# Classical Music Really Is Doomed



## Neward Thelman

A member here calling himself "Captain36" has posted a thread entitled "Nothing Feels Real To Me Anymore in Music". For those who haven't read it, in it he states that he's turning his attention more to classical music and away from pop/rock.

Rather than encouraging his efforts; rather than cheering and helping on in his exploration of the huge corpus of classical music and helping him to feel strengthened in doing so, one after another rockers have shown up to --->

*** To exhort him to listen to more rock and roll ***

That's like a pack of stoners showing up on a addiction rehabilitation site to exhort those in recovery to ---- use more drugs. Then, the drug users begins to list various forms of marijuana or heroin and the effects - and paste links to stoner/drug websites.

Exactly like that, the rockers haven't been content to simply type rock and roll encouragement, but they've listed colorful links to various kinds of pop-rock music [cause, you know, rock's just SO HARD to find anywhere in the world].

Here we have a music which for which the future's in grave doubt. Symphony orchestras struggle to just exist, begging donors for money. The audience most evident in concert halls is old and grey. And what do we get here people agitating for rock!!!

It's like getting a letter in the mail asking for contributions to Donald Trump's personal bank account. Ignore starvation around the world; ignore institutions working to rescue endangered animals; ignore organizations aiding human beings in critical medical need - IGNORE all of that --- give money to a billionaire's personal account.

Yeah - that makes sense.

I haven't seen A SINGLE classical person advocating for classical music on ANY rock site.

Rock on,
Severius!


----------



## Pugg

Community forum would be more appropriate for this
( If ever this is appropriate)


----------



## brianvds

Just conceivably, all these folks like both rock and classical. One reason why classical music takes a beating is because lots of people see it as stuck up and elitist - rockers freely and enthusiastically enjoy classical music and show up on a classical message board, but you never see classical lovers arrive at a rock board to enthuse about rock. Just as you point out above.

I wouldn't worry too much - if there is anything to the Lindy Effect, classical music is more likely to survive than almost anything else.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect


----------



## Klassik

Neward Thelman said:


> The audience most evident in concert halls is old and grey.


I have a co-worker who enjoys the 1970s rock music from his youth and classical music. He goes to concerts held by these famed 1970s rock bands (we all know the names). He says the number of grey hairs are about the same at those concerts now as they are at a classical concert. The difference is that 75 years from now, there are sure to be a new group of grey hairs taking in the familiar sounds of Mozart and Beethoven. How many hairs, grey or otherwise, will be taking in the sounds of some 1970s rock tribute band then? Probably not too many.


----------



## Ziggabea

Classical music and rock aren't raging war together, WTF? 



Neward Thelman said:


> I haven't seen A SINGLE classical person advocating for classical music on ANY rock site.


Now THAT is pure elitism, you're creating nonexistent groups that don't exist. "rockers" as you call them; are people that like rock. There are also a lot of people who like rock: that like classical music.

There are a lot of people who like classical music: that like jazz
There are a lot of people who like jazz: that like metal
There are a lot of people who like folk: that like rock
the list goes on

You're just an attention seeker


----------



## Dan Ante

Actually I think classical will last longer than RR or country, rap and all that sort of stuff (Ha Ha Dan has baited the Dog Pack) in NZ I have been amazed at the number of school children that have taken to Singing and I don’t mean pop but choral works where they learn to read music SATB with real harmony, they learn to listen to what others in the choir are singing, a lot of these children go on to music schools where they may become instrumentalists, of course it depends upon which schools they attend.
I agree that concert audiences are the grey brigade but its not too late to get kids interested, we had a school competition last year called ‘The big sing’ which was televised and it was a revelation to see the enthusiasm and enjoyment on the faces of these children.
So do not write off classical yet.


----------



## musicrom

I didn't follow that thread closely, but I think this happened because the O.P. sounded like they were starting to believe that the only good music is classical music. There's a stereotype that classical music enthusiasts think exactly that, and the responses to that question showed that just isn't true. I think if the poster just asked for recommendations, as many do here, that you wouldn't see any of those responses. Unless the thread completely derailed since last I read it, I don't think there's much to worry about here.


----------



## Neward Thelman

Dan Ante: "to get kids interested, we had a school competition"

You've hit the nail on the head.

The only way to ensure not just that classical music - and jazz - in short any real music survives - is thru education.

In today's world, the only music that a child is likely to hear is some form of pop/rock. That's all. Parents play it in their homes - they bring up their children on pop/rock [not knowing - or listening to - much else themselves.

The only was to broaden - AND ENRICH - musically is thru schooling. 50 years ago - 75 years ago - music education was an integral part of primary and secondary education. With budget cuts, that's all gone. 75 years ago, children were at least exposed and introduced to music beyond what they hear in their homes. They may not grow up to be lovers of classical music - but at least they'd heard it and had an appreciation for it. They were given some basic lessons in music. They could at least be intelligent listeners

And - some kids became listeners of classical music. It stuck. The audience for classical music, at least in the United States, was never larger than in mid-century America. Symphony orchestras thrived. They multiplied. They had their or radio broadcasts - even their own networks. Big cities had multiple radio stations broadcasting classical music full time, and many more broadcasting even more classical music part time.

You may even gauge the popularity and dissemination of classical music from an unorthodox angle. What's that?

It's muzak. Or, what we call muzak. That's not what it was called during its heyday [the term was actually a slur that was applied to it during the 1970's]. It took on many forms, but the most widespread form was orchestral. It made its way into elevators, doctor's offices, super markets, and the like. That's all gone now - replaced by pop/rock. But, orchestral muzak reigned supreme for a period of time - and it could only do so if there was an audience for orchestral sound. Not amplified electric geeetahrs, not thumpus non interruptus - orchestral sound. That musical preference didn't come from thin air - or Mars.

I'm not advocating for muzak. I'm advocating for an educated population that knows something more than "yeah yeah baby baby thump thump thump". As a side benefit, it'll result in a new, large, and appreciative audience for classical music.

Or, what I can real music.

Rock on, 
Severius!


----------



## quietfire

Classical music will survive because of inherently how beautiful it is. And if it doesn't, then I am sure a lot of other things won't too.


----------



## SONNET CLV

Of course, I live in a world which offers a great deal of choice and variety where music comes in. I enjoy Beatles and Stones as well as Bach and Beethoven, as well as Miles and Coltrane. Some of the "classical" music I enjoy (Boulez, Xenakis, Stockhausen, Penderecki) might seem strange to even those who like classical music (and maybe less strange to some of the rock and/or jazz crowd). And my collection of punk rock, experimental and noise music, and ultra avant-garde classical rivals that of nearly anyone on this board, I suspect. But as Duke Ellington said, there are only two kinds of music: good music and bad music, and I suspect those two kinds of music exist in all genres -- rock, classical, jazz ... world, what have you.

Some of us would rather listen to music than complain. I count myself in that category ... most of the time.


----------



## SONNET CLV

quietfire said:


> Classical music will survive because of inherently how beautiful it is. And if it doesn't, then I am sure a lot of other things won't too.


What is "beautiful", of course, is a value judgment, one of personal taste. Penderecki's "Threnody" is probably not beautiful to many lovers of "classical" music, but maybe as an artistic structure it is not _supposed_ to be beautiful, at least as beauty is considered in the traditional manner. For even ugliness can be beautiful when conceived as an artistic form.

I admire the ugliness of that movie creature in the Alien films. That creature is UGLY. But ... the ugliness was created by an artist who brings a true beauty to the art of creating ugliness. As I think Penderecki does with his "Threnody". It is a sound portrait of a horror: the atomic bombing of a city in Japan during WWII. Nothing beautiful about that. Yet, Penderecki has beautifully created the perfect analogue for the event -- ugly sounds. Ah! Beautiful!

What does one mean by "Classical music will survive because of inherently how beautiful it is"? All classical music? A lot of classical music is already gone by the way side. There have been a plethora of composers from bygone eras who are today mere footnotes in Groves Encyclopedia. Yet I'm sure they worked hard at their art to create beauty.

What makes "classical" music classical anyway? We often consider much Medieval music to be "classical" by genre, yet it was conceived as folk music for singing at the taverns or dancing in the streets. Much as like pop music of today is.

And great pop songwriters will last. Cole Porter created nothing "classical" and yet his songs have a life that continues well past the pop charts for which they were written. I suspect Lennon and McCartney will enjoy a similar fate. And Antonio Jobim ... and Miles Davis, and Bacharach and David ....

A two minute pop song by Leonard Cohen can be beautiful, as well as a two hour symphony by Mahler. It can also be bland, silly, overblown, pretentious, and essentially meaningless. (Which brings up a new topic: what is meaningfulness? But, let's not go there now.)

