.

Obviously it would be very hard to properly compare dissimilar works because people have vastly different listening histories. But if one determines that many more people, who have heard both, like or listen to Mozart's 41st Symphony than Mozart's 31st Symphony, I think that, _in some reasonable sense_, one can say the 41st is a better work. Better in the sense that the 41st affects many more people positively. One may not care, but I think it's not unreasonable to consider a very well defined sense of popularity as indicative of a work's value. Of course one could also view other attributes of the work relevant to its value as well.


----------



## mmsbls

A general comment: We view calling another member a troll or stating that a post constitutes trolling as a violation of the Terms of Service.



> Do not post comments about other members person or »posting style« on the forum (unless said comments are unmistakably positive). Argue opinions all you like but do not get personal and never resort to »ad homs«.


If you feel someone is trolling, please report that post or PM a moderator. Please do not post an accusation on the forum. Some posts have been removed.


----------



## breakup

TurnaboutVox said:


> Well, but consider this: you can see that something about a theme of parent and child is 'too much', and you have decided not to expose yourself again to certain artworks as a result. The effect might not be to trigger an overt 'problem' (in the sense I think you might mean it)* but is it not a problem that you are having to restrict your artistic experience because of this?* And are you really so sure this will not also have an effect elsewhere in your inner and outer life (managing feelings and relationships, for example)


You seem to be suggesting that a person who appreciates music should get to every concerts they can, and listen to all genre's of music. In the same way a person who appreciates paintings should view all paintings, no matter who paints them, or what the subject. I think that most people restrict their listening and viewing to those pieces that they are likely to enjoy, I don't make an effort to see every movie that comes out, but you seem to be suggesting that if a person goes to the movies they should see everything that comes out. I don't think that is very realistic, and yes I restrict my listening and viewing to the things I anticipate that I will like. Sometimes I watch a movie that I have seen before, or listen to music that I have heard before, and I don't watch or listen to the ones that I didn't like, or anticipate that I won't like. Sometimes it only takes a few bars of a piece of music, for me to decide the music is not for me. So if a piece of music, painting, or movie is disturbing, or I just don't like it, I don't see why I should see it or listen to it again.


----------



## Celloman

breakup said:


> Nice, but can you prove it.


You've claimed that the quality of a piece is determined by its popularity. Most people, to my knowledge, have disagreed with you. They have provided strong, intelligent arguments based on many years of experience. So far, you have not made any effort to defend yourself and neither will you be able to because, although you may have good intentions, there isn't the slightest basis of truth in what you have said.

What makes one piece of music better than another? The fact that it resonates with more people? Since a relatively small number of people listen to Elliott Carter, does that make him bad?


----------



## Tedski

Ingélou said:


> But if something is popular it could also simply mean that it's 'in fashion', and there are some pretty daft fashions. Or it could mean that there's something striking about it, but that doesn't translate to being 'of a higher order musically' - or not necessarily.
> 
> So I don't (completely) agree with the OP :tiphat:, though I do think that the topic could be interesting, so long as it's a question of discussion rather than assertion.


A couple of nights ago, while driving to work and listening to WRR Dallas, I heard a piece, the composer of which I was having trouble identifying. First it sounded like Beethoven; then it sounded like Mozart. I found out it was someone I had never heard of, Ignaz Pleyel (1757-1831).

Over a 20-year period, from 1780-1800, Pleyel was the most popular musician in the world. Not only was he known across Europe, but also in America, where the Pleyel Society was formed on Nantucket Island. He was a rock star of that era. So his must be some of the greatest music ever written. Right? Yet, he is virtually unknown today, with his works rarely performed or recorded. So his music must not be worth diddly squat. Right?

Perhaps breakup will be able to set the record straight, with the gospel truth of the matter.


----------



## Becca

When it comes to classical music popularity there is often a vicious cycle at work. The orchestras do not schedule works because they are concerned that audiences won't pay to come hear them because they are unfamiliar with the music. The audiences, at least the large majority of them (excluding TC members) then say that a work is no good because it is infrequently programmed, etc., etc. Remember that for a significant percentage of the subscription audiences, concerts are more of a social event than because of a love and knowledge of the music.

On top of that are other factors such as cost and ease of programming a work. Is Mahler's 8th the worst of his symphonies? It certainly is the least frequently performed, but ask an orchestra manager why and they will immediately say 'budget'. Schedule the work and you get sell-out houses. In the opera world there is also the issue of finding the right singers for a work and, in some cases, enough of them (think Meyerbeer).

Lastly there are nationalistic factors at work - either 'not composed here' or 'it is too redolent of XYZ country to be understandable here'. Sibelius suffered from that in central Europe after WW2 whereas he was very popular in the UK. Sometimes all it takes is the right person in the right place to effect a sea-change in attitudes. Bernstein helped do that with Nielsen and Barbirolli kick-started the love of Mahler in Germany in the 60s.


----------



## breakup

Celloman said:


> *You've claimed that the quality of a piece is determined by its popularity.* Most people, to my knowledge, have disagreed with you. They have provided strong, intelligent arguments based on many years of experience. So far, you have not made any effort to defend yourself and neither will you be able to because, although you may have good intentions, there isn't the slightest basis of truth in what you have said.
> 
> What makes one piece of music better than another? The fact that it resonates with more people? Since a relatively small number of people listen to Elliott Carter, does that make him bad?


Not determined by, but related to, there is a difference. And yes, I appreciate all the arguments that have been posted, it has made for some interesting reading.

Post a link to an Elliott Carter piece and I'll let you know what I think.


----------



## Woodduck

mmsbls said:


> In the arts, how can one argue that a work that is extremely popular is not, in some sense, a superior work? *Arts are meant to strongly affect people. If large numbers of people find a particular work wonderful, the work has indeed strongly affected many people in a positive way.*
> 
> I think it's not unreasonable to consider a very well defined sense of popularity as indicative of a work's value. Of course one could also view other attributes of the work relevant to its value as well.


The ability to affect people in a way they find positive goes to the basic function of art in human life. Popularity alone is not a test of artistic excellence, but at the very least it helps us learn where to look for it. This is nearly everyone's experience when beginning to explore classical music. Eventually we learn things about music and form personal criteria, and discover that popularity is subject to both accidents of history and the defects of human nature.

Ah, if only everyone had _my_ exquisite taste!


----------



## Celloman

breakup said:


> Post a link to an Elliott Carter piece and I'll let you know what I think.


String Quartet No. 3


----------



## Becca

mmsbls said:


> I've long thought about the idea that popularity could indicate, if not greatness, at least superior works. In the arts, how can one argue that a work that is extremely popular is not, in some sense, a superior work? Arts are meant to strongly affect people. If large numbers of people find a particular work wonderful, the work has indeed strongly affected many people in a positive way.


Ask Tchaikovsky about popularity and superiority of a work with respect to the _1812 Overture_! (Use of a Ouija board is acceptable.)


----------



## KenOC

Tedski said:


> ...He was a rock star of that era. So his must be some of the greatest music ever written. Right? Yet, he is virtually unknown today, with his works rarely performed or recorded. So his music must not be worth diddly squat. Right?


Pleyel has value to you, but very little to me. This "value" is not something inherent in music, it is something each of us assigns to the music.

If nobody around here placed value in Bach's 48, we'd be happy to hear somebody call it "worthless" and wouldn't argue with that.


----------



## ArtMusic

breakup said:


> Some pieces of music are popular and are played, and listened to a lot. Other pieces are more obscure and are not played, or listened to very often. There is a reason for this, simply the popular pieces are better musically. Some "Experts" will claim that some of the more obscure pieces are better for some obscure reason, but mostly it's a knee-jerk reaction that what is popular can't be as good because the "unsophisticated" general public just doesn't know any better. Music reaches people on a level that has little to do with music education, and more to do with an emotional connection. The popular pieces are the better pieces.


I can agree. Popular classical music have stood the test of times and are usually the greater pieces.


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> Pleyel has value to you, but very little to me. This "value" is not something inherent in music, it is something each of us assigns to the music.
> 
> If nobody around here placed value in Bach's 48, we'd be happy to hear somebody call it "worthless" and wouldn't argue with that.


I think the word "value," with its several meanings, is leading you away from the argument. In your sense of the word, "value" is in effect a synonym for popularity.

The question is whether popularity indicates superior _quality_. Quality is a value, but in a different, objective rather than subjective, sense of the word.


----------



## breakup

Becca said:


> Remember that for a significant percentage of the subscription audiences, concerts are more of a social event than because of a love and knowledge of the music.


When I was in college I was able to take one music course and the professor told a story about going to an Opera. He and a friend attended one of the Rossini comic Operas and they both understood the language, so they were both laughing out loud at the jokes. And they were getting a lot of dirty looks from many of the other members of the audience, who obviously didn't understand the words that were being spoken and sung.


----------



## mmsbls

Becca said:


> Ask Tchaikovsky about popularity and superiority of a work with respect to the _1812 Overture_! (Use of a Ouija board is acceptable.)


Tchaikovsky and many others here at TC may not view the 1812 Overture as a superior work, and they would have good reasons for that assessment. But those reasons would differ from the group of listeners who find the 1812 Overture a wonderful piece. If a large group of people who regularly listen to Romantic music is sampled and more like the 1812 Overture than other Tchaikovsky works (which they have heard), the 1812 Overture has had a stronger positive affect than any other work. I'm not sure how to definitively argue that other aspects of Tchaikovsky's works are more important in assessing value.

I personally find that some of his other works are more interesting, are more beautiful, and more compelling than the 1812, so I view those other works as superior (by those standards). But what could I say to the majority that found the 1812 more enjoyable?


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> I think the word "value," with its several meanings, is leading you away from the argument. In your sense of the word, "value" is in effect a synonym for popularity.
> 
> The question is whether popularity indicates superior _quality_. Quality is a value, but in a different, objective rather than subjective, sense of the word.


Not at all. Popularity doesn't determine the value or the quality of the piece. Both terms are defined at the individual listener level by the listener's judgement. Neither is an inherent characteristic of the music. If 90% of some group of listeners think a piece is valuable, then it is -- to them. To the other 10%, maybe not. And of course none of this is "objective."

Popularity denotes nothing but popularity. The popular perception of value in types of music, specific pieces, and even composers has changed dramatically in the past and will continue to do so. But the music remains unchanged. Only perceptions change.


----------



## TurnaboutVox

breakup said:


> You seem to be suggesting that a person who appreciates music should get to every concerts they can, and listen to all genre's of music. In the same way a person who appreciates paintings should view all paintings, no matter who paints them, or what the subject. I think that most people restrict their listening and viewing to those pieces that they are likely to enjoy, I don't make an effort to see every movie that comes out, but you seem to be suggesting that if a person goes to the movies they should see everything that comes out. I don't think that is very realistic, and yes I restrict my listening and viewing to the things I anticipate that I will like. Sometimes I watch a movie that I have seen before, or listen to music that I have heard before, and I don't watch or listen to the ones that I didn't like, or anticipate that I won't like. Sometimes it only takes a few bars of a piece of music, for me to decide the music is not for me. So if a piece of music, painting, or movie is disturbing, or I just don't like it, I don't see why I should see it or listen to it again.


Ah, no, I'm not suggesting that they _*should*_, in the sense of 'ought to', though I do think that opening one's ears and eyes to experience, if one is able to bear with it, is a good way of learning and gaining wisdom.

But since you wrote: "_Is it really so important to face and conquer our fears, if they are having no effect on our lives? If your fears are controlling or effecting your life in some way, then yes you should deal with them_", then I was pointing out that I couldn't agree, from the evidence before me, that the issue of the song, the movie and the theme of the parent and child was having no effect on you.


----------



## breakup

Celloman said:


> String Quartet No. 3


I got to the 2 minute mark and it didn't sound like the 4 instruments were playing together, let alone playing the same piece. Short answer, I didn't like it.


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> Not at all. Popularity doesn't determine the value or the quality of the piece. Both terms are defined at the individual listener level by the listener's judgement. Neither is an inherent characteristic of the music. If 90% of some group of listeners think a piece is valuable, then it is -- to them. To the other 10%, maybe not. And of course none of this is "objective."
> 
> Popularity denotes nothing but popularity. The popular perception of value in types of music, specific pieces, and even composers has changed dramatically in the past and will continue to do so. But the music remains unchanged. Only perceptions change.


