# Sentence question



## Joris (Jan 13, 2013)

Is it modern academic language that is at fault or me? In _The Cambridge Companion to Beethoven_ a chapter opens with:

"Of the reception of Beethoven's music these last two hundred years, one thing is clear: there has been little trace of the tidal cycles of popular and critical approbation suﬀered by almost every other important composer."

Clear and little trace? Suffering approbation? Do you guys know what this sentence is saying?

Thanks a lot, and sorry for being so stupid..


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

'It's clear that Beethoven's reputation hasn't suffered from his music falling out of favour periodically, unlike that of other important composers.'

Er - I *think*!


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

I'm beginning to find more and more that people should publish what they think less and less.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Could have been worse. Could have opened with "There _have_ been little trace...."


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I do believe Beethoven's music has never fallen out of favor. In every succeeding musical period after 1827, listeners and composers were always in awe of Beethoven and still are.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Vesuvius said:


> I'm beginning to find more and more that people should publish what they think less and less.


You mean think before they publish? 

What it's saying is, (IMHO) "Both academic and popular approval of Beethoven's music has not changed."

The sentence reminds me of Russia - a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma. (Churchill)


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Ingélou said:


> 'It's clear that Beethoven's reputation hasn't suffered from his music falling out of favour periodically, unlike other important composers.'
> 
> Er - I *think*!


You've got it.

With a clearer sentence structure, it would be:
"It has been clear that little trace of the typically tidal cycles of approbation, critical and popular, has been evident in Beethoven's reputation, in contrast to that of almost every other important composer."


----------



## Guest (May 30, 2014)

Three things.

One, the sentence structure. It's fine.

Two, vocabulary. The word that goes with "suffer" is opprobrium, not approbation. Unless he's being ironic, and we don't know from the short sample we've been given.

Three, content. With the proviso that opprobrium is the correct word, is what he is saying true? Well, sorta. That is, there have not been a lot of swings back and forth. But there has been a lot of resistance. Berlioz and Liszt, for instance, would be very surprised to hear that Beethoven has always been popular. (Which is the gist.) As they spent many years, decades, promoting the music of Beethoven, trying and sometimes succeeding in getting people to play his music. Trying and sometimes succeeding in getting other people to come to the concerts and listen sympathetically.

The English critic Ruskin would be very surprised, too. As late as 1870, he was inveighing against this German chap and his chaotic and noisy music.

And, of course, there's TC's own Grosse Fuge thread, which of course the Cambridge writer could have known nothing about.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

The sentence is a clear example of academic overkill. Yes, it's how academic English too often is constructed, but that should not be seen as either a plus or as something to be imitated. As others have explained, it simply means that critical opinion of Beethoven has largely not swung up and down over the years.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

some guy said:


> Three things.
> 
> One, the sentence structure. It's fine.


Grammatically correct, yes, but the whole second part (the tidal cycles of popular and critical approbation suﬀered by almost every other important composer) is used as a subordinate clause, which does little to clarify the intended meaning...speaking of which:



> Two, vocabulary. The word that goes with "suffer" is opprobrium, not approbation. Unless he's being ironic, and we don't know from the short sample we've been given.


Yes, but the writer is talking about suffering swings in approbation vs lack of approbation. Beethoven has been consistently admired both critically and popularly (not for every work, as you've stated, but as a composer in general).


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Believe the word that goes with "suffer" could well be "cycles." The phrase "of popular and critical approbation" describes the cycles. The difficulties of making sense of this show that the writer badly needed a more attentive editor. But maybe he had one, who gave up in despair.

BTW I think it is true that Beethoven has always been popular among critics and the public alike. By 1802 (even before the Eroica) he was being spoken of in the critical press as a great composer; and the AMZ Leipzig spoke of his Eroica as "one of the most original, sublime, and profound products that music has to show for itself." His critical notices then and later were almost uniformly positive, even ecstatic.

His music was in demand by publishers throughout his entire working life starting in the late 1790s since they could sell boatloads of it to the general public. As a result, the prices they paid for his sonatas and chamber music were quite top-end. After his death I can't think of a time he was even remotely out of favor, examples of the few who disliked his music (Ruskin and occasional brickbats from people like Weber and Spohr) notwithstanding.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

I have noticed that this very wordy & abstract style is common in history & literary critical books & has been for the last 15 years. It corresponds with a trend for literal, rather than idiomatic, translation too, which also comes out as artificial & verbose. I honestly think that unless younger academics write in this style, their careers may stall.