Be careful about judgment. What one person enjoys, likes, finds beautiful may differ from how another person finds the same work. Neither is wrong. Preference is a matter of personal choice. Let us not believe one person has a superior viewpoint to another. In terms of personal preference, Britney Spears is Beethoven's equal.

Time, and Society on the whole, History ... call it what you will, provides a larger, more permanent judgment than any single person can manage. So we might trust somewhat to that larger selecting out of what is worthy rather than attempt to assign the worthiness ourselves. And if I find Suicidal Tendencies' song "Institutionalized" beautiful, I may mean a different kind of beauty from that I see in Beethoven's "Moonlight Sonata" or Ornette Coleman's "Lonely Woman". But all three of these works are, to me, beautiful. And in my opinion they all have artistic worth, though I'd be hard pressed to rank them or even explain why.

Such is the nature of art. And of the nature of human appreciation for art.

And I wouldn't want it any other way.


----------



## quietfire

SONNET CLV said:


> What is "beautiful", of course, is a value judgment, one of personal taste. Penderecki's "Threnody" is probably not beautiful to many lovers of "classical" music, but maybe as an artistic structure it is not _supposed_ to be beautiful, at least as beauty is considered in the traditional manner. For even ugliness can be beautiful when conceived as an artistic form.
> 
> I admire the ugliness of that movie creature in the Alien films. That creature is UGLY. But ... the ugliness was created by an artist who brings a true beauty to the art of creating ugliness. As I think Penderecki does with his "Threnody". It is a sound portrait of a horror: the atomic bombing of a city in Japan during WWII. Nothing beautiful about that. Yet, Penderecki has beautifully created the perfect analogue for the event -- ugly sounds. Ah! Beautiful!
> 
> What does one mean by "Classical music will survive because of inherently how beautiful it is"? All classical music? A lot of classical music is already gone by the way side. There have been a plethora of composers from bygone eras who are today mere footnotes in Groves Encyclopedia. Yet I'm sure they worked hard at their art to create beauty.
> 
> What makes "classical" music classical anyway? We often consider much Medieval music to be "classical" by genre, yet it was conceived as folk music for singing at the taverns or dancing in the streets. Much as like pop music of today is.
> 
> And great pop songwriters will last. Cole Porter created nothing "classical" and yet his songs have a life that continues well past the pop charts for which they were written. I suspect Lennon and McCartney will enjoy a similar fate. And Antonio Jobim ... and Miles Davis, and Bacharach and David ....
> 
> A two minute pop song by Leonard Cohen can be beautiful, as well as a two hour symphony by Mahler. It can also be bland, silly, overblown, pretentious, and essentially meaningless. (Which brings up a new topic: what is meaningfulness? But, let's not go there now.)
> 
> Be careful about judgment. What one person enjoys, likes, finds beautiful may differ from how another person finds the same work. Neither is wrong. Preference is a matter of personal choice. Let us not believe one person has a superior viewpoint to another. *In terms of personal preference, Britney Spears is Beethoven's equal.*
> 
> Time, and Society on the whole, History ... call it what you will, provides a larger, more permanent judgment than any single person can manage. So we might trust somewhat to that larger selecting out of what is worthy rather than attempt to assign the worthiness ourselves. And if I find Suicidal Tendencies' song "Institutionalized" beautiful, I may mean a different kind of beauty from that I see in Beethoven's "Moonlight Sonata" or Ornette Coleman's "Lonely Woman". But all three of these works are, to me, beautiful. And in my opinion they all have artistic worth, though I'd be hard pressed to rank them or even explain why.
> 
> Such is the nature of art. And of the nature of human appreciation for art.
> 
> And I wouldn't want it any other way.


And Justin Bieber is Johann Bach's equal. See what I did there?


----------



## Merl

Neward Thelman said:


> I haven't seen A SINGLE classical person advocating for classical music on ANY rock site.


As someone who listens to an even broader range of music than just rock and classical I find it rather strange that people are being pigeon-holed by some of the comments on here. I used to moderate on a rock music site but took every opportunity to extol the virtues of classical music (I even created a classical sub-forum in there to cater for classical discussion). Some of my friends like classical music (but not as enthusiastically as me) and others have purchased it through my recommendations. I'll champion any music that I like, whatever the genre. I don't see a problem with that.


----------



## Ingélou

This is a classical music site, but many - maybe even most of us - enjoy music of many kinds. To cater for that, there is a 'non-classical music' subforum where I've been able to enjoy many recommendations, some for the folk music which I love. I think it was a great idea of the site's owner to have these different sub-forums because classical music itself has been enriched by using themes and ideas from other musics - jazz and folk in particular. 

This is a site for open-minded music lovers, even if its primary purpose is 'talk - classical'. 
If a rock music site specialises in rock music, it's not very surprising if the posters don't often recommend classical music - but that doesn't mean that they don't as individuals enjoy classical music as well as rock. 

If someone posts on a classical music site that s/he is turning away from rock music and more and more valuing classical music - there doesn't seem any need to urge that s/he stick to classical music. People must find their own path. 

I don't find anything wrong with people answering that s/he might still enjoy various examples from rock - it's a way of people saying that they can still enjoy both rock and classical and that the OP might find that s/he still can too. The OP shares his/her feelings about classical and rock - and the posters share their feelings too. No problem that I can see. 

This is a site for sharing and discussion, after all - not for preaching and following a party line, or for lambasting a whole bunch of members who don't share one's tastes. 

Live and let live.


----------



## Ingélou

Merl said:


> As someone who listens to an even broader range of music than just rock and classical I find it rather strange that people are being pigeon-holed by some of the comments on here. I used to moderate on a rock music site but took every opportunity to extol the virtues of classical music (I even created a classical sub-forum in there to cater for classical discussion). Some of my friends like classical music (but not as enthusiastically as me) and others have purchased it through my recommendations. I'll champion any music that I like, whatever the genre. I don't see a problem with that.


:tiphat:

I think different cultures interacting can refresh and enrich each other. I'd be interested in examples of how classical ideas have been used in rock, and vice versa - I'm sure there are some.

In life, I am monogamous - but in music, I'm polyandrous. 

In my opinion, it's precisely when types of music (or art or language or literature) are narrowed down that they become moribund. Being alive to new influences and followed by people who interact with more popular music (as well as traditional fans) - that can only do classical music good and it's likely to attract new people too.


----------



## JAS

Ingélou said:


> I think different cultures interacting can refresh and enrich each other.


Although they may be more likely to start a war, if history has anything to say about it.


----------



## science

Neward Thelman said:


> A member here calling himself "Captain36" has posted a thread entitled "Nothing Feels Real To Me Anymore in Music". For those who haven't read it, in it he states that he's turning his attention more to classical music and away from pop/rock.
> 
> Rather than encouraging his efforts; rather than cheering and helping on in his exploration of the huge corpus of classical music and helping him to feel strengthened in doing so, one after another rockers have shown up to --->
> 
> *** To exhort him to listen to more rock and roll ***
> 
> That's like a pack of stoners showing up on a addiction rehabilitation site to exhort those in recovery to ---- use more drugs. Then, the drug users begins to list various forms of marijuana or heroin and the effects - and paste links to stoner/drug websites.
> 
> Exactly like that, the rockers haven't been content to simply type rock and roll encouragement, but they've listed colorful links to various kinds of pop-rock music [cause, you know, rock's just SO HARD to find anywhere in the world].
> 
> Here we have a music which for which the future's in grave doubt. Symphony orchestras struggle to just exist, begging donors for money. The audience most evident in concert halls is old and grey. And what do we get here people agitating for rock!!!
> 
> It's like getting a letter in the mail asking for contributions to Donald Trump's personal bank account. Ignore starvation around the world; ignore institutions working to rescue endangered animals; ignore organizations aiding human beings in critical medical need - IGNORE all of that --- give money to a billionaire's personal account.
> 
> Yeah - that makes sense.
> 
> I haven't seen A SINGLE classical person advocating for classical music on ANY rock site.
> 
> Rock on,
> Severius!


Well, in that case I guess I should stop listening to it.

Thanks for letting me know before I wasted any more of my short life on the beautiful music that I love!

Are people still making rock music?


----------



## Ingélou

JAS said:


> Although they may be more likely to start a war, if history has anything to say about it.


Sometimes - but in the end cultures don't remain separate. Latin died out as a spoken language - and lived again in French, Portuguese, Spanish, Italian...

We still have Latin - and now all the beautiful others too.

I agree with a point that someone made on another thread - far from being doomed, classical music is accessible to a greater number of people than ever before, world-wide. There are new composers of classical music in every quarter of the globe. It's a wonderful time for a music-lover to be alive.