When you said 'If nobody around here placed value in Bach's 48, we'd be happy to hear somebody call it "worthless" and wouldn't argue with that,' it suggested to me that you were conflating popularity, value, and quality by making them all equivalent to "being liked." Me, I wouldn't be happy at all to hear Bach's 48 called 'worthless' and would be even less happy if no one argued for its worth. I might even feel compelled to do it myself!

Subjective value to a particular person isn't the only kind of value, and liking something is not the same as judging it excellent. I may find that a Shostakovich symphony is a superbly composed, richly inventive, even compelling piece of music but dislike it and not want to hear it. I may find a symphony by our old buddy Raff to be less original, memorable, and profound, but may enjoy it much more. Raff would thus be more "valuable" to me than Shostakovich, but not because I think he wrote better music.

So I agree that popularity need not be indicative of anything but popularity. I only reject the idea that quality in music is "defined entirely at the individual listener level."


----------



## TurnaboutVox

breakup said:


> I got to the 2 minute mark and it didn't sound like the 4 instruments were playing together, let alone playing the same piece. Short answer, I didn't like it.


If you're seriously trying to widen your listening repertoire, breakup, then may I suggest starting with composers you do like and then trying to listen to the music of composers who developed music in different ways immediately after them (or those that came before your favourites). Take your time - years maybe - the aim is to enjoy (and maybe, to understand) the music.

I would think that the only outcome of listening to an Elliott Carter string quartet now would be to confirm your view that this is 'bad music', and I'm sure you don't really want to do that.


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> ...Me, I wouldn't be happy at all to hear Bach's 48 called 'worthless' and would be even less happy if no one argued for its worth. I might even feel compelled to do it myself!


Of course, because you assign value to it. Otherwise, you'd merely yawn and say "obviously." :lol:


----------



## breakup

TurnaboutVox said:


> Ah, no, I'm not suggesting that they _*should*_, in the sense of 'ought to', though I do think that opening one's ears and eyes to experience, if one is able to bear with it, is a good way of learning and gaining wisdom.
> 
> But since you wrote: "_Is it really so important to face and conquer our fears, if they are having no effect on our lives? If your fears are controlling or effecting your life in some way, then yes you should deal with them_",* then I was pointing out that I couldn't agree, from the evidence before me, that the issue of the song, the movie and the theme of the parent and child was having no effect on you.*


I agree the themes of the movie and the Opera did have a strong effect on me, which is why I avoid seeing them again. The effect was not a positive one, but I am able to deal with it by avoiding the movie and the Opera.


----------



## breakup

TurnaboutVox said:


> *If you're seriously trying to widen your listening repertoire*, breakup, then may I suggest starting with composers you do like and then trying to listen to the music of composers who developed music in different ways immediately after them (or those that came before your favourites). Take your time - years maybe - the aim is to enjoy (and maybe, to understand) the music.
> 
> I would think that the only outcome of listening to an Elliott Carter string quartet now would be to confirm your view that this is 'bad music', and I'm sure you don't really want to do that.


Perhaps that is the misconception, that I am trying to widen my listening repertoire. There are many pieces that I like and listen to, and occasionally I find another that I like. This was not one of them. Did he compose anything in a more traditional vein? If his other works sounded like this one, I would probably not like them either.

I would hope that you don't like it because you think it's "sophisticated" to like it.


----------



## Celloman

breakup said:


> I got to the 2 minute mark and it didn't sound like the 4 instruments were playing together, let alone playing the same piece. Short answer, I didn't like it.


So that means it isn't any good? What if someone else does like it? Is your opinion any more valid than theirs?


----------



## mmsbls

KenOC said:


> Not at all. Popularity doesn't determine the value or the quality of the piece. Both terms are defined at the individual listener level by the listener's judgement. Neither is an inherent characteristic of the music. If 90% of some group of listeners think a piece is valuable, then it is -- to them. To the other 10%, maybe not. And of course none of this is "objective."


We can say that an individual's assessment is subjective, but in the above example it is an objective fact that 90% felt that work was valuable. I'm fascinated by why certain works strike people so strongly whereas other somewhat similar works do not. Presumably the answer does not depend completely on individual's subjective assessment.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

The listener's ego has thus thwarted the true intentions of the composer from pure pigheadedness.

Nothing I haven't come across before.


----------



## TurnaboutVox

breakup said:


> Perhaps that is the misconception, that I am trying to widen my listening repertoire. There are many pieces that I like and listen to, and occasionally I find another that I like. This was not one of them. Did he compose anything in a more traditional vein? If his other works sounded like this one, I would probably not like them either.
> 
> *I would hope that you don't like it because you think it's "sophisticated" to like it.*


No, you can be quite sure of that, breakup. I'm hardly a musical sophisticate, being completely untrained in music theory and with only very basic piano playing skills learned long ago and long-forgotten! My professional field is something very different to music.

I like Carter (and composers like Ligeti, Penderecki, Kurtag, Birtwhistle and Ferneyhough) for the novel and inventive music they write, *which I enjoy listening to* - especially live - perhaps because of rhythmic or timbral effects as much as harmonic ones. (I also like Bartok, Webern, Mahler, Liszt, Schumann, Beethoven, Schubert, Scarlatti and Bach, by the way, in case you think all my tastes are outré).

Of course, I didn't learn to like music such as this all at once, but I suppose I do like novel experiences and I have long been open to hearing and listening to them.


----------



## KenOC

mmsbls said:


> We can say that an individual's assessment is subjective, but in the above example it is an objective fact that 90% felt that work was valuable. I'm fascinated by why certain works strike people so strongly whereas other somewhat similar works do not. Presumably the answer does not depend completely on individual's subjective assessment.


I'm going to be a hardliner here and say the "value" we place on music is totally subjective. What value would the general musical population have placed on Bach's 48 in 1860? On Haydn's symphonies when Schumann wrote "He has nothing new to teach us"? On Sibelius or Rachmaninoff in 1950 versus 2000?

Of course, we can say that our preferences are totally right now, but history suggests they will change further, and maybe dramatically.


----------



## breakup

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> The listener's ego has thus thwarted the true intentions of the composer from pure pigheadedness.
> 
> Nothing I haven't come across before.


Are all your works received like that, perhaps that will tell you something?


----------



## Celloman

breakup said:


> I said I didn't like it, what has that got to do with the quality of the piece?


I'm simply trying to understand where you're coming from. How can we help each other if we don't talk about it?

You basically said that if a piece is popular, then it is good. So in that case, "liking" or "disliking" a piece has everything to do with it.


----------



## breakup

Celloman said:


> I'm simply trying to understand where you're coming from. How can we help each other if we don't talk about it?
> 
> You basically said that if a piece is popular, then it is good. So in that case, "liking" or "disliking" a piece has everything to do with it.


Yes I have said that if a piece is popular it is good, I should have added "probably" to that assessment to keep the natives happy. And yes my liking or disliking a piece would add to the general consensus about the piece, but there may be some pieces that are of good quality that I don't like, that is where personal preference comes in.


----------



## Woodduck

mmsbls said:


> We can say that an individual's assessment is subjective, but in the above example it is an objective fact that 90% felt that work was valuable. *I'm fascinated by why certain works strike people so strongly whereas other somewhat similar works do not. *Presumably the answer does not depend completely on individual's subjective assessment.


So am I. Here's one idea. I think people have an innate and near-universal (though unequally developed) sense of aesthetic "rightness," which allows them to hear when a melody or a movement or a symphony "makes sense" musically. They may not be able to produce music themselves, but they can sense when it's been done "right." And one of the best tests of "rightness" is _memorability_. One of the distinguishing traits, and maybe the primary one, of a fine composer is that ability to follow each note with the one that really needs to come next, and so produce something that impresses itself clearly on the mind: something memorable. If a piece can combine that feeling of rightness with some arresting quality that makes it fresh and distinctive, it will have made a very strong bid for popularity. Plenty of music has one or the other: it works well, one thing following logically from another - _or_ it "sounds interesting" in some aspect or other. The best music, and to a great extent the most popular music, has both. And this applies as much to brief popular songs as to evening-long operas.


----------



## Celloman

breakup said:


> Yes I have said that if a piece is popular it is good, I should have added "probably" to that assessment to keep the natives happy. And yes my liking or disliking a piece would add to the general consensus about the piece, but there may be some pieces that are of good quality that I don't like, that is where personal preference comes in.


Yet, there are some people who would argue that Debussy's _La Mer_ is better than "Clair de Lune" and Tchaikovsky's sixth symphony is better than his 1812 Overture. How do you explain that? Is the majority correct, in these cases, rather than the few who prefer the lesser-known works?

You haven't answered my question about the Carter piece. Since it's not very popular, does that make it bad?


----------



## Sloe

Celloman said:


> Yet, there are some people who would argue that Debussy's _La Mer_ is better than "Clair de Lune" and Tchaikovsky's sixth symphony is better than his 1812 Overture. How do you explain that? Is the majority correct, in these cases, rather than the few who prefer the lesser-known works?


Are these really less well known works? I hear La Mer and Tchaikovskys sixth symphony much more often than Clair de Lune and 1812 overture much more often.


----------



## breakup

Woodduck said:


> *So am I. Here's one idea. I think people have an innate and near-universal (though unequally developed) sense of aesthetic "rightness," which allows them to hear when a melody or a movement or a symphony "makes sense" musically. They may not be able to produce music themselves, but they can sense when it's been done "right." And one of the best tests of "rightness" is memorability. One of the distinguishing traits, and maybe the primary one, of a fine composer is that ability to follow each note with the one that really needs to come next, and so produce something that impresses itself clearly on the mind: something memorable.* If a piece can combine that feeling of rightness with some arresting quality that makes it fresh and distinctive, it will have made a very strong bid for popularity. Plenty of music has one or the other: it works well, one thing following logically from another - _or_ it "sounds interesting" in some aspect or other. The best music, and to a great extent the most popular music, has both. And this applies as much to brief popular songs as to evening-long operas.


For some reason your comment reminded me of this quote,

"Really, Watson, you excel yourself," said Holmes, pushing back his chair and lighting a cigarette. "I am bound to say that in all the accounts which you have been so good as to give of my own small achievements you have habitually underrated your own abilities. *It may be that you are not yourself luminous, but you are a conductor of light. Some people without possessing genius have a remarkable power of stimulating it.* I confess, my dear fellow, that I am very much in your debt." 
― Arthur Conan Doyle, Le chien des Baskerville


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

breakup said:


> Are all your works received like that, perhaps that will tell you something?


That's only what I've come across on thus forum. In my own real life, people analyse the music of composers to understand the brilliance of it. I am still entering into the world of composition and the only problems I've had are purely with personalities of musicians. Recently a very arrogant conductor had to fill in for someone else for a couple of rehearsals of an orchestral work of mine. He has a very arrogant personality and he and I did not get on well. He actually is the founder for some prestigious chamber music competition but was booted out because of his very difficult personality. He has the skills to be a world renowned musician, but his personality and extreme prejudice in repertoire is his own downfall.

I find that when people have prejudiced viewpoints on various repertoire they become more ignorant to the composers' intentions and end up being incapable as a musician anyway because of how this influences their ego. The key is to understand why a composer writes in a certain way, not to like some things and dislike other things. Prejudice distorts understanding.


----------



## breakup

Celloman said:


> You haven't answered my question about the Carter piece. Since it's not very popular, does that make it bad?


Yes I did, Post #114


----------



## breakup

mmsbls said:


> We can say that an individual's assessment is subjective, but in the above example it is an objective fact that 90% felt that work was valuable. I'm fascinated by why certain works strike people so strongly whereas other somewhat similar works do not. Presumably the answer does not depend completely on individual's subjective assessment.


I think the assessment of similar is the key to this question, what some people might see as similar, others might see as very different, it depends on what qualities each person is looking at.


----------



## breakup

Celloman said:


> Yet, there are some people who would argue that Debussy's _La Mer_ is better than "Clair de Lune" and Tchaikovsky's sixth symphony is better than his 1812 Overture. How do you explain that? Is the majority correct, in these cases, rather than the few who prefer the lesser-known works?
> 
> You haven't answered my question about the Carter piece. Since it's not very popular, does that make it bad?