You can see a similar change in academic style if you look in the twentieth century at works written in the 1920s & 1930s - very gushing - and ones in the the 1940s & 1950s - much more 'everyday' and plain. 

Fashion rules!


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Ingélou said:


> 'It's clear that Beethoven's reputation hasn't suffered from his music falling out of favour periodically, unlike that of other important composers.'
> 
> Er - I *think*!


Yep, that's what it says, _sort of_. Your translation actually suggests that his music has fallen out of favor periodically, but not his reputation as an important composer. 

Confronted with Joris's quote, it is probably best to start from scratch. Multiple statements y'know; 'break it down'.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

Of the reception of this sentence these last few hours, one thing is clear: there is plenty of evidence of a tsunami of popular and critical approbation suffered by almost every other important poster on this forum


hahaha - there must be something seriously wrong with me - I found it perfectly comprehensible (albeit a trifle clumsy!)


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

"One, the sentence structure. It's fine."

Nah, it sucks.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Ingélou said:


> 'It's clear that Beethoven's reputation hasn't suffered from his music falling out of favour periodically, unlike that of other important composers.'
> 
> Er - I *think*!


William Strunk Jr. and E. B. White are proud of you 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elements_of_Style


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

Ukko said:


> "One, the sentence structure. It's fine."
> 
> Nah, it sucks.


It could do with hpowderisation (or hpowderization, even!)


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Ukko said:


> Yep, that's what it says, _sort of_. Your translation actually suggests that his music has fallen out of favor periodically, but not his reputation as an important composer.
> 
> Confronted with Joris's quote, it is probably best to start from scratch. Multiple statements y'know; 'break it down'.


I have to admit, you're right: it's an irritating habit of yours...


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Joris said:


> Is it modern academic language that is at fault or me? In _The Cambridge Companion to Beethoven_ a chapter opens with:
> 
> "Of the reception of Beethoven's music these last two hundred years, one thing is clear: there has been little trace of the tidal cycles of popular and critical approbation suﬀered by almost every other important composer."
> 
> ...


Please, burn that book .


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

aleazk said:


> Please, burn that book .


Indeed, when a book, which is a means of communication, is so obfuscated (enjoy  in its style -- and irony of ironies -- that book is dedicated to discussing another form of clear and successful communication, it is time to burn it.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

PetrB said:


> William Strunk Jr. and E. B. White are proud of you
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elements_of_Style


In my first professional job, the boss would hand each newcomer a copy of Strunk & White. He'd say, "Read it carefully. When you finish, read it again." I still have my copy. In fact, I used it as a text when teaching professional writing to Chinese personnel in Hong Kong, who were already quite literate in English but far too influenced by the rather wordy writing style of the Brit top management. Apologies to the Brits hereabout, but I'm sure they know what I mean.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Headphone Hermit said:


> It could do with hpowderisation (or hpowderization, even!)


Yes. I did write the book. Labored (or laboured, even!) long and hard too.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

hpowders said:


> Yes. I did write the book.


hpowders strikes again.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> hpowders strikes again.


I prefer "gently descends". I'm not a drama king.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Gently descending takes too long - not pithy enough.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Ingélou said:


> Gently descending takes too long - not pithy enough.


Okay, then strikes* as opposed to strikes.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Why didn't I think of Pancho Villa for my avatar? How did I let that one get away. Perhaps Genghis Kahn is still free?


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

hpowders said:


> Why didn't I think of Pancho Villa for my avatar? How did I let that one get away. Perhaps Genghis Kahn is still free?


Close, but it's actually Emiliano Zapata.

Kaaaaaaaaaaahn!!


----------



## Wood (Feb 21, 2013)

KenOC said:


> ...but far too influenced by the rather wordy writing style of the Brit top management. Apologies to the Brits hereabout, but I'm sure they know what I mean.