----------



## Woodduck

Neward Thelman said:


> In today's world, the only music that a child is likely to hear is some form of pop/rock. That's all. Parents play it in their homes - they bring up their children on pop/rock [not knowing - or listening to - much else themselves.
> 
> The only was to broaden - AND ENRICH - musically is thru schooling. 50 years ago - 75 years ago - music education was an integral part of primary and secondary education. With budget cuts, that's all gone. 75 years ago, children were at least exposed and introduced to music beyond what they hear in their homes. They may not grow up to be lovers of classical music - but at least they'd heard it and had an appreciation for it. They were given some basic lessons in music. They could at least be intelligent listeners
> 
> And - some kids became listeners of classical music. It stuck. *The audience for classical music, at least in the United States, was never larger than in mid-century America. Symphony orchestras thrived. They multiplied. They had their or radio broadcasts - even their own networks. Big cities had multiple radio stations broadcasting classical music full time, and many more broadcasting even more classical music part time.*


Yes, I was around during that time, first as a kid listening to classical radio out of Philadelphia and catching the entire Bayreuth Festival from Deutsche Welle every summer, and later attending college in the vicinity of Boston, MA, where there were three radio stations broadcasting classical music virtually round the clock. I could hear three complete operas every week, including the Met and new releases, there was diverse programming with music from every era, and the commentators were often musicians who really knew what they were talking about. It was the best musical education I've ever had, and all I had to do for it was turn on my radio.

Today we can only be nostalgic about such musical abundance. Apparently talk radio "pays the bills," and classical music does not. I've just now moved to a place in northern California, not at all remote in terms of miles, where my radio will not pull in a single station worth listening to. This has come as a terrible shock (I won't be staying here!), but perhaps it wouldn't have if I hadn't spent my musically formative years in a time and place that now seem like heaven on earth. Undoubtedly, not every place was like Boston in the '70s. But I dare say that no place in America - including Boston, if a friend who still lives there is to be believed - has been like that for many, many years.


----------



## Pat Fairlea

Woodduck said:


> Yes, I was around during that time, first as a kid listening to classical radio out of Philadelphia and catching the entire Bayreuth Festival from Deutsche Welle every summer, and later attending college in the vicinity of Boston, MA, where there were three radio stations broadcasting classical music virtually round the clock. I could hear three complete operas every week, including the Met and new releases, there was diverse programming with music from every era, and the commentators were often musicians who really knew what they were talking about. It was the best musical education I've ever had, and all I had to do for it was turn on my radio.
> 
> Today we can only be nostalgic about such musical abundance. Apparently talk radio "pays the bills," and classical music does not. I've just now moved to a place in northern California, not at all remote in terms of miles, where my radio will not pull in a single station worth listening to. This has come as a terrible shock (I won't be staying here!), but perhaps it wouldn't have if I hadn't spent my musically formative years in a time and place that now seem like heaven on earth. Undoubtedly, not every place was like Boston in the '70s. But I dare say that no place in America - including Boston, if a friend who still lives there is to be believed - has been like that for many, many years.


Is it just economics? Talk Radio is cheap: a symphony concert isn't. I used to worry about the age of CM audiences. Back when I was a student (ahem, think Ida Haendel live), audiences were mostly grey haired and wrinkly, apparently so old that Mrs Pat and I would be the only surviving audience in a couple of decades. Well, 40 plus years on, we're the grey wrinkles and the audiences persist. CM seems to recruit an older generation as well as the youngsters like us who got the bug young and stuck with it. And there's a lot of new music being written, some of it with the staying power to appeal to audiences many decades hence.


----------



## DaveM

If there was one single thing that might be most important in the saving of classical music, I would suggest that it is the exponential rise in acceptance of it by China (as well as Japan, though that occurred well before China). There is a relative explosion of new Asian artists and in Southern California alone, I tend to see more new Asian pianists and violinists than any other culture. Apparently, China now accounts for 80% of the world's new piano production.


----------



## Ekim the Insubordinate

Woodduck said:


> Yes, I was around during that time, first as a kid listening to classical radio out of Philadelphia and catching the entire Bayreuth Festival from Deutsche Welle every summer, and later attending college in the vicinity of Boston, MA, where there were three radio stations broadcasting classical music virtually round the clock. I could hear three complete operas every week, including the Met and new releases, there was diverse programming with music from every era, and the commentators were often musicians who really knew what they were talking about. It was the best musical education I've ever had, and all I had to do for it was turn on my radio.
> 
> Today we can only be nostalgic about such musical abundance. Apparently talk radio "pays the bills," and classical music does not. I've just now moved to a place in northern California, not at all remote in terms of miles, where my radio will not pull in a single station worth listening to. This has come as a terrible shock (I won't be staying here!), but perhaps it wouldn't have if I hadn't spent my musically formative years in a time and place that now seem like heaven on earth. Undoubtedly, not every place was like Boston in the '70s. But I dare say that no place in America - including Boston, if a friend who still lives there is to be believed - has been like that for many, many years.


Well, does it really make sense to rely on a medium ~ a century old for your classical music listening, and wonder that it is not very dynamic? Have you looked into satellite radio? You have access all over. My quick search shows that Sirius has 2 classical stations - Met Opera Radio and Symphony Hall.

When I am on the go, or even at home, if I want to hear classical music other than what is in my own library, I go with Spotify. It is superior to terrestrial radio - even satellite radio. If you don't have to have control of what comes next (much like a radio experience), then Spotify is completely free. Find someone else's play list, or make your own.


----------



## jailhouse

this is one of the dumbest, most closeminded posts i've ever read on a 'serious music lovers' forum. Jesus christ.

OP has probably never listened to a single 'rock' album


----------



## Ekim the Insubordinate

DaveM said:


> If there was one single thing that might be most important in the saving of classical music, I would suggest that it is the exponential rise in acceptance of it by China (as well as Japan, though that occurred well before China). There is a relative explosion of new Asian artists and in Southern California alone, I tend to see more new Asian pianists and violinists than any other culture. Apparently, China now accounts for 80% of the world's new piano production.


And before that, it was the democratization of it by recording it and marketing those recordings. Suddenly, you didn't have to travel to a concert hall and buy the tickets, or be able to play yourself. After the initial output for the device for playback, you could listen to music in your own home. So I grew up in a home where my father happened to have a complete collection of Beethoven's works on LP. A century prior, someone of our family's socioeconomic status would not likely even be able to hum Beethoven's 5th. And I had his entire collection, from DG, at my fingertips. Quality recordings - Kempff, Karajan, etc.


----------



## NorthernHarrier

I'm curious about whether the financial problems of current symphony orchestras in the USA also existed in the 50's or 60's? I'm 55 but I don't remember hearing whether funding problems existed then as they do now. 

And I wonder if symphony orchestras in other parts of the world are finding it more or less difficult to fund themselves and full concert series now compared to earlier times. Anyone?


----------



## Klassik

DaveM said:


> If there was one single thing that might be most important in the saving of classical music, I would suggest that it is the exponential rise in acceptance of it by China (as well as Japan, though that occurred well before China). There is a relative explosion of new Asian artists and in Southern California alone, I tend to see more new Asian pianists and violinists than any other culture. Apparently, China now accounts for 80% of the world's new piano production.


This is quite true. It's usually a person that visibly looks like they are of Asian decent whenever I see someone digging through the classical racks at the local B&M music stores (which isn't too often BTW, but at least it gives me free reign over the racks). Perhaps we're outsourcing classical music appreciation to Asia and we're importing a love of K-pop. 

Does anyone have any numbers on the growth of classical music in Asia? I wonder if we may start seeing more classical labels pop up in Asia. If so, I hope we're able to buy their CDs here in the US.



NorthernHarrier said:


> I'm curious about whether the financial problems of current symphony orchestras in the USA also existed in the 50's or 60's? I'm 55 but I don't remember hearing whether funding problems existed then as they do now.
> 
> And I wonder if symphony orchestras in other parts of the world are finding it more or less difficult to fund themselves and full concert series now compared to earlier times. Anyone?


I don't know, but I've never heard a non-profit organization say that they have enough money. They're always looking to build up the war chest. Obviously we know about the labor issues that many US orchestras are having, and I'm sure some smaller/more amateur orchestras are legitimately struggling, but I don't know how much orchestras are really and truly struggling.

Scientific literature can often inform us of trends. I came across this article showing their research showing that fewer people dislike classical and opera music in 2012 as compared to 1993. Oddly enough, college educated people are starting to dislike classical music more and non-college educated people are disliking it less. I'm not sure what would explain that and I'm not sure what impact that may have on future funding for classical music. Although rock music seems to be disliked less by older people (perhaps as the 1970s rock youngsters get older), rock music is increasingly becoming disliked by younger people. That really isn't a huge surprise to me.

http://www3.nd.edu/~olizardo/papers/poetics-generations.pdf

It's hard to judge how things are going in other countries as they tend to fund non-profit organizations/charities/arts differently than we do. They tend to use more governmental support. It just seems like some South American countries are doing a good job expanding classical music opportunities as we start to see more professional musicians come from there.