People who argue that one piece is better than another possibly don't have anything better to do. I was basing the quality of a piece partly on it's general popularity, which is quite apart from my own personal preference.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Popularity is the shallowest thing to talk about. On any topic. Popularity is a shallow way of viewing anything. Don't people know that? 

It's like talking about celebrity news instead of discussing relevant human rights issues and stuff like that.


----------



## breakup

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Popularity is the shallowest thing to talk about. On any topic. Popularity is a shallow way of viewing anything. Don't people know that?
> 
> It's like talking about celebrity news instead of discussing relevant human rights issues and stuff like that.


Yes, popularity is a shallow way of thinking, but it is the way things are, and it needs to be accounted for.


----------



## arpeggio

*"Popularity Threads"*

I went and found other threads which dealt with "popularity". Nothing new here.

http://www.talkclassical.com/15959-what-extent-popularity-important.html?highlight=popularity

http://www.talkclassical.com/24163-enduring-popularity-sign-greatness.html?highlight=popularity

http://www.talkclassical.com/23584-general-question-about-composers.html?highlight=popularity

And then there was the poll: http://www.talkclassical.com/31742-there-any-positive-correlation.html?highlight=popularity


----------



## Celloman

breakup said:


> Yes I did, Post #114


No, you didn't. You said you didn't like it. That's not the same thing.


----------



## KenOC

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Popularity is the shallowest thing to talk about. On any topic. Popularity is a shallow way of viewing anything. Don't people know that?
> 
> It's like talking about celebrity news instead of discussing relevant human rights issues and stuff like that.


Well, popularity is how we decide who will govern us -- and that's a pretty important issue! I do agree that we would get superior governance if these matters were decided solely by my wise and informed considerations; however my party is quite small, as yet.


----------



## mmsbls

KenOC said:


> I'm going to be a hardliner here and say the "value" we place on music is totally subjective. What value would the general musical population have placed on Bach's 48 in 1860? On Haydn's symphonies when Schumann wrote "He has nothing new to teach us"? On Sibelius or Rachmaninoff in 1950 versus 2000?
> 
> Of course, we can say that our preferences are totally right now, but history suggests they will change further, and maybe dramatically.


We say our assessment of music is subjective because we all have differing opinions while the music does not change. But our opinions are really not that different. Repeated polls of the best works and composers show remarkable similarity. Not everyone puts Beethoven, Bach, and Mozart in the top 3 spots, but so many place them high that they seem to always end up in the top spots. How many here would place a Haydn piano concerto over late concertos of Beethoven or Mozart? How many would prefer a Mehul symphony to a late Schubert symphony? In many cases there seems to be rather significant agreement in these subjective matters. Why? If they were truly subjective, the variation would be much larger.


----------



## mmsbls

Woodduck said:


> So am I. Here's one idea. I think people have an innate and near-universal (though unequally developed) sense of aesthetic "rightness," which allows them to hear when a melody or a movement or a symphony "makes sense" musically. They may not be able to produce music themselves, but they can sense when it's been done "right." And one of the best tests of "rightness" is _memorability_. One of the distinguishing traits, and maybe the primary one, of a fine composer is that ability to follow each note with the one that really needs to come next, and so produce something that impresses itself clearly on the mind: something memorable. If a piece can combine that feeling of rightness with some arresting quality that makes it fresh and distinctive, it will have made a very strong bid for popularity. Plenty of music has one or the other: it works well, one thing following logically from another - _or_ it "sounds interesting" in some aspect or other. The best music, and to a great extent the most popular music, has both. And this applies as much to brief popular songs as to evening-long operas.


I agree largely with this idea. I would simply add that there are some people who also find beauty, interest, profoundness in things besides the right note. They may respond to interesting rhythms, to fascinating timbres, to unusual harmonies, etc.. But for them, the same is true. Wonderful music sounds "right", and they likely agree on many examples of favored music.

My daughter is a music student who loves music theory. She'll often respond to an interesting aspect and talk about it in a music theoretical way. I tell her that I don't understand the theory, but she says I still "hear" it in the sense that I hear something interesting in the music but can't say what it is. We've sometimes talked about listening to a new work with her writing down what's interesting from a theory standpoint and me noting what parts I find wonderful. She thinks the theory and my reactions will "agree" in that they'll often match. We haven't yet done that, but I do think it would be interesting.


----------



## mmsbls

breakup said:


> I think the assessment of similar is the key to this question, what some people might see as similar, others might see as very different, it depends on what qualities each person is looking at.


By similar I mean from the same era (not modern since there's so much variation) and maybe the same genre. I think most people would say, for example, that symphonies by Mendelssohn, Schubert, Spohr, and Czerny were more alike than works by Brahms, Stravinsky, Schumann, and Vivaldi.


----------



## KenOC

mmsbls said:


> We say our assessment of music is subjective because we all have differing opinions while the music does not change. But our opinions are really not that different.


Informed opinion is pretty uniform *at any point in time*. The fashion of the times, as they say. But informed opinion changes quite dramatically over time, as in the examples I gave earlier. Music is largely a thing of fashions and trends and always has been, and at any point the majority will always be in...well...the majority.

I remember reading of a pre-baroque composer (can't remember who) who was very popular and successful, his music much in demand. Then, within a very few years, tastes changed and nobody wanted his stuff any more. He had a hard go of it. I'm sure people spoke far more highly of his music when it was in fashion than later.

Other examples: Where did Raff go? Where did Zelenka come from? After all his music was rediscovered 150 years ago...


----------



## ArtMusic

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Popularity is the shallowest thing to talk about. On any topic. Popularity is a shallow way of viewing anything. Don't people know that?
> 
> It's like talking about celebrity news instead of discussing relevant human rights issues and stuff like that.


Popularity can be an indication of greatness but not an absolutely reliable one. Bach, Mozart are popular and great. Greatness often implies popularity but not necessarily the other way around. But to ignore popularity is not being realistic.


----------



## breakup

BREAKUP said:


> Post a link to an Elliott Carter piece and I'll let you know what I think.





Celloman said:


> String Quartet No. 3





breakup said:


> I got to the 2 minute mark and it didn't sound like the 4 instruments were playing together, let alone playing the same piece. Short answer, I didn't like it.





Celloman said:


> You haven't answered my question about the Carter piece.





breakup said:


> Yes I did, Post #114





Celloman said:


> No, you didn't. You said you didn't like it. That's not the same thing.


That's what I thought of it, I didn't like it.


----------



## breakup

KenOC said:


> Well, popularity is how we decide who will govern us -- and that's a pretty important issue! I do agree that we would get superior governance if these matters were decided solely by my wise and informed considerations; however my party is quite small, as yet.


Assuming you are married, how does your wife feel about being the only other member of the party.


----------



## breakup

arpeggio said:


> I went and found other threads which dealt with "popularity". Nothing new here.
> 
> http://www.talkclassical.com/15959-what-extent-popularity-important.html?highlight=popularity
> 
> http://www.talkclassical.com/24163-enduring-popularity-sign-greatness.html?highlight=popularity
> 
> http://www.talkclassical.com/23584-general-question-about-composers.html?highlight=popularity
> 
> And then there was the poll: http://www.talkclassical.com/31742-there-any-positive-correlation.html?highlight=popularity


I got pretty much the reaction I was expecting, I was hoping for something novel to come up.


----------



## tortkis

breakup said:


> That's what I thought of it, I didn't like it.


You didn't answer to the Celloman's question:

_"What makes one piece of music better than another? The fact that it resonates with more people? Since a relatively small number of people listen to Elliott Carter, does that make him bad?"_


----------



## KenOC

breakup said:


> Assuming you are married, how does your wife feel about being the only other member of the party.


My wife, sadly, has her own party. But come the revolution, that'll be taken care of quickly enough! Well, assuming she doesn't have similar plans of course.


----------



## breakup

tortkis said:


> You didn't answer to the Celloman's question:
> 
> _"What makes one piece of music better than another? The fact that it resonates with more people? Since a relatively small number of people listen to Elliott Carter, does that make him bad?"_


Quote Originally Posted by breakup 
I got to the 2 minute mark and it didn't sound like the 4 instruments were playing together, let alone playing the same piece. Short answer, I didn't like it.

I gave as much as I saw fit to answer, I am under no obligation to fulfill anyone else's needs.


----------



## arpeggio

*Its Daja Vu All Over Again*



breakup said:


> I got pretty much the reaction I was expecting, I was hoping for something novel to come up.


And our response is we still have not seen any new rhetoric that we have not seen here and many other classical music forums for years.

The way these debates progress is like this.

Johnson is a post 19th century atonal composer. Like Harpsichord Concerto, which I referenced in an early post, a newbie joins in order to attack the music of Johnson. The newbie accuses Johnson of being a fraud. Of course the followers of Johnson get upset because the criticisms imply that they are frauds as well.

The followers of Johnson defend themselves.

They are then accused of being overly sensitive and belittling the anti-Johnson faction. The fact that the pro-Johnson people also like Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven and Brahms is irrelevant.

This debate goes back and forth over the course of several threads.

The next stage is the anti-Johnson person generates a poll in order to prove that real people do not listen to the music of Johnson. This proves nothing because it turns out most of the members actually like Johnson. The majority of the members of Talk Classical like all sort of music from Gregorian Chant to Johnson.

The next stage is that the anti-Johnson person plays the popularity card.

The debate eventually dies down.

Then a few months later, son of Harpsichord Concerto shows up and we go through the same cycle again.


----------



## Woodduck

arpeggio said:


> And our response is we still have not seen any new rhetoric that we have not seen here and many other classical music forums for years.
> 
> The way these debates progress is like this.
> 
> Johnson is a post 19th century atonal composer. Like Harpsichord Concerto, which I referenced in an early post, a newbie joins in order to attack the music of Johnson. The newbie accuses Johnson of being a fraud. Of course the followers of Johnson get upset because the criticisms imply that they are frauds as well.
> 
> The followers of Johnson defend themselves.
> 
> They are then accused of being overly sensitive and belittling the anti-Johnson faction. The fact that the pro-Johnson people also like Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven and Brahms is irrelevant.
> 
> This debate goes back and forth over the course of several threads.
> 
> The next stage is the anti-Johnson person generates a poll in order to prove that real people do not listen to the music of Johnson. This proves nothing because it turns out most of the members actually like Johnson. The majority of the members of Talk Classical like all sort of music from Gregorian Chant to Johnson.
> 
> The next stage is that the anti-Johnson person plays the popularity card.
> 
> The debate eventually dies down.
> 
> Then a few months later, son of Harpsichord Concerto shows up and we go through the same cycle again.


In what way does the present conversation fit this scenario?


----------



## Woodduck

mmsbls said:


> I agree largely with this idea. I would simply add that there are some people who also find beauty, interest, profoundness in things besides the right note. They may respond to interesting rhythms, to fascinating timbres, to unusual harmonies, etc.. But for them, the same is true. Wonderful music sounds "right", and they likely agree on many examples of favored music.
> 
> My daughter is a music student who loves music theory. She'll often respond to an interesting aspect and talk about it in a music theoretical way. I tell her that I don't understand the theory, but she says I still "hear" it in the sense that I hear something interesting in the music but can't say what it is. We've sometimes talked about listening to a new work with her writing down what's interesting from a theory standpoint and me noting what parts I find wonderful. She thinks the theory and my reactions will "agree" in that they'll often match. We haven't yet done that, but I do think it would be interesting.


I wasn't implying that tones are the only elements of music. But they are the primary element out of which compositions are made: the basic components of melody and harmony. Unpitched sounds, used on their own, can be arranged into compositions but don't have the same degree of structural or expressive potential as tones, which is why most of the world's music has consisted of tones, using percussion mainly for rhythmic articulation and emphasis.


----------



## Guest

I see the conversation has moved on...or rather, there have been over 150 posts. Did I miss anything?



breakup said:


> Some pieces of music are popular and are played, and listened to a lot. Other pieces are more obscure and are not played, or listened to very often.


Did you give any examples to show what you mean by this, or are we still left to choose our own? And did you explain or exemplify your definition of 'popular'? Are we only talking about classical?