Thanks for your thinkings Ken. Such a high altitude view is clearly beneficial, though I'm not sure if you've maybe wrongsided the demographic. Too much blue-sky thinking can reduct granularity, so please come to the party enabling us to gain learnings from you before close of play.

Excuse the paradigm shift but my bandwidth is full. At the end of the day, I have been giving 120% for too long. Anyway, I've enjoyed this conversate and trust we will keep sprinkling our magic.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Lope, I'm looking for a pillager and plunderer, not an actor. He's simply not avatar-worthy.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Headphone Hermit said:


> It could do with hpowderisation (or hpowderization, even!)


I never read the powderalized version of anything... I reads'em complete... pithy or nonpithy.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

hpowders said:


> Lope, I'm looking for a pillager and plunderer, not an actor. He's simply not avatar-worthy.










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


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Thought I heard my name...different thread maybe? Anyway, gotta provide some competition for these small-time plunderers.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

PetrB said:


> View attachment 43144
> 
> ...............................


That's a bit closer.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Thought I heard my name...different thread maybe? Anyway, gotta provide some competition for these small-time plunderers.


When you are finished with it, I want it. He's worshipped as a hero at the Mongolian Barbecue place I frequent. They play "Come on Baby Light My Fire" on a continuous loop.

Mr Kahn always played for high steaks.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I may change my tag name to "plunderer". Instant street cred with the atonal boys.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Headphone Hermit said:


> Of the reception of this sentence these last few hours, one thing is clear: there is plenty of evidence of a tsunami of popular and critical approbation suffered by almost every other important poster on this forum
> 
> hahaha - there must be something seriously wrong with me - I found it perfectly comprehensible (albeit a trifle clumsy!)


There is nothing wrong with you, Hermit (at least nothing a good hairstylist couldn't fix). I found the sentence perfectly clear as well, and depending on its context it may not even be clumsy. Could it have been simpler and more direct? Sure. Sentences could all be structured "subject-verb-object," one after another, paragraph after paragraph; plenty of textbooks are written that way, and we know how fascinating _they_ are. Dreadfully impatient and spoiled by mass media as we have become, we want brevity and punchiness, and a long, complex or inverted sentence (such as this one) throws us. And "cycles of approbation"? Well, does no one own a dictionary? (Sorry. I forgot that this machine I'm typing on is the dictionary now. Fine. Use it!).

We're gettin' flabby, folks. Pick up a nineteenth-century novel and get some exercise.


----------



## Joris (Jan 13, 2013)

I'm glad that non-fiction textbooks aren't 'literary' novels. They should inform. In academic texts sentences should be apt to falsification, have _meaning_. That is: point to a discoverable object.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

For me that sentence is straightforward. You want fun, read Derrida.


----------



## Guest (May 31, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> Grammatically correct, yes


I wasn't talking about grammar, but about structure.

What you present as "the whole second part" is only part of the second part. The second part starts with "there has been."

It's a masterfully balanced sentence, creating tension and satisfying anticipation. Only if you break it up where it cannot be broken would you have any trouble with it. The bit you say does not clarify the intended meaning IS the intended meaning.



Mahlerian said:


> Beethoven has been consistently admired both critically and popularly (not for every work, as you've stated, but as a composer in general).


So Berlioz and Liszt were just wasting their time trying convince all those people who didn't want to perform Beethoven and who didn't want to listen to Beethoven to perform and to listen because none of thse people existed? They would be, as I said, very surprised to hear that.

Otherwise, while Ken correctly points out that "suffer" goes with "cycles," the conclusion that that's difficult to make sense of it is perhaps a bit premature. (There have been a couple of people on this thread who have struggled with this quite simply constructed sentence. Not enough to draw any conclusions, I'd say. Even about the strugglers. The sentence is long. Some people got lost in it. OK)

And, of course, there's that whole Berlioz/Liszt thing, which Ken knows perfectly well but persists in discounting because it doesn't fit his preconceived idea.

Beethoven was generally pretty well-received in Germany. He was pretty well an object of great suspicion in France and England. He was pretty well ignored in Italy. (Beethoven? We've got Rossini!!) And people in Russia got to know of him, eventually, because of Berlioz.