----------



## Captainnumber36

I haven't seen A SINGLE classical person advocating for classical music on ANY rock site.
Rock on said:


> Many people on the Phish boards, the band who I linked to in the other thread, discuss and advocate for Classical music, myself included.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

Ingélou said:


> I think different cultures interacting can refresh and enrich each other.


Yeah but they can also ruin each other.


----------



## Woodduck

Ekim the Insubordinate said:


> Well, does it really make sense to rely on a medium ~ a century old for your classical music listening, and wonder that it is not very dynamic? Have you looked into satellite radio? You have access all over. My quick search shows that Sirius has 2 classical stations - Met Opera Radio and Symphony Hall.
> 
> When I am on the go, or even at home, if I want to hear classical music other than what is in my own library, I go with Spotify. It is superior to terrestrial radio - even satellite radio. If you don't have to have control of what comes next (much like a radio experience), then Spotify is completely free. Find someone else's play list, or make your own.


I have 4300 CDs and listen on YouTube frequently, so I don't have to rely on radio for music and don't feel deprived of music. But I'm not sure that personal access to music equates to it being a vital part of the culture. We live now in a society where we have, as individuals, access to almost everything, and we seem increasingly to drift off into our own separate areas of interest. People now go out for lunch together and sit around the table punching their individual digital gadgets instead of looking at each other and conversing. The possibility of floating off into my own little musical universe and hearing whatever I want whenever I want it is fine as an option, but it doesn't say to me the same things about our musical culture as abundant, energetic and imaginative locally produced and/or carried radio which responds to the community that supports it. There is nothing like participating in the cultural life of one's own place and time, and the feeling that classical music is regarded as important to the culture where I live is, for me, a real value. It also reassures me that classical music is important in other communities as well, that it isn't just another "product" put out by multinational corporations and aimed at a niche market. Culture is communal, or it isn't culture any more. In our "multicultural" time, I'm not sure where the culture of classical music fits in, but if radio is still a popular medium and classical music isn't on it, that surely tells us something.


----------



## Bulldog

jailhouse said:


> this is one of the dumbest, most closeminded posts i've ever read on a 'serious music lovers' forum. Jesus christ.
> 
> OP has probably never listened to a single 'rock' album


That's unlikly, but it really doesn't matter. The OP is entitled to his musical tastes and has every right to express them, same as you or me.


----------



## dzc4627

Neward Thelman said:


> A member here calling himself "Captain36" has posted a thread entitled "Nothing Feels Real To Me Anymore in Music". For those who haven't read it, in it he states that he's turning his attention more to classical music and away from pop/rock.
> 
> Rather than encouraging his efforts; rather than cheering and helping on in his exploration of the huge corpus of classical music and helping him to feel strengthened in doing so, one after another rockers have shown up to --->
> 
> *** To exhort him to listen to more rock and roll ***
> 
> That's like a pack of stoners showing up on a addiction rehabilitation site to exhort those in recovery to ---- use more drugs. Then, the drug users begins to list various forms of marijuana or heroin and the effects - and paste links to stoner/drug websites.
> 
> Exactly like that, the rockers haven't been content to simply type rock and roll encouragement, but they've listed colorful links to various kinds of pop-rock music [cause, you know, rock's just SO HARD to find anywhere in the world].
> 
> Here we have a music which for which the future's in grave doubt. Symphony orchestras struggle to just exist, begging donors for money. The audience most evident in concert halls is old and grey. And what do we get here people agitating for rock!!!
> 
> It's like getting a letter in the mail asking for contributions to Donald Trump's personal bank account. Ignore starvation around the world; ignore institutions working to rescue endangered animals; ignore organizations aiding human beings in critical medical need - IGNORE all of that --- give money to a billionaire's personal account.
> 
> Yeah - that makes sense.
> 
> I haven't seen A SINGLE classical person advocating for classical music on ANY rock site.
> 
> Rock on,
> Severius!


I love this post. Rock and roll right on out of here.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

If it's any consolation, rock is dead


----------



## Selby

Out of curiosity, I hadn't really thought of this until now, do musical genres actually die? I'm interested in what genres people can come up with that were once prevalent and are now non-existent. Esoteric sub-genres don't count.


----------



## Woodduck

Magnum Miserium said:


> If it's any consolation, rock is dead


Does that mean it's classical now?


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Selby said:


> Out of curiosity, I hadn't really thought of this until now, do musical genres actually die? I'm interested in what genres people can come up with that were once prevalent and are now non-existent. Esoteric sub-genres don't count.


Disco comes to mind.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Woodduck said:


> Does that mean it's classical now?


You bet. The deader, the more classical it is.


----------



## Klassik

Selby said:


> Out of curiosity, I hadn't really thought of this until now, do musical genres actually die? I'm interested in what genres people can come up with that were once prevalent and are now non-existent. Esoteric sub-genres don't count.


I'm sure someone well versed in the history of music could give a better answer, but it's been a while since I've seen a new piano rag. Maybe I missed something. Instrumental pop seems pretty dead now unless you count Kenny G type stuff in that genre.


----------



## mtmailey

The truth classical music to complexed to most people.There is much to learn from it you know.Today there is not many good composers like those in the past.


----------



## KenOC

Selby said:


> Out of curiosity, I hadn't really thought of this until now, do musical genres actually die? I'm interested in what genres people can come up with that were once prevalent and are now non-existent. Esoteric sub-genres don't count.


Zelenka wrote a couple of works that he labeled "Hipocondrie." Don't think anybody's written any of those for a while! :lol:


----------



## KenOC

Klassik said:


> I'm sure someone well versed in the history of music could give a better answer, but it's been a while since I've seen a new piano rag.


William Bolcom has written quite a few rags. his "Graceful Ghost Rag" is popular and often heard on our local CM station.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...41BB9322F45BD07493CE41BB9322F45BD07&FORM=VIRE


----------



## SixFootScowl

Magnum Miserium said:


> If it's any consolation, rock is dead


This brings up a curious thought. There are some rock songs about rock and roll will never die and long live rock, but I have never heard of such themes for classical as long live classical and classical will never die. Not sure what this means. Probably nothing.


----------



## AfterHours

I don't have a ton of interest in the overall concept of this thread but I do want to point out that, from my point of view (and perhaps some will agree), Rock music has largely been mis-represented by its "experts/critics/historians" in that it's generally chosen the likes of The Beatles or Elvis Presley as the "pinnacles" of the art form. It's perfectly fine to hold these artists in high esteem (and it's all subjective anyway), however, it is dubious in my opinion to make such a claim. One will find that there is a common denominator of all the greatest, most "timeless" art -- by timeless I mean art that has absorbed countless evaluation and assimilation and still leaves the vast majority of its critics/historians/serious listeners/viewers in perpetual awe/amazement, no matter what followed -- from Dante Algheri and Shakespeare, to Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel, to Bach, Mozart and Beethoven's greatest works, to Orson Welles and Andrei Tarkovsky's greatest films, to Charles Mingus and John Coltrane's best albums, and so on... One will find that the common denominator is each artist (and many more unlisted), _far transcended_ the previously conceived rules or boundaries of their genre(s) and produced works that _exhibited emotional or conceptual content with extraordinary conviction and a singular creative intelligence so as to remain permanently distinguished_. But try evaluating the emotional/conceptual depth of _most_ Beatles songs and, really, virtually _any_ Elvis song. With few exceptions, they are generally entertaining and well-done, and sometimes moderately impinging in their emotions/concepts -- but the majority are rather superficial and quite lacking in attaining the sort of significance as in the above common denominator. There are actually many, many Rock artists and albums (not to mention Jazz), far less heralded and given little, if any, media attention, that _did_ create music exhibiting such depth, but don't get the same accolades. That these are usually so little known, and that most of Rock criticism/evaluation has been built on meeting a different (in my opinion, much lower) set of ideals, may be a major reason why Classical music listeners often consider Rock a far lesser art form.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

I also used to think classical music is doomed and would die out soon. My current avatar is proof of the fact that classical music is nowhere near dying - it is perfectly alive and well


----------



## Strange Magic

Selby said:


> Out of curiosity, I hadn't really thought of this until now, do musical genres actually die? I'm interested in what genres people can come up with that were once prevalent and are now non-existent. Esoteric sub-genres don't count.


In what sense do you mean "die"? If you mean "not still being composed", then composers of Baroque music are thin on the ground these days--maybe they're even all extinct by now. But we still listen. And for me, Disco will never die! If you mean "nobody ever listens to that anymore", then that's harder to know--it has either vanished from all human conciousness, or a group of aficionados is still out there, listening and maybe even performing.


----------



## Lenny

I know that some you do not share this opinion, but for me it has been helpful to not categorize CM (and art music in general) and popular music, or entertainment music to the same box. Why an earth would someone want to that? Just because both "camps" are based on audible sounds?