So elsewhere, we were discussing the notion of the popularity of Beethoven as indicated by the number of appearances on concert programmes. I cited the number of concerts at this year's BBC Proms featuring Mozart, Beethoven and Stravinsky

http://www.talkclassical.com/39042-why-does-beethoven-fill-post913062.html#post913062

At what point does 'obscure' come into this? Who were the obscure composers and what were the obscure compositions you had in mind? Or is it sufficient to show that, in the example I've given, Beethoven's music is better than Bach's because it is played at concerts more often?



breakup said:


> There is a reason for this, simply the popular pieces are better musically.


Without exemplifying, you'll not get far with such a vague idea. In one sense, it's unexceptional, as others have shown, that many of the most 'popular' pieces are held to be very good. Equally, others have shown that popularity is not a guarantee of quality or merit, but without some criteria for 'better musically' (happy melodies? vibrant rhythms? complex harmonies? lots of space?) we can't begin to make any kind of comparisons.



breakup said:


> Some "Experts" will claim that some of the more obscure pieces are better for some obscure reason,


And doubtless _other _experts will be able to advance a coherent reason for the merits of an 'obscure' piece; so what?



breakup said:


> but mostly it's a knee-jerk reaction that what is popular can't be as good because the "unsophisticated" general public just doesn't know any better.


Have you carried out a survey of experts' motives to be able to claim that you know why they argue as they do? Are we interested in why they argue as they do? Isn't it better just to consider the coherence of their arguments for a specific piece, rather than try to explore their underlying motivations?



breakup said:


> Music reaches people on a level that has little to do with music education, and more to do with an emotional connection.


What level is that? If you mean that music has the power to move people on an emotional level, I won't argue with that. But not all music moves all people 'emotionally'. And the emotional level is not the only 'level' worth considering. Most members here would argue that they have got more value/enjoyment out of the music they've listened to as they've come to understand better how it works. Only one or two have ever argued that you must have a musical education to connect to music.


----------



## KenOC

MacLeod said:


> I see the conversation has moved on...or rather, there have been over 150 posts. Did I miss anything?


Succinct summary: Popularity is unpopular around here. Yes, that poses something of a contradiction, but I'm too sleepy to deal with it right now.


----------



## Ingélou

KenOC said:


> Succinct summary: Popularity is unpopular around here. Yes, that poses something of a contradiction, but I'm too sleepy to deal with it right now.


Not too sleepy to come up with a fab epigram. :tiphat:

It's of the nature of a forum like TalkClassical, that the popular music isn't given all that much attention.

Imagine a convention of students, academics and the odd enthusiast who meet to discuss English Literature and where it is going. There's a group interested in the latest poets - there's a specialist in Wordsworth's development - there's a large circle of Shakespeare fans who are looking at directions in theatrical interpretation - and there's a callow old person or sentimental young person who goes round saying to everyone, 'Wordsworth's Daffodils - the finest poem in the language. It's the poem that everybody knows. It has never been surpassed!'

Even the Wordsworthian group - *especially* the Wordsworthian group - will be ducking into the corridors when they see him or her. 

_(I love Wordsworth's Daffodils, by the way, and once got an Inspector's commendation for 'breathing new life into it' at an adult evening class.) _


----------



## TurnaboutVox

breakup said:


> Perhaps that is the misconception, that I am trying to widen my listening repertoire. There are many pieces that I like and listen to, and occasionally I find another that I like.


I'm going to sign out of this discussion with an anecdote which I think provides a parallel to the debate you and I and others here have been having.

A young man of my acquaintance, who was talented but had found it difficult to progress from adolescence to adulthood, did not like the sort of drinks many adults enjoy on social occasions.

He preferred to accompany food with the sweet, fizzy soda pop drinks of his childhood taste. He had tasted beer, but would grimace and declare it bitter and unpalatable.

However, as he grew up and went about his life he encountered other young adults, and, keen to join in with them, he found himself accepting the odd big-brewery lager, which tasted less bitter and strange to his palate than the beer his elders had offered him.

Within a few months he realised that there was more pleasure to be had from the other more interesting and distinctive beers on offer in the bar where he and his friends congregated after work. He began to get interested in drinking craft beers from small breweries. (He never overindulges!)

He still can't understand why apparently sane adults want to drink wine, which he refers to as 'rotted grapes', but he now understands that it was his own tastes two years earlier that led him to say that beer was horrible; that these can change with time and experience, and that ipso facto the same thing must be going on in his relationship with wine.

Carling Black label is a very popular beer in the UK, and it is a very valid choice of beverage. But if you restrict yourself to just that, you're never going to be able to appreciate the sheer variety of effects that are possible from different people with different ideas brewing malted grains, hops and water together in different ways. You may enjoy some of them: you are never going to know until you have tried. To claim that Carling is the best beer because it's the most popular is... well, I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions.

Enjoy the forum, breakup


----------



## Dr Johnson

breakup said:


> Is it an Island with electricity?


If that's what people want...


----------



## Guest

Ingélou said:


> there's a callow old person or sentimental young person who goes round saying to everyone, 'Wordsworth's Daffodils - the finest poem in the language. It's the poem that everybody knows. It has never been surpassed!'


Well....yes....and? He's right isn't he?


----------



## Guest

@TVox
That's a great anecdote; it's you isn't it?
Is 9.10 on a Sunday morning too early for a glass of Great Heck Yakima IPA? Yes OK, it is!


----------



## TurnaboutVox

dogen said:


> @TVox
> That's a great anecdote; it's you isn't it?


Er, no, no, it isn't, actually 



dogen said:


> Is 9.10 on a Sunday morning too early for a glass of Great Heck Yakima IPA? Yes OK, it is!


I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer he himself gave at 09:13... I haven't even had a cup of tea yet. And I need to go and wake Vox Jr. up for work now  .


----------



## DeepR

No, life is too short for this. Breakup, belieb what you want to belieb!


----------



## breakup

DeepR said:


> No, life is too short for this. Breakup, *belieb what you want to belieb!*


Isn't that what everyone does?


----------



## arpeggio

Woodduck said:


> In what way does the present conversation fit this scenario?


Taking into account your background and intelligence, your request is a bit unfair.

I did find one post where you accused those of us who follow the "music is sound" aesthetics as belittling.



Woodduck said:


> Those who believe that music is always best, and perhaps only properly, taken in as "just sound," are rejecting the most characteristic music of an entire era and the assumptions of both its creators and listeners. They are free to disdain this essential premise of Romantic music, or the music itself, as they choose. But they are wrong to rationalize their taste as a defense of a "superior" aesthetic approach, or *to belittle *the musical competence or comprehension of listeners for whom the alliance of the musical with the poetic imagination constitutes a rewarding artistic experience. I doubt very much that the enjoyment of the tone poems of Tchaikovsky and Strauss, and the pleasure of observing the imagination with which these composers have dramatized the poetic ideas which inspired them, have led many listeners to feel helpless incomprehension when confronted with the non-programmatic violin concerto of the former or the oboe concerto of the latter - or the harpsichord concertos of Bach.


Really. Most of us who follow the "music is sound" aesthetic view as a means of listening to music, not the only means. We do not consider it "superior". I am sure one can find a few who are this unreasonable. People have every right to reject it and find their own path to music enlightenment.

I thought my links to other threads concerning popularity addressed some of my concerns. If one wants to embrace the "popularity=greatness" aesthetic they have every right to do so. Life is too short for me to rummage through the archives to find anymore posts.

I did the best I could and there is nothing more than I can say. Anyways, many seemed to understand where I was coming from. I think you do as well. You just happen to disagree with it.


----------



## Woodduck

arpeggio said:


> Taking into account your background and intelligence, your request is a bit unfair.
> 
> I did find one post where you accused those of us who follow the "music is sound" aesthetics as belittling.
> 
> Originally Posted by Woodduck:
> 
> "Those who believe that music is always best, and perhaps only properly, taken in as "just sound," are rejecting the most characteristic music of an entire era and the assumptions of both its creators and listeners. They are free to disdain this essential premise of Romantic music, or the music itself, as they choose. But they are wrong to rationalize their taste as a defense of a "superior" aesthetic approach, or to belittle the musical competence or comprehension of listeners for whom the alliance of the musical with the poetic imagination constitutes a rewarding artistic experience. I doubt very much that the enjoyment of the tone poems of Tchaikovsky and Strauss, and the pleasure of observing the imagination with which these composers have dramatized the poetic ideas which inspired them, have led many listeners to feel helpless incomprehension when confronted with the non-programmatic violin concerto of the former or the oboe concerto of the latter - or the harpsichord concertos of Bach."
> 
> Really. Most of us who follow the "music is sound" aesthetic view as a means of listening to music, not the only means. We do not consider it "superior". I am sure one can find a few who are this unreasonable. People have every right to reject it and find their own path to music enlightenment.
> 
> I thought my links to other threads concerning popularity addressed some of my concerns. If one wants to embrace the "popularity=greatness" aesthetic they have every right to do so. Life is too short for me to rummage through the archives to find anymore posts.
> 
> I did the best I could and there is nothing more than I can say. Anyways, many seemed to understand where I was coming from. I think you do as well. You just happen to disagree with it.


I must say I'm rather taken aback here. That quotation leaves out the entire context of the subject then under discussion, and you seem to have concluded, by selecting a few words from it, that you, or a group of people to whom you feel you belong ("those of us"), were being somehow disparaged or accused of being disparaging.

As I recall, that statement came in the midst of a long discussion of program music, in which I defended the legitimacy of that genre against some very harsh and rigid biases against it expressed by, primarily, Petrb and some guy. I will never forget that discussion, and the extraordinary lengths to which I had to go to assert that the stated extramusical associations and intentions of a composer could be a proper component of a musical experience, indeed an actual part of the work as conceived by the composer, and that ignoring such associations and intentions was merely a personal choice and not a "superior" approach to music. There was actual mockery and verbal abuse aimed at me for holding that position; it was a challenge to me to find multiple ways to deflect it, and to defend listeners who enjoy program music for what it is. Go back to that conversation, read the posts, and you will see that listeners - not only myself, but listeners generally - who choose to take seriously the programmatic aspects of music were indeed belittled, and essentially portrayed as ignorant and unsophisticated.

No, I have to say that I really don't know where your comments are coming from. The fact that you quote me at length - and without understanding the meaning and context of the quote - in a thread on a completely unrelated subject, and one about which I've said rather little, is genuinely confusing. The fact that you dug up that quote from somewhere - do you keep a scrapbook or something? - is even a little stunning. It just seems as if you feel yourself attacked or beseiged in some way, regardless of the actual topic. I don't think my question about your last post was unfair, and answering it just might bring into focus what's really on your mind.


----------



## Chipomarc

Wow, do you guys ever write a lot. In the cycling newsgroups we normally only write two or three sentences at most per post.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> I must say I'm rather taken aback here. That quotation leaves out the entire context of the subject then under discussion, and you seem to have concluded, by selecting a few words from it, that you, or a group of people to whom you feel you belong ("those of us"), were being somehow disparaged or accused of being disparaging.


A context which you also leave out, but go on to refer to, with language that simply supports arpeggio's original point: "harsh and rigid biases," "actual mockery and verbal abuse," and even "listeners...were indeed belittled."

"Taken aback" usually refers to things you don't understand, not things that you do.



Woodduck said:


> No, I have to say that I really don't know where your comments are coming from.


After a completely convincing paragraph about understanding where those comments were coming from?

I must say, I'm rather taken aback here.



Woodduck said:


> - do you keep a scrapbook or something? -


Ahem. Snark.*



Woodduck said:


> I don't think my question about your last post was unfair.


I don't believe you. Arpeggio made a perfectly understandable and perfectly apt comparison of the trajectory of this thread with the trajectory of dozens of other threads, which you then simply dismissed.

*If there's a rule about belittling, then it applies to everyone equally. I.e., it's not OK to complain about other people being belittling and then indulging in a spot of it yourself. That's just not on.


----------



## Guest

Chipomarc said:


> Wow, do you guys ever write a lot. In the cycling newsgroups we normally only write two or three sentences at most per post.


Maybe in cycling you all agree which is the front wheel and which is the back wheel?


----------



## ArtMusic

Chipomarc said:


> Wow, do you guys ever write a lot. In the cycling newsgroups we normally only write two or three sentences at most per post.


I prefer succinct posts too.