And the first anniversary celebration in Germany was as much of a success as it was because of the tireless efforts of Berlioz and Liszt, who report being very disappointed that such a great composer needed such tireless efforts.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

some guy said:


> Beethoven was generally pretty well-received in Germany. He was pretty well an object of great suspicion in France and England. He was pretty well ignored in Italy. (Beethoven? We've got Rossini!!) And people in Russia got to know of him, eventually, because of Berlioz.


Beethoven was much more than "pretty well-received" in Germany. What you say of France and Italy is true, but I would be careful about making it personal. I mean, it took the French two hundred years to recognize that Shakespeare was worth reading. And romanticism in drama and literature was about a half-century behind in France as well. Hugo was still contending with "the three unities" in the 1830s; so, this was hardly a culture quick on the uptake. Any problems Beethoven had reaching broad acceptance in Italy and Russia were due to the fact that he was an instrumental composer and these cultures were dominated by opera. The moment Russia developed a system of higher music education - albeit on German models - Beethoven was a God.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> There is nothing wrong with you, Hermit (at least nothing a good hairstylist couldn't fix). I found the sentence perfectly clear as well, and depending on its context it may not even be clumsy. Could it have been simpler and more direct? Sure. Sentences could all be structured "subject-verb-object," one after another, paragraph after paragraph; plenty of textbooks are written that way, and we know how fascinating _they_ are. Dreadfully impatient and spoiled by mass media as we have become, we want brevity and punchiness, and a long, complex or inverted sentence (such as this one) throws us. And "cycles of approbation"? Well, does no one own a dictionary? (Sorry. I forgot that this machine I'm typing on is the dictionary now. Fine. Use it!).
> 
> We're gettin' flabby, folks. Pick up a nineteenth-century novel and get some exercise.


---
Nothing like getting school-marmed by a wood duck; especially a sarcastic and condescending one. . . so unlike myself.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

science said:


> For me that sentence is straightforward. You want fun, read Derrida.


I submit, Derrida_ is _a joke with props, but hardly fun.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

hpowders said:


> I may change my tag name to "plunderer".* Instant street cred with the atonal boys.*


That part I set in boldface is pitiably unhip 

I rather like a slight revision of "Bach the Borrower," to instead,

Bach the Plunderer

Feel free to use it


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Not a good week for JS on TC: labeled a ******* AND a plunderer.

Too irresistible to ignore. I must start with cantata #1.


----------



## Guest (May 31, 2014)

If Strunk & White could be replaced in the hearts and minds et cetera by Richard Lanham, I would be happier.

Though my hireability would probably plummet.

That pretty much sums up my life: a delicate balance between happiness and hireability.

(And you're welcome for my sharing.)


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

some guy said:


> Beethoven was generally pretty well-received in Germany. He was pretty well an object of great suspicion in France and England. He was pretty well ignored in Italy. (Beethoven? We've got Rossini!!) And people in Russia got to know of him, eventually, because of Berlioz.


Pretty true, although I think England liked him OK given all the commissions he got from there -- including the 9th Symphony. I read the other day (from memory) that his Eroica wasn't played in Italy until the 1860s.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> There is nothing wrong with you, Hermit *(at least nothing a good hairstylist couldn't fix). *


HEY!!!! Is there really any call for that, old chap? :scold:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Headphone Hermit said:


> HEY!!!! Is there really any call for that, old chap? :scold:


Shear envy, my friend. :tiphat:


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

Joris said:


> Is it modern academic language that is at fault or me? In _The Cambridge Companion to Beethoven_ a chapter opens with:
> 
> "Of the reception of Beethoven's music these last two hundred years, one thing is clear: there has been little trace of the tidal cycles of popular and critical approbation suﬀered by almost every other important composer."
> 
> ...


Once upon a time, there was a composer named Mr Beethoven. He was very popular and everyone loved him. 200 years later they still do. However, there were other composers but people haven't always liked them.


----------



## Guest (Jun 1, 2014)

I'm laughing now, but I'm not sure if it's Schadenfreude or simply Freude.

Oh well, I guess they're both Freude....


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

senza sordino said:


> Once upon a time, there was a composer named Mr Beethoven. He was very popular and everyone loved him. 200 years later they still do. However, there were other composers but people haven't always liked them.


A model of what a story should be, nice and pithy.


----------