And btw, I don't have trouble enjoying popular music. But it's just not the same thing, and that's it. Most pop is like ripping off five seconds of some catchy bits from, let's say Brahms sonata, and then arrange few nice loops out of it, and then sing "I feel so much looooooove......" on top of it. That is NOT BAD, it's just different, and we should stop putting them to the same box, competing for the same "money".

And no, CM is not doomed, it's getting stronger. Or so it seems at least to me.


----------



## Klassik

KenOC said:


> William Bolcom has written quite a few rags. his "Graceful Ghost Rag" is popular and often heard on our local CM station.


That's quite good actually, thanks for the link. We don't have a classical radio station here anymore so maybe that's why I've never heard of it. Whether rags are considered classical or not is probably it's own controversial topic. It's hard to say classical is dying when good pieces like that are being written if one does consider it to be classical.


----------



## Richard8655

All the commentary that CM is still strong and doing well is hopelessly optimistic, in my opinion. It's not doomed, but relegated to an even narrower niche than ever before. For those who doubt this, just look around at general everyday society, its interests, discussions, and activities. There's very little broadcasting over the airwaves, very little public discussion, and very little thought given by the vast majority. The millennial generation is leading the way in the perception that it's not relevant in how they feel and want to express themselves.

If one hangs around university music departments, concert halls, CM forums, or friends with similar interests, one may be deluded into thinking it's still somehow mainstream. But in my opinion, that's blissfully naive and uninformed. I desperately wish it were different.


----------



## Neward Thelman

SONNET CLV said:


> What is "beautiful", of course, is a value judgment, one of personal taste. Penderecki's "Threnody" is probably not beautiful to many lovers of "classical" music,
> 
> Neither is wrong. Preference is a matter of personal choice.


Hah - I've just been listening to "Threnody".

Coincidence? Or ---- alien abduction????

With regard to the music relativism idea that you and others have proposed - essentially that all music is a matter of personal taste and choice - if my disdain of pop/rock were based merely on that, then yes - my statements wouldn't be worth anything more than a statement of personal preference.

However, as I've taken pains to point out elsewhere, my view of pop/rock's based on objective criteria. I've already pointed out a major limitation and short coming of pop/rock - it's severely limited harmonic span. With just that one limitation, very little growth is possible. It's self evident that there are only so many ways you can play the same chord progression. In the end, you're just repeating the same thing over and over. That's just one factor - one of many.

Another is an almost total reliance on a single musical form. Of all the many possible musical forms, pop/rock has limited itself - by an large - to a single form - the song. Not surprisingly, it's the simplest of forms. Indeed, for most people today, "song" and "music" are synonymous. As I hope to examine in greater detail in a future series I hope to post, most people alive today are completely unaware that any but the song form is possible - or even exists. Pathetically, rockers think that the Beethoven Fifth [as just one example] is a song. Everything's a song. That carries over to how music is created, marketed, and consumed. Itunes and other such services, identify the movements of any multi movement work as ----songs.

For a music to be so profoundly limited again limits its future possibilities. Yes - I know. There have been attempts at branching out to other form types. But, lets be serious. Those are tiny exceptions to a tsunami-sized wave. Songs are pretty much all that rock "musicians" know.

And, so on and on. Many objective reasons demonstrate that we're dealing with a rather thoughtless, easy entertainment kind of music. In some ways, what was called "easy listening" music actually wasn't. Pop/rock, with its mostly simple 2 stroke rhythm [again, the exceptions - and I know many of them - are mere exceptions] - only requires bobbing your head like a pigeon to the numbing beat. Nothing subjective there - that's an objective observation of a pertinent characteristic.

And, since the 2000's, pop/rock has actually managed to devolve even further. With the rise of techno-EDM, the rhythm becomes even simpler and more numbing; the harmonic plan often consisting of only a single chord, repeated over and over. Only the pounding is of interest to the listener.

Predictably, everyone here who's objected to my statements about pop/rock has relied on the old [and by now tired] art relativity argument. "What one person enjoys, likes, finds beautiful may differ from how another person finds the same work", say Sonnet. And, everyone else's said the same thing in different ways.

No one - not one person - has paused to really think about what they're saying and examine the underlying assumptions. Unless I'm banned [very possible], I'll be bursting the old half-truths and outright fallacies to which everyone's clinging.


----------



## Neward Thelman

Richard8655 said:


> All the commentary that CM is still strong and doing well is hopelessly optimistic, in my opinion. It's not doomed, but relegated to an even narrower niche than ever before. For those who doubt this, just look around at general everyday society, its interests, discussions, and activities. There's very little broadcasting over the airwaves, very little public discussion, and very little thought given by the vast majority. The millennial generation is leading the way in the perception that it's not relevant in how they feel and want to express themselves.
> 
> If one hangs around university music departments, concert halls, CM forums, or friends with similar interests, one may be deluded into thinking it's still somehow mainstream. But in my opinion, that's blissfully naive and uninformed. I desperately wish it were different.


Absolutely correct.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Richard8655 said:


> All the commentary that CM is still strong and doing well is hopelessly optimistic, in my opinion. It's not doomed, but relegated to an even narrower niche than ever before. For those who doubt this, just look around at general everyday society, its interests, discussions, and activities. There's very little broadcasting over the airwaves, very little public discussion, and very little thought given by the vast majority. The millennial generation is leading the way in the perception that it's not relevant in how they feel and want to express themselves.
> 
> If one hangs around university music departments, concert halls, CM forums, or friends with similar interests, one may be deluded into thinking it's still somehow mainstream. But in my opinion, that's blissfully naive and uninformed. I desperately wish it were different.


The millenial generation is too young as yet, of course they are all listening to teeny music. When they mature enough, they will discover the real value in art and become the next generation of grey-haired concert-goers.


----------



## Neward Thelman

Klassik said:


> That's quite good actually, thanks for the link. We don't have a classical radio station here anymore so maybe that's why I've never heard of it. Whether rags are considered classical or not is probably it's own controversial topic. It's hard to say classical is dying when good pieces like that are being written if one does consider it to be classical.


Uh - did you notice the little contradiction in your own ideas?

"We don't have a classical radio station here anymore..."
"It's hard to say classical is dying...".

Hmm. My black car is white.


----------



## Strange Magic

I think we're on the threshold of some real breakthroughs here!


----------



## Pugg

Strange Magic said:


> I think we're on the threshold of some real breakthroughs here!


Or doomed forever and ever and ever


----------



## Klassik

Neward Thelman said:


> Uh - did you notice the little contradiction in your own ideas?
> 
> "We don't have a classical radio station here anymore..."
> "It's hard to say classical is dying...".
> 
> Hmm. My black car is white.


You can look at it that way, but one must remember the context. Most, if not all, of the commercial radio stations in Houston that play English-centric music are owned by companies on the verge of bankruptcy. There's a lot of genres of music which aren't on the radio here or have very poor coverage. There's just not much demand for that on the radio these days. Many stations have "flipped formats" to Spanish content due to Hispanics listening to the radio more frequently and thus it being easier to sell ads. Others have switched to talk radio. There are two Historically Black Universities in town which have music stations, but they both play jazz.

EDIT: It should also be added that the last classical station we had (which still broadcasts on HD radio, but that's pretty much a wasteland that nobody uses or has access to) sucked. I don't blame classical fans for not wanting to listen to it. I rarely did.


----------



## science

Bulldog said:


> That's unlikly, but it really doesn't matter. The OP is entitled to his musical tastes and has every right to express them, same as you or me.


Bulldog, buddy! Turn out I love you. Never knew it before.


----------



## Neward Thelman

science said:


> Well, in that case I guess I should stop listening to it.
> 
> Thanks for letting me know before I wasted any more of my short life on the beautiful music that I love!
> 
> Are people still making rock music?


"Well, in that case I guess I should stop listening to it." In which case?

And, if you mean stop listening to pop/rock --- yes, you should. Don't worry. Even tho it seems like a crisis may ensue, somehow pop/rock will continue to dominate the world - even if millions were to abandon it immediately.

"...the beautiful music that I love!". I'm sorry. But, there's hope. Have you considered investigating the following? I believe you'll find lot's of others with the same "love":

https://www.rock.com/

http://www.pro-rock.com/

http://www.melodicrock.com/

"Are people still making rock music? " No. All you hear anywhere you go is classical classical classical. Twenty-something's go to raves and dance to Saint-Saens and Schoenberg while sharing ecstasy.


----------



## PJaye

I’m pretty happy with the level of popularity it has now. I think popular appeal, and thus monetary potential can bring a lot of undesirable and manipulative influences with it. I have faith there will always be classical music fans around.


----------



## Neward Thelman

DaveM said:


> If there was one single thing that might be most important in the saving of classical music, I would suggest that it is the exponential rise in acceptance of it by China (as well as Japan, though that occurred well before China). There is a relative explosion of new Asian artists and in Southern California alone, I tend to see more new Asian pianists and violinists than any other culture. Apparently, China now accounts for 80% of the world's new piano production.