----------



## Guest

Chipomarc said:


> In the cycling newsgroups we normally only write two or three sentences at most per post.


Does that also mean cyclists who do classical only listen to Satie?


----------



## EdwardBast

some guy said:


> I don't believe you. Arpeggio made a perfectly understandable and perfectly apt comparison of the trajectory of this thread with the trajectory of dozens of other threads, which you then simply dismissed.


Are we reading the same exchange? Woodduck simply asked in what way the current thread fit Arpeggio's description. I'm not sure how that could be interpreted as dismissive. In context, the question is not unreasonable because Arpeggio didn't get to the bit about "playing the popularity card" until his final lines, whereas breakup led with that card. So, in as much as the order and emphasis of this thread are quite different from the archetypal thread Arpeggio cites, I think it would have made sense to just take Woodduck's question at face value and explain what this thread does have in common with Arpeggio's archetype. Let me do that now:

This thread, regardless of where it started, did hit most of the usual stages and themes Arpeggio cites in his post. So, regardless of the order in which these well-worn issues appeared, I think it reasonable for Arpeggio to feel a sense of deja-vu. I know I did. We've been there and done most of this before.

My reaction to this thread is that addressing the OP's central point, that the popular pieces are the best pieces, could, and probably should, have been answered by one post comprising four simple words: "Some are, some aren't."

Anyway, I value the contributions of Wooduck and Arpeggio (and you) and dredging up acrimonious discussions past is not going to be productive. I mean, seriously, we'll all soon be at each others' throats over some more novel issue, won't we?


----------



## Celloman

Chipomarc said:


> Wow, do you guys ever write a lot. In the cycling newsgroups we normally only write two or three sentences at most per post.


Welcome to intellectualism. There are many on this forum who feel the need to prove their points using as many words as possible. Their laptops are stained with wine and reek of imported cigars. They write with a silver-tipped pen and spurt witticisms when bled. The more you read, however, the more you will realize that the individuals who end up writing the most often have the least to say.


----------



## Guest

Celloman said:


> Welcome to intellectualism. There are many on this forum who feel the need to prove their points using as many words as possible. Their laptops are stained with wine and reek of imported cigars. They write with a silver-tipped pen and spurt witticisms when bled. The more you read, however, the more you will realize that the individuals who end up writing the most often have the least to say.


I resent you calling me a vacuous, garrulous idiot. Even if it is accurate!


----------



## arpeggio

Thanks.

I ain't always do a good job of expressing myself.

In spite of the errors I think most understand what I was trying to say, I hope.


----------



## Woodduck

some guy said:


> A context which you also leave out, but go on to refer to, with language that simply supports arpeggio's original point: "harsh and rigid biases," "actual mockery and verbal abuse," and even "listeners...were indeed belittled."
> 
> "Taken aback" usually refers to things you don't understand, not things that you do.
> 
> After a completely convincing paragraph about understanding where those comments were coming from?
> 
> I must say, I'm rather taken aback here.
> 
> Ahem. Snark.*
> 
> I don't believe you. Arpeggio made a perfectly understandable and perfectly apt comparison of the trajectory of this thread with the trajectory of dozens of other threads, which you then simply dismissed.
> 
> *If there's a rule about belittling, then it applies to everyone equally. I.e., it's not OK to complain about other people being belittling and then indulging in a spot of it yourself. That's just not on.


I asked arpeggio how a post of his was relevant to this thread. Rather than answer me, he dredged up a completely irrelevant quote of mine from an old thread on a different subject and misconstrued it. I cleared up his misconception, and, suspecting that there was something he wasn't saying, suggested that just answering my original question might bring that into focus.

Now: not to be too blunt about it, but what's _your_ interest in this conversation, some guy? Are you answering for arpeggio? Do you think he's incapable of speaking for himself? Do you intend your gratuitous accusations and your questioning of my honesty ("I don't believe you") is going to divert attention from the actual meaning of the exchange? Is adding another layer to existing layers of obfuscation - leaving the original question unanswered and forgotten - serving someone's interest here? Whose? Yours? Arpeggio's?

Sometimes entering this forum is like entering a fun house hall of mirrors where nothing you think you're looking at is actually there.


----------



## arpeggio

^^^^
I have several friends who through the platform for TC and e-mail have communicated to me that they understood what I was trying to say.

'some guy' was one of them. Instead of just hitting the "like" button he submitted a post. So what? No one can support their friends around here?


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> I asked arpeggio how a post of his was relevant to this thread.


And my reaction to his post was that it was obviously relevant. Obviously meaning that no one needs to ask.



Woodduck said:


> Rather than answer me, he dredged up a completely irrelevant quote of mine from an old thread on a different subject and misconstrued it. I cleared up his misconception, and, suspecting that there was something he wasn't saying, suggested that just answering my original question might bring that into focus.


Actually, the completely relevant quote of yours from another thread--its age being truly irrelevant--was presented accurately and fairly. You could not have cleared up his misconception because there was no misconception to clear up. To answer your question would mean stating the obvious, which he had already done.



Woodduck said:


> Now: not to be too blunt about it, but what's _your_ interest in this conversation, some guy? Are you answering for arpeggio? Do you think he's incapable of speaking for himself? Do you intend your gratuitous accusations and your questioning of my honesty ("I don't believe you") is going to divert attention from the actual meaning of the exchange? Is adding another layer to existing layers of obfuscation - leaving the original question unanswered and forgotten - serving someone's interest here? Whose? Yours? Arpeggio's?


Not sure what bluntness has to do with it. These questions are simply not pertinent to the situation. My interest in a conversation is not, strictly speaking, part of the conversation itself. Only what I say in the conversation. But since you ask, and dealing with this keeps me from dealing with more important (but more difficult) things, I'll point out that in your post that I was responding to, you mentioned me by pseudonym, claiming that I had expressed harsh and rigid biases and had engaged in mockery (actual, no less) and in verbal abuse of you in particular and had belittled a certain group of listeners as ignorant and unsophisticated.

Motivation enough, I'd say. Though I must add that your next words seem quite pertinent to how I feel about the present kerfluffle: "it was a challenge to me to find multiple ways to deflect it."

But that's by the way.


----------



## Bulldog

Chipomarc said:


> Wow, do you guys ever write a lot. In the cycling newsgroups we normally only write two or three sentences at most per post.


Excessive and rambling postings are very common here (and every other classical music site I've visited). It's as if we are raised thinking that using a lot of works is the thing to do for smart individuals. From my perspective, it's "too many words".


----------



## Simon Moon

breakup said:


> Some pieces of music are popular and are played, and listened to a lot. Other pieces are more obscure and are not played, or listened to very often. There is a reason for this, simply the popular pieces are better musically. Some "Experts" will claim that some of the more obscure pieces are better for some obscure reason, but mostly it's a knee-jerk reaction that what is popular can't be as good because the "unsophisticated" general public just doesn't know any better. Music reaches people on a level that has little to do with music education, and more to do with an emotional connection. The popular pieces are the better pieces.


I'm not buying it in the least.

If you follow your assertion to it's logical end, pop and hip-hop are better musically than _any_ classical.

Sorry, but you will never convince me that Pachelbel's 'Cannon in D' is superior, in any way you want to measure' to Bartok's "Concerto for Strings, Percussion, and Celeste" or Barber's "Piano Concerto", just to name a couple off the top of my head.


----------



## arpeggio

^^^

Thanks for bringing this up. This is a point I have been wanting to make myself. I am weary because of all of acrimony I have generated with what I have tried to say so far.


----------



## mmsbls

Simon Moon said:


> If you follow your assertion to it's logical end, pop and hip-hop are better musically than _any_ classical.
> 
> Sorry, but you will never convince me that Pachelbel's 'Cannon in D' is superior, in any way you want to measure' to Bartok's "Concerto for Strings, Percussion, and Celeste" or Barber's "Piano Concerto", just to name a couple off the top of my head.


I don't want to argue that you, arpeggio, or others disagreeing with the OP are outright wrong. I agree that pure popularity is not a good measure of the value of music, and further, popularity may be a poor predictor of the kind of music many of us here would favor. In particular I do not believe that the 1812 overture is "better" than almost all modern music _because_ it is more popular.

But I would like to explore an argument for popularity similar to what I posted earlier. Let us assume that Pachelbel's Cannon is much more popular than the Bartok or Barber works, and specifically it is more popular because many more people prefer to hear it after lsitening to the others several times. Presumably Pachelbel's Cannon gives many more people more pleasure, more musical enjoyment, a more strongly positive musical experience. If we choose to measure works by their ability to give musical pleasure, wouldn't Pachelbel's Cannon, by that measure, be a better work? Maybe very few of us on TC would agree, but why is that particular measure of music's worth wrong?

Now I actually do not favor that argument, but I have never felt confident in my arguments against this view.

Also I posted this in reply to Simon, but really it's a question for all that wish to respond.


----------



## Guest

In essence I think attempting to use a quantative measure ("popularity") as an indicator of a qualitive measure ("better") is not tremendously sustainable. Otherwise one will indeed be forced to concede that currently some of the world's best music is made by One Direction.


----------



## KenOC

dogen said:


> In essence I think attempting to use a quantative measure ("popularity") as an indicator of a qualitive measure ("better") is not tremendously sustainable. Otherwise one will indeed be forced to concede that currently some of the world's best music is made by One Direction.


Question: Is your opinion on what's "good music" really better than a fan of Beyoncé's? If so, why?


----------



## Woodduck

some guy said:


> And my reaction to his post was that it was obviously relevant. *Obviously meaning that no one needs to ask.*
> 
> Actually, *the completely relevant quote of yours* from another thread--its age being truly irrelevant--was presented accurately and fairly. *You could not have cleared up his misconception because there was no misconception to clear up*. To answer your question would mean stating the obvious, which he had already done.
> 
> I must add that your next words seem quite pertinent to how I feel about the present kerfluffle: "it was a challenge to me to find multiple ways to deflect it."
> 
> But that's by the way.


If I ask a poster how his post is relevant to the topic of a thread, it's because I would like to hear how it's relevant. _It is not for you to tell me that "obviously no one needs to ask."
_
If I say that words of mine taken out of context have been misconstrued, I am the proper judge of that. _It is not for you to tell me that they were not misconstrued._

Is it really necessary for me to explain how presumptuous - and other things I'd probably get an infraction for saying - you are being? This is bullying, pure and simple, and I'm calling you out.

Twice this week I have had other people here dig up old posts of mine from God only knows how far back in order to quarrel about something. In both cases the quotes were misused. And this same thing has happened several times before. What does this mean? How do people find this stuff? Is there a file on me somewhere? Do people share it? Are my sayings so memorable? Should I be flattered that there's such an interest in what I say?

I speak for myself here. I don't need, or ask for, "friends" to rush in, capes flying behind them, to save me from simple questions. I would consider it insulting if they did. This "present kerfuffle," as you call it, seems a wonderful illustration of the sort of small-minded gang mentality which has driven a number of people away from this forum. Science saw it clearly. So did Sid.

It really needs to stop.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> Question: Is your opinion on what's "good music" really better than a fan of Beyoncé's? If so, why?


No, not at all, my opinion is simply the one that is relevant to me. I only choose 1D as a hopefully non-contentious example on this forum of the danger of the suggested linkage.


----------



## arpeggio

mmsbls said:


> I don't want to argue that you, arpeggio, or others disagreeing with the OP are outright wrong.


Clarification: I do not believe that the aesthetic of popularity=greatness is wrong. It is just one way out of many that one can look at music. There are many aesthetics that one can embrace.

For some the popularity=greatness may work. For me and many others it does not.

The aesthetic that music is a sound painting works for me. But it will not work for everybody.

I have used this example before. I am attending a concert listening to Beethoven's _Fifth_. I have performed this Beethoven Symphony more than any other. Sitting to my right is a talented listener who has over fifty different recordings of the _Fifth _ in his library. Neither of us are going to hear it the same way. To my left is a retired member of the orchestra. He may have performed the _Fifth_ fifty times in his career. He will hear it differently. None of us are going to hear it the same as Bruno Walter.

I really try not to belittle anyone who hears the _Fifth_ differently than I do. I frequently mess up.


----------



## TurnaboutVox

KenOC said:


> Question: Is your opinion on what's "good music" really better than a fan of Beyoncé's? If so, why?


Well, but doesn't your question beg several others? For instance: What is meant by 'better'? Better for whom? What criteria are you using? Let's go back to beer (it allows me to simplify the argument somewhat)

'Better' beer might mean 'tastes better to non-beer drinking A'
Or it might mean 'tastes better to beer connoisseur B'
Or 'makes more profit for small brewer C'
Or 'sells more beer for publican D'
Or 'makes more profit for shareholder of multinational food firm E'
etc.

Now, are any of those opinions more or less valuable than the others?

So - one could say that Dogen's opinion on good music is neither better nor worse than that of a Beyoncé fan. It's different, because of the values, perspectives and opinions Dogen holds - that's all. However, this is a specialist classical music forum, so the OP might have expected his premise to run into some opposition from the members (and it did).

To take mmsbls argument:



> Originally posted by *mmsbls*
> But I would like to explore an argument for popularity similar to what I posted earlier. Let us assume that Pachelbel's Cannon is much more popular than the Bartok or Barber works, and specifically it is more popular because many more people prefer to hear it after listening to the others several times. Presumably Pachelbel's Cannon gives many more people more pleasure, more musical enjoyment, a more strongly positive musical experience. If *we choose to measure works by their ability to give musical pleasure*, wouldn't Pachelbel's Cannon, by that measure, be a better work? Maybe very few of us on TC would agree, but why is that particular measure of music's worth wrong?


I think this holds water, but perhaps only from a certain perspective - you might call it 'utilitarian' - which holds that the best music is that which is enjoyed by the largest number of people, over a certain period of time (even so, you'd have to define this tightly to avoid getting the 'One Direction' answer again). It's only one perspective from which to look at the issue.

Woodduck suggests, in post #128:



> Originally posted by *Woodduck*
> One of the distinguishing traits, and maybe the primary one, of a fine composer is that ability to follow each note with the one that really needs to come next, and so produce something that impresses itself clearly on the mind: something memorable. If a piece can combine that feeling of rightness with some arresting quality that makes it fresh and distinctive, it will have made a very strong bid for popularity.


i.e. that there's something intrinsic in some music which impresses itself favourably on the human mind / brain, and this is one way of defining music that is good. But this is surely open to the objection that different human cultures have tended to favour rather dissimilar music, so once more I think there may be some truth in this, but only from a certain perspective. (Arguments have been made in the psychology literature for the importance in infants of hearing such things as the maternal voice, heartbeat etc., and the possible link with the later cultural importance of music. However, it would not surprise me if those experiences too are somewhat culturally 'patterned', even if there must be an underlying neurobiological capacity for the enjoyment of patterns of soundwaves.)


----------



## Dustin

Woodduck said:


> This "present kerfuffle," as you call it, seems a wonderful illustration of the sort of small-minded gang mentality which has driven a number of people away from this forum. Science saw it clearly. So did Sid.
> 
> It really needs to stop.


Couldn't agree more. I once tried comforting and defending a new member who was also being bullied and spoken to in a condescending way, but I ended up getting an infraction for speaking about it. So I just sit back and watch the fireworks these days.


----------



## mmsbls

TurnaboutVox said:


> I think this holds water, but perhaps only from a certain perspective - you might call it 'utilitarian' - which holds that the best music is that which is enjoyed by the largest number of people, over a certain period of time (even so, you'd have to define this tightly to avoid getting the 'One Direction' answer again). It's only one perspective from which to look at the issue.


I agree that one should be very careful in one's definition. I tried to expand a bit on this with my former post where the comparison should be between works that are similar and between people that have heard all the competing works (i.e. is Beethoven's 5th better than Czerny's 2nd to people who have heard both a few times).

It's true that 1D may sell more albums than classical music, but 1D will presumably be long gone fairly soon, whereas Beethoven has continued to move people for over 2 centuries (and presumably will continue for quite some time). So maybe we have to look longer term and include the effect on generations of people.


----------



## Guest

When one looks longer term, presumably (?) both popularity and "status' (a usefully vague term!) may sometimes/often vary significantly? Perhaps Beethoven"s popularity AND status are indeed quite fixed; and perhaps (probably?) 1D's star will burn briefly but for many (most?) composers and artists generally will there not likely be more flux? (given a suitably hefty timescale?)


----------



## Dustin

But let's get to the subject everyone here really has on their mind. How does Alma Deutscher fit into this discussion of popularity equaling quality? :devil:

Just kidding.


----------



## Woodduck

Dustin said:


> But let's get to the subject everyone here really has on their mind. How does Alma Deutscher fit into this discussion of popularity equaling quality? :devil:
> 
> Just kidding.


There are things one doesn't joke about, Dustin. :angel:


----------



## ArtMusic

Dustin said:


> But let's get to the subject everyone here really has on their mind. How does Alma Deutscher fit into this discussion of popularity equaling quality? :devil:
> 
> Just kidding.


Alma Deustcher is doing very well given her few years of experience. And that's all a composer can ever wish for.


----------



## Guest

mmsbls said:


> 1D will presumably be long gone fairly soon, whereas Beethoven has continued to move people for over 2 centuries


Let's not be premature - we have to get 200 years away from 2015 before we can judge that one - by which time we can also see whether The Beatles are the only pop act still revered in HIP concerts!


----------



## Guest

Robert Frost, again?

Is it really time again for some Robert Frost?

Well, OK. If you insist. Oh, also, Pachelbel's piece is a canon not a cannon. Two different things. (Make a note of it.)

Alright. I apologize for the pun. Here's Frost on that whole idea about time and the arts:

"It is absurd to think that the only way to tell if a poem is lasting is to wait and see if it lasts. The right reader of a good poem can tell the moment it strikes him that he has taken an immortal wound, that he will never get over it. That is to say, permanence in poetry as in love is perceived instantly. It has not to wait the test of time. The proof of a poem is not that we have never forgotten it, but that we knew at sight that we never could forget it. There was a barb to it and a toxin that we owned to at once."


----------



## Guest

some guy said:


> "It is absurd to think that the only way to tell if a poem is lasting is to wait and see if it lasts. The right reader of a good poem can tell the moment it strikes him that he has taken an immortal wound, that he will never get over it. That is to say, permanence in poetry as in love is perceived instantly. It has not to wait the test of time. The proof of a poem is not that we have never forgotten it, but that we knew at sight that we never could forget it. There was a barb to it and a toxin that we owned to at once."


I like it. But we'd have to get 200 years away from Frost to be...never mind.

I am wholly of the opinion that the test of time is not a test at all, just an adage that is as meaningful as...er...the most meaningless adage in the whole history of adages that haven't stood the test of time.

Disappointingly, breakup has not returned to answer any of the queries - neither mine nor anyone else's - about the criteria for 'popularity' or 'better musically'. But if 'longevity' is one of them, I know already I will reject it.


----------



## breakup

MacLeod said:


> Disappointingly, breakup has not returned to answer any of the queries - neither mine nor anyone else's - about the criteria for 'popularity' or 'better musically'. But if 'longevity' is one of them, *I know already I will reject it.*


Then what would be the point of posting if you are going to reject it before I post it?

There have been some interesting points made, thankyou all.


----------



## Guest

breakup said:


> Then what would be the point of posting if you are going to reject it before I post ?


You can still post for the benefit of others here who might be open to your criteria.


----------



## breakup

MacLeod said:


> You can still post for the benefit of others here who might be open to your criteria.


Do you mean all those thousands of lurkers who are reading this thread? :lol:


----------



## breakup

In case you haven't noticed, the intention of the thread is to stir things up and see what people thought of the idea. 

For myself, I go strictly with what I like, and I don't apply some arbitrary standard to the music I listen to.


----------



## Guest

breakup said:


> In case you haven't noticed, the intention of the thread is to stir things up...


Oh yes. So it is.


----------



## Guest

breakup said:


> Do you mean all those thousands of lurkers who are reading this thread? :lol:


No, just those who've been more amenable to your stirring than me, I guess.


----------



## arpeggio

breakup said:


> In case you haven't noticed, the intention of the thread is to stir things up and see what people thought of the idea.
> 
> For myself, I go strictly with what I like, and I don't apply some arbitrary standard to the music I listen to.


Well that is the way most of us feel.

I will have to learn to not to continue to fall for these jokes


----------



## breakup

arpeggio said:


> I will have to learn to not to continue to fall for these jokes


What fun would that be?


----------



## SimonNZ

breakup said:


> *Some pieces of music are popular and are played, and listened to a lot. Other pieces are more obscure and are not played, or listened to very often. * There is a reason for this, simply the popular pieces are better musically. Some "Experts" will claim that some of the more obscure pieces are better for some obscure reason, but mostly it's a knee-jerk reaction that what is popular can't be as good because the "unsophisticated" general public just doesn't know any better. Music reaches people on a level that has little to do with music education, and more to do with an emotional connection. The popular pieces are the better pieces.


I'd counter this oversimplification with another oversimplification:

Instead of two seperate groups, there's two groups overlapping like a Venn diagram: on the left there's music that's popular but poorly regarded critically, in the middle in the shaded overlap there's music that is both popular and well regarded, on the right is music that is critically well regarded but unpopular.

I would have said that most of the examples given so far on this thread fit into the middle section.


----------



## breakup

SimonNZ said:


> I'd counter this oversimplification with another oversimplification:
> 
> Instead of two seperate groups, there's two groups overlapping like a Venn diagram: on the left there's music that's popular but poorly regarded critically, in the middle in the shaded overlap there's music that is both popular and well regarded, on the right is music that is critically well regarded but unpopular.
> 
> *I would have said that most of the examples given so far on this thread fit into the middle section*.


for myself, I prefer the bell curve, and it fits what you say as well.


----------



## breakup

I read about a teacher once who gave a test right after a major event, the Kennedy assassination, 911, or something similar, and couldn't figure out why the students did poorly on the test, the bell curve was skewed well over to the failing side. My thought was that the teacher in question was rather numb to the world.


----------



## SimonNZ

breakup said:


> for myself, I prefer the bell curve, and it fits what you say as well.


A bell curve measuring what? That doesn't seem to fit with your first post at all.

Actually before you answer, and in light of your comments above, I'm obliged to add this: I'm only interested in your actual opinion. I have no use at all with a made up stance for amusements sake that can then have the goalposts shifted with "it was all a joke" or "it was just hypothetical" when the counter arguments become overwhelming. I'm interested in weighing your opinions based on your own life experiences and differing conclusions etc, but made-up what-abouts I can provide for myself.


----------



## ArtMusic

I think the bell-curve gives a good description of music popularity. Many will be around the center, others will be fringe and others will be enormously popular. I like poll statistics, and many polls indicate bell-curve results in real life.


----------



## Guest

I'd like to feel a little more sure that people know what "bell curve" refers to.

Of the three mentions of it so far, I'm reasonably certain that only SimonNZ knows what a bell curve shows, so perhaps first a wee bit tutelage about what it is that a bell curve is showing? What input is it that gives it it's distinctive shape, for instance, and how that may be applied to what kind of thing popularity is.

Certainly bell curves and Venn diagrams are two quite different things. And illustrate two very different things about whatever data is being fed into the systems that produce the nice pictures.


----------



## EdwardBast

ArtMusic said:


> I think the bell-curve gives a good description of music popularity. Many will be around the center, others will be fringe and others will be enormously popular. I like poll statistics, and many polls indicate bell-curve results in real life.


Which would be fine if popularity was what we were trying to illustrate. But since the subject here is the correlation of two elements, popularity and quality, a Venn diagram makes sense and a bell curve does not, as Simon rightly says.


----------



## Tristan

I'm sure this thread has become (in some way) another modernist vs. anti-modernist "debate" and I'm not really interested, but I'll just respond to the OP about popularity:

Popularity does not mean a piece is better or worse. All it means is that a lot of people like it.

All a piece being popular will do for me, at least, is cause me to listen to it. Because I'll be curious as to _why_ it is popular. Sometimes I'll agree with the reputation it has and sometimes I won't. But I won't consider a piece _better _because it's popular and I won't consider a piece inferior or avoid it just because it's popular either (the same goes for if it's unpopular). Popularity is only a factor in getting me to notice a piece in the first place; it doesn't necessarily correlate with what I like or dislike or what I generally consider "quality".