Absolutely true. Westerners would be shocked to learn how much capital is devoted to classical music in China and Japan. New concert halls are built, youth are nurtured as classical musicians, audiences are attentive and in love with the music.

It's quite possible that classical music may experience a transfer of power from the west to the east.

Any educated, sensitive listener knows that music is almost an extension of human DNA [while, simultaneously and enigmatically being an objective vibration of the inanimate universe - if I allow myself a bit of quasi-mystical leeway]. The performance traditions that we've preserved here - right down to the breath a musician takes when playing [or doesn't take]. How much of that tradition will remain intact in a different land and culture, and what new forms may it evolve?


----------



## SONNET CLV

quietfire said:


> And Justin Bieber is Johann Bach's equal. See what I did there?


Of course you are absolutely right, in the context which I argue in this paragraph of my post:

"Be careful about judgment. *What one person enjoys, likes, finds beautiful may differ from how another person finds the same work. Neither is wrong. Preference is a matter of personal choice. *Let us not believe one person has a superior viewpoint to another. In terms of personal preference, Britney Spears is Beethoven's equal."

Note here that I am not talking about matters of quality, merit, artistic importance. I am talking about personal likes, preferences. Heck, I like a lot of symphonies better than Beethoven's Third, but I'm hard pressed to name a symphony which has greater quality, merit, or artistic importance than Beethoven's Third. And if I like the music of Einstürzende Neubauten and Throbbing Gristle (and I do!), that doesn't mean I would argue they are more artistically worthy than J.S. Bach or Henry Purcell. If _you _happen to enjoy the music making of Justin Bieber (I don't!) then _you_ are no more wrong than I am when I enjoy the music making of Heinrich Biber. (And I suspect that the large majority of Justin Bieber fans would not much care for the music of Heinrich Biber, or have even ever heard of the composer.) But what one enjoys is a matter of personal taste, something we all have a right to. Whether or not our tastes are "good" or are for important, meritorious works of art is matter for debate. I like the music of Bob Dylan (a Nobel Prize winning songwriter) and I have nearly every studio album he made, but if the rocket ship is leaving to abandon Earth for all time and it is my job to grab one album to preserve as a record of human artistic achievement in music, my hand will likely not reach out for one of those many Dylan discs. But I'm pretty sure I will be eyeing a disc on the J.S. Bach shelf. And it probably won't be my favorite work by Bach. After all, what I enjoy is not necessarily that which is most important artistically. Part of being a devotee of the arts is to struggle with the confounding issue of how to determine the difference.

So, yes, if _you_ like Justin Bieber and _I_ like J.S. Bach, then in those terms (and maybe those terms only) "Justin Bieber is Johann Bach's equal."


----------



## Neward Thelman

Ekim the Insubordinate said:


> Well, does it really make sense to rely on a medium ~ a century old for your classical music listening, and wonder that it is not very dynamic? Have you looked into satellite radio? You have access all over. My quick search shows that Sirius has 2 classical stations - Met Opera Radio and Symphony Hall.
> 
> When I am on the go, or even at home, if I want to hear classical music other than what is in my own library, I go with Spotify. It is superior to terrestrial radio - even satellite radio. If you don't have to have control of what comes next (much like a radio experience), then Spotify is completely free. Find someone else's play list, or make your own.


You're missing Woodduck's point. As he said, the FM station commentators and presentors [disk jockeys for pop/rock] gave you a music education. And, the whole presentation was different from Spotify or some other streaming service. There was a sense of community and a sense of sharing the music and culture together.

WFMT here in Chicago still continues that beautiful trandition - but who knows for how long?


----------



## Neward Thelman

Ingélou said:


> Sometimes - but in the end cultures don't remain separate. Latin died out as a spoken language - and lived again in French, Portuguese, Spanish, Italian...
> 
> We still have Latin - and now all the beautiful others too.
> 
> .


No - JAS was right. From the beginning of recorded history, humankind has been at war at one place or another in the world.

We have Italian, Spanish, Portugese due to wars. With the constant pressure from raiding barbarians, Rome eventually succumbed. It was out of wars in the early medieval period that eventually led to what became Spain and France. Italy remained divided into a series of principalities until unification finally came about in the 19th cent. War ravaged Europe almost continuously for most of its history.

When ever one group encountered another, they sought to conquer it. Nobody sat down to lovingly and peacefully share ---feelings. That's a late 20th century notion.

I suggest you study the history of Gengis Khan and the Golden Horde - it tends to snap you to reality.

And, BTW, there are horrible, inhumane wars raging this very minute in many parts of Africa.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Classical (even the traditional forms) is alive and well. Look at the HIP explosion. Penderecki still keeps the fire going. Agree a lot of popular music is inferior to most Classical. Especially the last 25 years has been a disaster. In general with popular music, the actual music is trivial, especially when you look at the sheet music and play it. The thing that separates the good music from the bad is the performance and the production. The production makes the less complex music smarter when done well and in an interesting way. That is one thing different than traditional classical, which is performed the same way live and in the recording studio. It is the studio that creates these interesting sonics, not only for popular music but also some modern classical as well. So the way to appreciating Some modern Classical is less similar to traditional forms than it is for the more interesting popular music, like Sonnet said. It is all about nuance in either the performance and production that separates good from bad music. 

I like classic blues, but find the most of the newer, more polished blues bands boring, all because of the nuance in performance.


----------



## KenOC

Is classical music "alive" if nobody is writing it any more, at least that people care to listen to?


----------



## science

AfterHours said:


> I don't have a ton of interest in the overall concept of this thread but I do want to point out that, from my point of view (and perhaps some will agree), Rock music has largely been mis-represented by its "experts/critics/historians" in that it's generally chosen the likes of The Beatles or Elvis Presley as the "pinnacles" of the art form. It's perfectly fine to hold these artists in high esteem (and it's all subjective anyway), however, it is dubious in my opinion to make such a claim. One will find that there is a common denominator of all the greatest, most "timeless" art -- by timeless I mean art that has absorbed countless evaluation and assimilation and still leaves the vast majority of its critics/historians/serious listeners/viewers in perpetual awe/amazement, no matter what followed -- from Dante Algheri and Shakespeare, to Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel, to Bach, Mozart and Beethoven's greatest works, to Orson Welles and Andrei Tarkovsky's greatest films, to Charles Mingus and John Coltrane's best albums, and so on... One will find that the common denominator is each artist (and many more unlisted), _far transcended_ the previously conceived rules or boundaries of their genre(s) and produced works that _exhibited emotional or conceptual content with extraordinary conviction and a singular creative intelligence so as to remain permanently distinguished_. But try evaluating the emotional/conceptual depth of _most_ Beatles songs and, really, virtually _any_ Elvis song. With few exceptions, they are generally entertaining and well-done, and sometimes moderately impinging in their emotions/concepts -- but the majority are rather superficial and quite lacking in attaining the sort of significance as in the above common denominator. There are actually many, many Rock artists and albums (not to mention Jazz), far less heralded and given little, if any, media attention, that _did_ create music exhibiting such depth, but don't get the same accolades. That these are usually so little known, and that most of Rock criticism/evaluation has been built on meeting a different (in my opinion, much lower) set of ideals, may be a major reason why Classical music listeners often consider Rock a far lesser art form.


Here's another side of it. When "rock" first appeared in the '50s, it was intentionally rebellious. In particular, a white teenager's choice to listen to it was an act of rebellion. As bebop had been for some people in the 40s. The older and the younger generation both understood exactly what was going on. So the older generation complained about the kids these days, and the bad kids turned up the volume.

Of course a few kids, the "good ones," continued listening to the music they were supposed to. Classical.

The classification of music as "good" or "bad" (or even "satanic") had as much or more to do with its social significance than the skill involved in its production. That was sixty years ago, so some things have changed, but the legacy of that is with us. That is "a major reason classical music listeners have so often considered rock a lesser art form."

Most rock musicians of the '50s were mostly merely derivative of earlier music (the "jump blues"), mostly significant for marketing their music to young white people. I don't mean they weren't talented - Elvis could sing, brother, listen to that voice. I mean they, for the most part, weren't very original. We're talking about skilled performers rather than great artists.

But - because ever fewer working and middle class people were willing to adopt the cultural tastes dictated by "their betters," and they had the purchasing power to assert themselves (if it wasn't rebellious Chuck Berry, it was Benny Goodman or Frank Sinatra, but it wasn't the king's or the emperor's music) - rock and other pop genres won the battle in western society as a whole so thoroughly that almost all the musically talented kids growing up the '50s lived in a world where - regardless of how anyone personally felt about it - rock (and blues, country, pop music generally) was the cutting edge, the exciting new sound, and much, much easier to access than most classical music, especially contemporary classical music. People couldn't just download whatever they wanted to hear. So even if they found classical music interesting as well, they lived in a world of rock and pop, and that shaped their ideas about music. For them, rock wasn't so much specifically "rock" as it was simply music.