----------



## breakup

A piece is popular because it is good. Right now I'm listening to an old standard, and it's an old standard because it is good, and it is popular.






Too many people think that they must know better than the general public, and stick their nose in the air and say "I know better than the common rabble because I know better", so they listen to what is not popular, and pretend to like it.


----------



## Becca

breakup said:


> Too many people think that they must know better than the general public, and stick their nose in the air and say "I know better than the common rabble because I know better", so they listen to what is not popular, and pretend to like it.


I find this comment to be totally demeaning and insulting and, for the majority on this forum, deserving of an apology. We listen to things that we like whether or not they are popular and we do NOT pretend to like them because others don't.


----------



## Dustin

breakup said:


> A piece is popular because it is good. Right now I'm listening to an old standard, and it's an old standard because it is good, and it is popular.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too many people think that they must know better than the general public, and stick their nose in the air and say "I know better than the common rabble because I know better", so they listen to what is not popular, and pretend to like it.


Well only around 3% of people even like classical music so it is not popular to begin with. My uncle, who can't stand classical music, says anyone who listens to it only does it to look sophisticated and "stick their nose in the air" as you say.

I don't see how your argument is any different than his ridiculous argument. You are just making the argument on a more specific level.


----------



## ArtMusic

EdwardBast said:


> Which would be fine if popularity was what we were trying to illustrate. But since the subject here is the correlation of two elements, popularity and quality, a Venn diagram makes sense and a bell curve does not, as Simon rightly says.


I was discussing about popularity, I think.


----------



## arpeggio

breakup said:


> In case you haven't noticed, the intention of the thread is to stir things up and see what people thought of the idea.
> 
> For myself, I go strictly with what I like, and I don't apply some arbitrary standard to the music I listen to.


Based on the above and other entries I have no idea on whether to take 'breakup' seriously or not.

Even in jest these remarks are unfair. If this is his idea of fun I think we should ignore him.


----------



## Chipomarc

Dustin said:


> Well only around 3% of people even like classical music


I know what you mean, just last week someone in Starbucks asked me if I would mind turning down the volume when I was listening to Konzert A-Dur für Bassettklarinette performed by Concilium musicum Wien.


----------



## Becca

Dustin said:


> Well only around 3% of people even like classical music so it is not popular to begin with.


I suspect that it would be more accurate to say that only around 3% of people even *know *classical music. Based on my experience, many who don't know it, come to like classical music when exposed to it ... or at least some classical music (after all, how many of us can honestly claim to like it all?)


----------



## Sloe

Dustin said:


> Well only around 3% of people even like classical music so it is not popular to begin with. My uncle, who can't stand classical music, says anyone who listens to it only does it to look sophisticated and "stick their nose in the air" as you say.
> .


That is based on record sales in America I think. It is much possible that a person have 100 records and 3 are classical. I have read that a majority in fact likes classical music to some extent.


----------



## Dustin

Sloe said:


> That is based on record sales in America I think. It is much possible that a person have 100 records and 3 are classical. I have read that a majority in fact likes classical music to some extent.


It may not be exactly 3% but the America I know certainly doesn't have a majority in favor of classical music. I've tried talking classical music in public enough times to know when I get the confused look every single time.


----------



## mmsbls

Becca said:


> I suspect that it would be more accurate to say that only around 3% of people even *know *classical music. Based on my experience, many who don't know it, come to like classical music when exposed to it ... or at least some classical music (after all, how many of us can honestly claim to like it all?)


This post points to a study that actually suggests that, for some communities, classical music is the most liked genre of music. I think that means that more people indicated they liked at least some classical music than any other genre. Those people may not listen to or buy much classical music, but a high percentage say they like some works.


----------



## breakup

arpeggio said:


> If this is his idea of fun I think we should ignore him.


Thankyou, can I put that on my resume?


----------



## Celloman

My local symphony orchestra is going to be performing music from The Legend of Zelda video game franchise. All three concerts will most likely sell out, while the concerts with Mahler's 4th symphony will perhaps sell 2/3rds of their seats.

Does this mean that The Legend of Zelda music is better than Mahler's 4th?


----------



## breakup

Celloman said:


> My local symphony orchestra is going to be performing music from The Legend of Zelda video game franchise. All three concerts will most likely sell out, while the concerts with Mahler's 4th symphony will perhaps sell 2/3rds of their seats.
> 
> Does this mean that The Legend of Zelda music is better than Mahler's 4th?


Better, is a matter of individual judgement, what is better for you may not be better for someone else.


----------



## isorhythm

breakup said:


> Thankyou, can I put that on my resume?


This wasn't funny the first three or four times you said it either.


----------



## mmsbls

Celloman said:


> My local symphony orchestra is going to be performing music from The Legend of Zelda video game franchise. All three concerts will most likely sell out, while the concerts with Mahler's 4th symphony will perhaps sell 2/3rds of their seats.
> 
> Does this mean that The Legend of Zelda music is better than Mahler's 4th?


I'm surprised that classical music fans would know the Legend of Zelda music. I suppose people who would normally not go to concerts might attend this one because of this particular music. I've played almost all the Zelda games but I don't really know the music since I always turn the volume down when I play.

Assuming that Zelda does sell out and Mahler only sells 2/3rds of the tickets, one might say that Zelda gives more people pleasure. In that sense it could be viewed as better, but of course, there are may caveats to that assessment.


----------



## tdc

mmsbls said:


> I've played almost all the Zelda games but I don't really know the music since I always turn the volume down when I play.


I can't believe you turn the sound down when you play Zelda! You are missing out on a lot of that game in my opinion. That is like turning the sound off completely on a movie and just watching with subtitles.


----------



## breakup

isorhythm said:


> This wasn't funny the first three or four times you said it either.


 If you think that is not funny, you should see my resume.


----------



## mmsbls

tdc said:


> I can't believe you turn the sound down when you play Zelda! You are missing out on a lot of that game in my opinion. That is like turning the sound off completely on a movie and just watching with subtitles.


You may be right, but I just find many of the sounds annoying and know I don't need them to beat the game. It's not just Zelda but all video games I played (not that many actually).


----------



## breakup

mmsbls said:


> You may be right, but I just find many of the sounds annoying and know I don't need them to beat the game. It's not just Zelda but all video games I played (not that many actually).


I just listened to the main theme of the game, and I can understand why you would turn the sound down when you play.


----------



## Dustin

breakup said:


> Better, is a matter of individual judgement, what is better for you may not be better for someone else.


In response to whether Mahler's 4th or The Legend of Zelda's music is better you replied with the above. However, in your first post of the thread you said, "There is a reason for this, simply the popular pieces are better musically." So was there some confusion on your part or do these statements co-exist in your mind?


----------



## breakup

Dustin said:


> In response to whether Mahler's 4th or The Legend of Zelda's music is better you replied with the above. However, in your first post of the thread you said, "There is a reason for this, simply the popular pieces are better musically." So was there some confusion on your part or do these statements co-exist in your mind?


There is no confusion, it was my understanding that the thread was about classical music, if you are including the theme from the game Zelda, then all bets are off, and that also does not include other forms of popular non-music. And some of the later "classical" non-music.


----------



## Dustin

breakup said:


> There is no confusion, it was my understanding that the thread was about classical music, if you are including the theme from the game Zelda, then all bets are off, and that also does not include other forms of popular non-music. And some of the later "classical" non-music.


Aaahh gotcha. So in classical music, popular means better musically. In non-classical, some other rule applies. Just trying to get this all straight in my head. So Fur Elise is better musically than his late quartets and 99.9% of all other classical music. Got it.


----------



## GreenMamba

Dustin said:


> Aaahh gotcha. So in classical music, popular means better musically. In non-classical, some other rule applies. Just trying to get this all straight in my head. So Fur Elise is better musically than his late quartets and 99.9% of all other classical music. Got it.


Some people just like what they like (fair enough), but then lash out either at pretentious elites or the brainwashed masses, depending on what seems to fit at the time. There's no coherence to it.


----------



## arpeggio

I suspect that 'breakup' already knows the answer to 99% of the questions that he asks.


----------



## breakup

Dustin said:


> Aaahh gotcha. So in classical music, popular means better musically. In non-classical, some other rule applies. Just trying to get this all straight in my head. So Fur Elise is better musically than his late quartets and 99.9% of all other classical music. Got it.


Really? I didn't realize that "Fur Elise" was that popular, I think that's a good thing. Shall I assume from your post that you don't think Fur Elise is particularly good? Or is it just too popular for your rarefied tastes?



arpeggio said:


> I suspect that 'breakup' already knows the answer to 99% of the questions that he asks.


Oh, I wouldn't go that far, maybe 98%.



GreenMamba said:


> Some people just like what they like (fair enough), but then lash out either at pretentious elites or the brainwashed masses, depending on what seems to fit at the time. There's no coherence to it.


Actually being one of the "Brainwashed Masses" I would be more likely to lash out at the "Pretentious Elites".


----------



## Dustin

breakup said:


> Really? I didn't realize that "Fur Elise" was that popular, I think that's a good thing. Shall I assume from your post that you don't think Fur Elise is particularly good? Or is it just too popular for your rarefied tastes?


It's one of the most popular classical pieces of music that exist and I'm sure you know that. Do a Youtube search on it and look at the gazillions of views. And no, that can't be assumed from my post. It is a good piece that I enjoy hearing every long once in a while, but it has nothing on the rest of Beethoven's more heavyweight pieces like the mid and late quartets, sonatas...etc.


----------



## violadude

Dustin said:


> IDo a Youtube search on it and look at the gazillions of views.


Don't look at the comments though, I'm sure you'll find things like "This is so pretty, I use this to help me fall asleep". Or "This is beautiful, Mozart was a genius!"


----------



## Dustin

violadude said:


> Don't look at the comments though, I'm sure you'll find things like "This is so pretty, I use this to help me fall asleep". Or "This is beautiful, Mozart was a genius!"


Hahaha without question! There is also a version that is extended out and lasts 60 minutes. One girl's comment on this piece: "My favorite of Beethoven, (the long version)!"

Others:

"Dope track from Beethoven"

"Isn't this by Mozart though?"

"I like classical music a lot! Beethoven is one of my favourite composers! I listen to this song every day! It's really adorable!"

"Isnt this the guy who does piano man? This is a different style but still really good"


----------



## Nereffid

Apologies to anyone who's not happy to see this thread revived, but I felt I should add my two cents' worth seeing as I'm the guy who keeps posting polls that measure popularity...

The OP talks about "popularity" and "obscurity" as if they're opposites, but they're not really. That's because popularity is _two things_: being well-liked _and_ being well-known.

Let me illustrate from my own polls.
In a poll of medieval music, about one-third of participants said they liked Machaut's Messe de Nostre Dame; meanwhile, in a poll of music that had previously been voted at or near the top of TC's Recommended Lists, about two-thirds of participants said they liked Grieg's Piano concerto.
But it turns out that on the medieval poll nearly half of the voters chose the option "I don't know any of these works", implying that they actually knew little or nothing about medieval music generally (none chose that option on the other poll). And when you eliminate those "don't know"s, about two-thirds of the remainder liked the Machaut - roughly the same percentage as liked the Grieg. So, once context is taken into account we can say the two pieces are equally well-liked - just not equally well-known.

The OP's claim that popularity implies superiority would have us believe that, because Grieg beats Machaut in a straight comparison (two-thirds vs one-third), the Grieg is probably superior to the Machaut. But it's not hard to think of reasons other than "superiority" as to why the Machaut is less well-known than the Grieg.

But anyway, how in the hell does one determine whether a medieval mass is "inferior" or "superior" to a Romantic piano concerto?
Which raises another more subtle aspect of the issue, where there's some validity to the OP's claim (or, at least, the claim isn't as ridiculous as it seems).
What about the polls where we're comparing like with like? Let's look at one of the polls that compared various composers' third symphonies. In that one, Beethoven won comfortably, followed by Mahler and Schumann, Mendelssohn, Brahms, and Saint-Saens, with Nielsen, Scriabin, Prokofiev and Lutoslawski a ways behind, and Berwald, Harris, and Bernstein bringing up the rear (not all famous 3rd symphonies appeared in that poll!). Of course, again, we have the difficulty of trying to separate "well-liked" from "well-known", but I'm guessing a lot of you reading that list are probably thinking _that's more-or-less the "right" order_, and that Bernstein's poor showing against Beethoven (7% vs 85%!) isn't merely down to the Bernstein not being as well known.

My own inclination here is along the lines of what Woodduck and mmsbls have said: yes, we're all different, but there are enough similarities between us that certain pieces of music resonate with a large number of us, and that's what becomes known as "great" music. Woodduck used the word "innate" but I suspect it's far more of an environmental/cultural effect.


----------



## Guest

Nereffid said:


> Apologies to anyone who's not happy to see this thread revived, but I felt I should add my two cents' worth seeing as I'm the guy who keeps posting polls that measure popularity...


I've been meaning to ask you about those....:devil:



Nereffid said:


> What about the polls where we're comparing like with like? Let's look at one of the polls that compared various composers' third symphonies.


But a poll comparing third symphonies is not comparing like with like. Aside from the number, which is mostly meaningless (identifies nothing about the music itself), composers' third symphonies have nothing in common. Well, yeah. They're all symphonies, too, but then so are 7th symphonies and 1st and so forth. Aside from the symphony label, which may or may not indicate a similarity, no one's third is comparable to anyone else's third. There's just too much about the whole situation that is simply arbitrary.


----------



## millionrainbows

If you've ever read about "memes," this thread idea demonstrates the flaw in "popular is good."

~A *meme* is "an idea, behavior, or style that spreads from person to person within a culture".[SUP] [/SUP]A meme acts as a unit for carrying cultural ideas, symbols, or practices that can be transmitted from one mind to another through writing, speech, gestures, rituals, or other imitable phenomena with a mimicked theme. Supporters of the concept regard memes as cultural analogues to genes in that they self-replicate, mutate, and respond to selective pressures.
[SUP]
[/SUP]
Thus, music is like that. It takes on a life of its own. Our individual opinions of it are not as important to its survival as the mass-opinion it acquires. In this sense, it is a "survival of the fittest" scenario.

Maybe "alive" is better than "dead," so if something is popular, it "lives on" in the mass consciousness. Isn't the prime directive to "survive?"


----------



## Nereffid

some guy said:


> But a poll comparing third symphonies is not comparing like with like. Aside from the number, which is mostly meaningless (identifies nothing about the music itself), composers' third symphonies have nothing in common. Well, yeah. They're all symphonies, too, but then so are 7th symphonies and 1st and so forth. Aside from the symphony label, which may or may not indicate a similarity, no one's third is comparable to anyone else's third. There's just too much about the whole situation that is simply arbitrary.


Point taken - that was sloppy writing on my part.
I chose that example not because they were all third symphonies (may I say "duh!"?), but because they were symphonies generally, and past experience of TC indicates to me that many people here are comfortable in bunching such works together, particularly when (as is the case with most of the works mentioned) they were composed in that period of 1800-1950 that seems to be popular on TC.

Actually, f*** it, it wasn't sloppy writing, you're just a pedant.


----------



## Guest

Nereffid said:


> Actually, f*** it, it wasn't sloppy writing, you're just a pedant.


 :lol::lol::lol:


----------



## Headphone Hermit

Nereffid said:


> *how* in the hell does one determine whether a medieval mass is "inferior" or "superior" to a Romantic piano concerto?


This is a key point ...... preceded by asking why on earth anyone would *want* to do so, anyway.

some guy's posts have led to me taking the position that I am going to try to open my ears and mind so that I can enjoy what I listen to and I am going to listen to what i enjoy. (Of course, some guy may not have intended that to be his point but I thank him for developing my thinking :tiphat: )


----------



## millionrainbows

Headphone Hermit said:


> This is a key point ...... preceded by asking why on earth anyone would *want* to do so, anyway.
> 
> some guy's posts have led to me taking the position that I am going to try to open my ears and mind so that I can enjoy what I listen to and I am going to listen to what i enjoy. (Of course, some guy may not have intended that to be his point but I thank him for developing my thinking :tiphat: )


I can see how somebody's mindset and values can determine what music they think is "best" for them. For example, if a person values the individual expression exemplified by Romanticism, in preference to the medieval aesthetic of anonymity and collective thinking.


----------



## millionrainbows

some guy said:


> I've been meaning to ask you about those....:devil:
> 
> But a poll comparing third symphonies is not comparing like with like. Aside from the number, which is mostly meaningless (identifies nothing about the music itself), composers' third symphonies have nothing in common. Well, yeah. They're all symphonies, too, but then so are 7th symphonies and 1st and so forth. Aside from the symphony label, which may or may not indicate a similarity, no one's third is comparable to anyone else's third. There's just too much about the whole situation that is simply arbitrary.


There are ways in which third symphonies are similar, if you wish to see it that way. "Thirdness" is a quality which could indicate a relatively early period in a composer's output, since the standard norm is around 10 (yes, I'm sure there are exceptions). Also, the symphony is a Western form, not folk or ethnic; symphonies are presumably "sonatas for orchestra," so we can assume that they will have 3 to 4 contrasting movements; contrast itself is probably a unifying factor; they will probably all be orchestral works; etc.


----------



## millionrainbows

Balthazar said:


> Ladies and Gentlemen,
> 
> I give you the piece of music most popular at the moment and, therefore, the best musically.
> 
> *OMI ~ Cheerleader*
> 
> Thanks for coming out. We can all go home.


One could postulate why this music, the most popular at the moment, is "best." Mythologies often serve a purpose, even though the actual details or beliefs behind them might seem spurious. For example, a mythological belief that a certain plant is 'sacred' may be due to the fact that it is beneficial, and maybe not in a direct way. Maybe the plant is essential in some other non-human aspect of the environment, upon which another species' or plant's survival depends, and without which, the ecosystem would collapse.
So in mythology there is often a 'hidden wisdom' which may not be apparent, or immediately relevant.

For example, the music and the video probably serves some sort of lifestyle/cultural purpose of which some listeners or "outsiders" are unaware, or consider trivial or irrelevant.


----------



## arpeggio

One of the problems I have with these discussions, even when in jest, is that there are way too many great pieces of music that are not popular.

I hate repeating this point but 90% of Americans do not understand Mozart, yet America has produced many great composers that most American have never heard of.

I love the scene in the movie _Tombstone_ where Doc Holliday (I have no idea if Holliday could actually play the piano) was playing a Chopin "Nocturne" and Billy Clanton was complaining that he should play real music like "Camptown Races".

Edit: I did some research and found that Holiday could play the piano. His mother was a piano teacher.


----------



## millionrainbows

I think it's based on psychology. People who like popular music (and other popular things) have undergone a more severe process of socialization and "ego sacrifice" at that crucial point in their development (see Carl Jung _The Sacrifice_) than others who are repelled by such notions, or have a more insistent need to assert their "individuality."
Popular-loving people are more assimilated into the collective consciousness.
People who are drawn to less popular, even "fringe" music, did not undergo the full depth of a proper "sacrifice" or submission of their ego (see _ego death_), and have a narcissistic notion that they are "different" from the masses, or possess somequality which is unique.
Upon closer examination by properly qualified psychologists, we are most likely to find these sorts of maverick "fringe" outsiders to have narcissistic, sociopathic tendencies.


----------



## Guest

Hahaha, real music. You know, the kind people like.


----------



## Nereffid

millionrainbows said:


> I think it's based on psychology. People who like popular music (and other popular things) have undergone a more severe process of socialization and "ego sacrifice" at that crucial point in their development (see Carl Jung _The Sacrifice_) than others who are repelled by such notions, or have a more insistent need to assert their "individuality."
> Popular-loving people are more assimilated into the collective consciousness.
> People who are drawn to less popular, even "fringe" music, did not undergo the full depth of a proper "sacrifice" or submission of their ego (see _ego death_), and have a narcissistic notion that they are "different" from the masses, or possess somequality which is unique.
> Upon closer examination by properly qualified psychologists, we are most likely to find these sorts of maverick "fringe" outsiders to have narcissistic, sociopathic tendencies.


Your dichotomy here is between people who like the popular and people who like the less-popular, but would it not make more sense for the distinction to be between people who _accept_ the popular and people who _reject_ it? It's possible, after all, to be drawn to the less-popular while still liking (or not dismissing) the popular.

(Or: I like your basic idea but I don't want to be a narcissistic sociopath.)


----------



## Headphone Hermit

millionrainbows said:


> There are ways in which third symphonies are similar, if you wish to see it that way. "Thirdness" is a quality which could indicate a relatively early period in a composer's output, since the standard norm is around 10 (yes, I'm sure there are exceptions). Also, the symphony is a Western form, not folk or ethnic; symphonies are presumably "sonatas for orchestra," so we can assume that they will have 3 to 4 contrasting movements; contrast itself is probably a unifying factor; they will probably all be orchestral works; etc.


I'm sorry to say this, but .... there has clearly been some slip in thought process when writing this (or you know much less about music than I thought you did). There are so many exceptions to so many parts of this that the statement as a whole contains so many holes as to be as much use for this thread as a collander is as a bucket
..... eg the 3rd symphony wasn't 'early period' for many composers .... many significant composers wrote many fewer or many more than 10 .... there are numerous symphonies that have fewer or more than 3 or 4 movements


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> I think it's based on psychology. People who like popular music (and other popular things) have undergone a more severe process of socialization and "ego sacrifice" at that crucial point in their development (see Carl Jung _The Sacrifice_) than others who are repelled by such notions, or have a more insistent need to assert their "individuality."
> Popular-loving people are more assimilated into the collective consciousness.
> People who are drawn to less popular, even "fringe" music, did not undergo the full depth of a proper "sacrifice" or submission of their ego (see _ego death_), and have a narcissistic notion that they are "different" from the masses, or possess somequality which is unique.
> Upon closer examination by properly qualified psychologists, we are most likely to find these sorts of maverick "fringe" outsiders to have narcissistic, sociopathic tendencies.


I don't have time to go away and read Jung, so I'll have to rebut without evidence, except common sense (always risky.)

Horse feathers!


----------



## Headphone Hermit

^^^ is that an exemplar of the 'narcissistic, sociopathic tendency' referred to in the post you quote? :devil:


----------



## Ingélou

Aren't there other people like me who like some popular things and dislike other popular things - without having any ideological beliefs on the subject? 
To answer my own question - yes, and we might even be in the majority. 

I am definitely with MacLeod's verdict on this one!


----------



## Headphone Hermit

^^^ do you mean to suggest that many of us might be more complex than a simple generalisation might suggest? Shock! Horror!!!


----------



## Art Rock

Ingélou said:


> Aren't there other people like me who like some popular things and dislike other popular things - without having any ideological beliefs on the subject?
> To answer my own question - yes, and we might even be in the majority.
> 
> I am definitely with MacLeod's verdict on this one!


Same here. I can play Bach's Brandenburgers one moment and Grażyna Bacewicz' cello concertos the next (like this morning). Simply because I like them, not because they are popular or the opposite. And indeed, plenty of popular works I don't like and vice versa.


----------



## Guest

First, think of your nation's best known broom or brush manufacturer...
Next, insert into this sentence.

"More sweeping than a factory full of [your nation's best known broom or brush manufacturer]'s product."


----------



## Headphone Hermit

^^^ That could be a great question on the Quiz Show 'Pointless'

We asked 100 people to name the most famous broom manufacturer ... can you spot the pointless answer?


----------



## Guest

Headphone Hermit said:


> ^^^ is that an exemplar of the 'narcissistic, sociopathic tendency' referred to in the post you quote? :devil:


I'll confess to having all kinds of 'tendencies' that might give properly qualified psychologists (as opposed to the amateur variety) a field day. Not a subject for TC, however.


----------



## Guest

Art Rock said:


> I can play Bach's Brandenburgers one moment and Grażyna Bacewicz' cello concertos the next


You don't play anything popular then?


----------



## Art Rock

Well, Beatles, Kate Bush, David Bowie, ......


----------



## Becca

MacLeod said:


> I'll confess to having all kinds of 'tendencies' that might give properly qualified psychologists (as opposed to the amateur variety) a field day. Not a subject for TC, however.


The primary qualification to be a properly qualified psychologist is to be able to have a field day when presented with any TC inmate


----------