So by the mid-60s, there were some phenomenally talented rock artists - the Beatles (about whose artistic merits we apparently disagree), King Crimson, Pink Floyd, Jimi Hendrix, Graham Parsons, Brian Wilson, Led Zeppelin - who were not making rock because it was rock. They weren't actually very loyal to any tradition at all, and they completely transformed rock and every other genre they touched. But they made rock because it was music. And because some of them were very talented, creative people, they made very creative music. They were still rebellious, because that had become an apparently permanent part of being young in the postwar west, but they were no longer rebelling against classical music. Rather than singing "Roll over Beethoven," they were putting Stockhausen on their album covers.

Even all that was still about fifty years ago. Only the oldest people among us actually remember it as their own experience. Things have continued to change, without ceasing. Today some teenagers actually rebel by listening to classical music. It's not taken as seriously by adults because we have become a jaded postmodern society, and it's no longer an imitation of the quality. But within their peer group, the decision to enjoy Mendelssohn or Stockhausen more than (or rather than) the top-40 or teeny bopper music du jour is to announce, "I'm not like you."

And so is the decision to listen to classic rock. Or old school hip hop. Or bebop. It's no longer good kids / bad kids; it's just people trying to figure out and assert their own identities. And classifying their music as "greater" or "lesser art forms" is also a way that some of us try to figure out and assert our own identities!


----------



## Neward Thelman

NorthernHarrier said:


> I'm curious about whether the financial problems of current symphony orchestras in the USA also existed in the 50's or 60's? I'm 55 but I don't remember hearing whether funding problems existed then as they do now.
> 
> And I wonder if symphony orchestras in other parts of the world are finding it more or less difficult to fund themselves and full concert series now compared to earlier times. Anyone?


They did not. Orchestras were well financed enough to run or support their own radio networks.

Consider the following. Even after the decline in mainstream popularity of Swing, Jazz continued to have enough popular support to generate countless numbers of musicians/composers. The best ones rose to the top. There were large numbers of Jazz musicians, and even if your talent wasn't first rate, you could make a living just playing Jazz clubs. There were hundreds of Jazz clubs all over the United States [and increasing numbers in Europe].

BAM - along came rock and roll.

By 1969, the bottom tier of Jazz musicians were pretty much gone. Why? Because the audience for Jazz had declined and contracted. Today, Jazz continues, of course, but it's not even remotely like the scene and the market was, say, in 1955.

Classical music continued, of course, but it was already beginning to experience a substantial decline in audience attendence - compared to what was normal say back in 1945. You only need to go back and read the articles in publications from the the 1970's to see the alarm that orchestra management was experiencing, and the desperate [and silly] actions they were taking.


----------



## regenmusic

The problem with people who like classical and rock is that often the rock they like is in bad taste, imho.....


joking


----------



## Neward Thelman

Captainnumber36 said:


> Scientific literature can often inform us of trends. I came across this article showing their research showing that fewer people dislike classical and opera music in 2012 as compared to 1993. .


1993??????!!!!!

That's yesterday!

I'm guessing you're 20 or 30-something.

1993 is deep in the decline for classical music and jazz. Both got a temporary [and misleadingly dangerous] bump during the tech and Year-2000 economic bubble of the late 90's.

When that crashed, the management of so many orchestras found themselves facing bankruptcy, since they'd made decisions thinking that the bubble really was the new economy - that's what all of the sage magazines such as Time had been saying - over and over.


----------



## Neward Thelman

Magnum Miserium said:


> If it's any consolation, rock is dead


By "rock" I mean any and all forms of popular "music". Collectively. From Country to rap to techno to whateve metal - whatever subgenre they're come up with - they're not that different from each other. But, they're very different from other actual forms.
of music.

Thumping/pounding is a dead give away.


----------



## Neward Thelman

Lenny said:


> And no, CM is not doomed, it's getting stronger. Or so it seems at least to me.


Hope springs eternal in the human breast

---Alexander Pope, An Essay on Man


----------



## science

Neward Thelman said:


> Thumping/pounding is a dead give away.


Folk music all over the world, especially when it's meant for dancing, has strong beats.


----------



## Klassik

I'm not sure why you're using Captainnumber36's name with my quote, but anyway...



Neward Thelman said:


> 1993??????!!!!!
> 
> That's yesterday!


What? A lot has happened in 20 years...growth of the WWW from practically nothing to what it is today, significant changes in the way people listen to music, significant changes in the way people seek entertainment, and so forth. The kids of today aren't the kids of 1993. You don't see kids running around malls in flannels these days.

Regardless if it was yesterday or a century ago, the bottom line is that classical music is less disliked today than 20 years ago according to that study. Now there could be flaws in the study of course, and there's a lot of additional factors to consider, but classical music being less disliked and DOOOOM! does not exactly equate.



> 1993 is deep in the decline for classical music and jazz. Both got a temporary [and misleadingly dangerous] bump during the tech and Year-2000 economic bubble of the late 90's.


Maybe these glory days you speak of were just a bubble.



> When that crashed, the management of so many orchestras found themselves facing bankruptcy, since they'd made decisions thinking that the bubble really was the new economy - that's what all of the sage magazines such as Time had been saying - over and over.


So it sounds like orchestra managers are incompetent. And you want us to give more money to these people? Why? It sounds like they'd just squander it.

The ways people were entertained in the 1950s (or 1993) are not the same ways people are entertained today. Music radio companies are on the verge of bankruptcy. All kinds of genres of music, pop or otherwise, are struggling. Event based entertainment, whether it be music or sporting events, are having to re-invent themselves to stay relevant in a world where people would rather just stay home and stream millions of different options in audio and video entertainment. If radio stations and orchestras can't create viable business models, then well, they'll die. They may be doomed, but that does not mean that classical music is doomed. Mozart did just fine without radio stations and jetsetting million dollar conductors.

While one can complain about the classical music being written these days, I hear conductors say all the time in interviews that the quality of musicians in the US is as good as it's ever been. There's still people who care about classical music and they seem to be putting a lot of effort into it. I'm sure these musicians are aware of the economic troubles facing orchestras (well, I'm sure some have their heads in the sand as well), but they still take the time to learn music. The music will still exist, but it'll be consumed in different ways than it was in 1950. There's already classical loving YouTubers who get a lot of hits posting classical music on their channels.


----------



## Neward Thelman

SONNET CLV said:


> "Be careful about judgment. *What one person enjoys, likes, finds beautiful may differ from how another person finds the same work. Neither is wrong. Preference is a matter of personal choice.."*


*

My arguments aren't based on subjective preferences or choices. Read my subsequent posts and replies. My statements about the value and worth of pop/rock are founded on objective criteria. Read my posts immediately above.

I'll be posting a thread concisely outlining the objective reasons why pop/rock is an inferior form of music.

There are 7.125 billion - billion with a B - human beings on the earth at present. Most of that massive number listens to some form or other of pop/rock music. So, my insignificant analysis that I post here is unlikely to damage pop/rock in any way - altho it seems that many rockers think that it will.

If only I actually wielded that kind of power.*


----------



## Neward Thelman

Pugg said:


> Or doomed forever and ever and ever


Subjectivity.

Here's something subjective: I really don't like it that you use Renee Fleming's photo to identify yourself.

That's my personal opinion. Purely subjective.


----------



## Neward Thelman

KenOC said:


> Is classical music "alive" if nobody is writing it any more, at least that people care to listen to?


Exactly. Good question.


----------



## AfterHours

science said:


> Here's another side of it. When "rock" first appeared in the '50s, it was intentionally rebellious. In particular, a white teenager's choice to listen to it was an act of rebellion. As bebop had been for some people in the 40s. The older and the younger generation both understood exactly what was going on. So the older generation complained about the kids these days, and the bad kids turned up the volume.
> 
> Of course a few kids, the "good ones," continued listening to the music they were supposed to. Classical.
> 
> The classification of music as "good" or "bad" (or even "satanic") had as much or more to do with its social significance than the skill involved in its production. That was sixty years ago, so some things have changed, but the legacy of that is with us. That is "a major reason classical music listeners have so often considered rock a lesser art form."
> 
> Most rock musicians of the '50s were mostly merely derivative of earlier music (the "jump blues"), mostly significant for marketing their music to young white people. I don't mean they weren't talented - Elvis could sing, brother, listen to that voice. I mean they, for the most part, weren't very original. We're talking about skilled performers rather than great artists.
> 
> But - because ever fewer working and middle class people were willing to adopt the cultural tastes dictated by "their betters," and they had the purchasing power to assert themselves (if it wasn't rebellious Chuck Berry, it was Benny Goodman or Frank Sinatra, but it wasn't the king's or the emperor's music) - rock and other pop genres won the battle in western society as a whole so thoroughly that almost all the musically talented kids growing up the '50s lived in a world where - regardless of how anyone personally felt about it - rock (and blues, country, pop music generally) was the cutting edge, the exciting new sound, and much, much easier to access than most classical music, especially contemporary classical music. People couldn't just download whatever they wanted to hear. So even if they found classical music interesting as well, they lived in a world of rock and pop, and that shaped their ideas about music. For them, rock wasn't so much specifically "rock" as it was simply music.
> 
> So by the mid-60s, there were some phenomenally talented rock artists - the Beatles (about whose artistic merits we apparently disagree), King Crimson, Pink Floyd, Jimi Hendrix, Graham Parsons, Brian Wilson, Led Zeppelin - who were not making rock because it was rock. They weren't actually very loyal to any tradition at all, and they completely transformed rock and every other genre they touched. But they made rock because it was music. And because some of them were very talented, creative people, they made very creative music. They were still rebellious, because that had become an apparently permanent part of being young in the postwar west, but they were no longer rebelling against classical music. Rather than singing "Roll over Beethoven," they were putting Stockhausen on their album covers.
> 
> Even all that was still about fifty years ago. Only the oldest people among us actually remember it as their own experience. Things have continued to change, without ceasing. Today some teenagers actually rebel by listening to classical music. It's not taken as seriously by adults because we have become a jaded postmodern society, and it's no longer an imitation of the quality. But within their peer group, the decision to enjoy Mendelssohn or Stockhausen more than (or rather than) the top-40 or teeny bopper music du jour is to announce, "I'm not like you."
> 
> And so is the decision to listen to classic rock. Or old school hip hop. Or bebop. It's no longer good kids / bad kids; it's just people trying to figure out and assert their own identities. And classifying their music as "greater" or "lesser art forms" is also a way that some of us try to figure out and assert our own identities!


Many excellent historical points! Thank you for the insight. I agree with everything you state. Just in case it wasn't clear, I do feel there are many Rock artists (and its sub-genres/offshoots) who've produced albums that are as great as most any Classical work, so my personal opinion is that Rock has matched much of Classical even if only a small percentage of people seem to know about it. I don't feel that many of them have been properly acknowledged due to the often inferior (imo) set of ideals established. For instance, just one such example: many fans brought up on the idea that The Beatles/Elvis or what-have-you, reached the pinnacle of the art form, will judge an astonishingly original artist like Captain Beefheart against The Beatles simple melodic pop tunes (or even their touches of experimentation that dressed their later works), and consider Captain Beefheart inferior/unlistenable -- which is certainly their right. But, this is a bit like comparing Stravinsky's Rite of Spring to 1700s minuets and claiming he failed to produce minuets, while also missing the point of his Rite of Spring because one was listening for minuets.


----------



## Pugg

Neward Thelman said:


> Subjectivity.
> 
> Here's something subjective: I really don't like it that you use Renee Fleming's photo to identify yourself.
> 
> That's my personal opinion. Purely subjective.


It's called a avatar, try one .

Besides that, water off a ducks back.


----------



## science

Neward Thelman said:


> "Well, in that case I guess I should stop listening to it." In which case?
> 
> And, if you mean stop listening to pop/rock --- yes, you should. Don't worry. Even tho it seems like a crisis may ensue, somehow pop/rock will continue to dominate the world - even if millions were to abandon it immediately.
> 
> "...the beautiful music that I love!". I'm sorry. But, there's hope. Have you considered investigating the following? I believe you'll find lot's of others with the same "love":
> 
> https://www.rock.com/
> 
> http://www.pro-rock.com/
> 
> http://www.melodicrock.com/
> 
> "Are people still making rock music? " No. All you hear anywhere you go is classical classical classical. Twenty-something's go to raves and dance to Saint-Saens and Schoenberg while sharing ecstasy.


You responded to my post by completely - and I believe intentionally - misunderstanding it. But just in case.... "The beautiful music that I love" OBVIOFRICKINGLOUSLY refers to classical music. Which, according to the apocalyptic post I quoted, is dead or dying.

Jomomo H California. Do I have to write baby sentences all the time?

And let's be good and golldarned clear: the music I choose to listen to, and whether I like it, and how much, is neither for you to decide nor to judge.

You make me want to hate classical music. I can't do it because the music is too good. But your whole "my tastes and knowledge are so superior to yours" turns people off, and we all know that it is meant to do exclusively that. If classical music is dead or dying, you and people like you have its blood on your hands.


----------



## Neward Thelman

science said:


> Folk music all over the world, especially when it's meant for dancing, has strong beats.


Actually, no. Not in the way you mean.

Unfortunately, if you listen to "world" folk music today, then yes - you'll hear pounding - your "strong beats". But, that's all due to the pernicious, world-wide influence of pop/rock music. There's a specific point in time when a change to "world" folk music took place - and I witnessed it happening right in front of my eyes and ears.

The consolidation took place within my lifetime - specifically, from the late 1980's. At that time, there rose what was called "world music".

What that consisted of was traditional folk music from various parts of the non-Western world to which a simple and very loud rock beat was added. Greek and Middle Eastern folk forms very among the very first to succumb, and it spread from there.

That predominates today.

Somewhat off of your point, but relevant is the fact that rap has spread everywhere - even Communist [and classical-loving] China. I bring that up to show just how widespread and pervasive the reach of pop/rock is in the world.

I know some forms of village European music very well. I've also heard music from all over the world. While percussion is sometimes used, it's almost never in the thumping rock manner. You may verify everything I'm saying if you can get access to the following:

Original recordings of the Nonesuch Explorer Series
Original recordings of Monitor Records [some are now available on Folkways].

Let me reiterate: percussion may be present - but it's always more subtle and often more complex than rock's simple "whap THUMP whap THUMP". Or, EDM's thump thump thump thump.


----------



## science

Neward Thelman said:


> Actually, no. Not in the way you mean.
> 
> Unfortunately, if you listen to folk today, then yes - you'll hear pounding - your "strong beats". It's the pernicious, world-wide influence of pop/rock music. The consolidation actually took place within my lifetime - specifically, from the late 1980's. At that time, there rose what was called "world music".
> 
> What that consisted of was traditional music from various parts of the non-Western world to which a simple and very loud rock beat was added.
> 
> That predominates today.
> 
> I know some forms of village European music very well. I've also heard music from all over the world. While percussion is sometimes used, it's almost never in the thumping rock manner. You may verify everything I'm saying if you can get access to the following:
> 
> Original recordings of the Nonesuch Explorer Series
> Original recordings of Monitor Records [some are now available on Folkways].
> 
> Let me reiterate: percussion may be present - but it's always more subtle and often more complex than rock's simple "whap THUMP whap THUMP".


I'm in a coffee shop listening to K-pop hip hop right now. Exactly the music you have in mind. Like most pop music in the hip hop era, its rhythm is far more complex than a simple backbeat. But a lot of pop music these days simply has a beat on every beat rather than a backbeat, so it's even simpler... until you listen to everything going on within that beat. I mean, K-pop is not known for its great musical complexity, but it's rare to have a single "instrument" making a beat. Usually there are at least three different sounds driving the rhythm, and only one of them at most is either a backbeat or a simple drumbeat. Something like that doesn't work anymore; it doesn't make kids these days dance. This isn't the 1950s anymore.


----------



## Guest

Neward Thelman said:


> However, as I've taken pains to point out elsewhere, my view of pop/rock's based on objective criteria.


Well your objective criteria are wrong...subjectively speaking.


----------



## science

Here's a good example so that anyone who hasn't listened to the past few decades of music can hear what I'm talking about. For the first ninety seconds of this song, every single instrument and the vocals are exclusively rhythm. In some parts there is a backbeat, but it's almost hard to hear amid all that rhythm. In the rest of the song, the chorus has a vocal melody and there is a computer-ish bleepy melody in some parts. Otherwise, all the other sounds there, exclusively rhythm. Not a mere backbeat.






Here's a more famous example. There is usually a backbeat, and the rhythm is provided almost exclusively by "drums" and the voice. But see how many other rhythmic patterns you can find. If you can't hear anything but whap THUMP whap THUMP, see a doctor!


----------



## Neward Thelman

science said:


> You responded to my post by completely - and I believe intentionally - misunderstanding it. But just in case.... "The beautiful music that I love" OBVIOFRICKINGLOUSLY refers to classical music. Which, according to the apocalyptic post I quoted, is dead or dying.
> 
> Jomomo H California. Do I have to write baby sentences all the time?
> 
> And let's be good and golldarned clear: the music I choose to listen to, and whether I like it, and how much, is neither for you to decide nor to judge.
> 
> You make me want to hate classical music. I can't do it because the music is too good. But your whole "my tastes and knowledge are so superior to yours" turns people off, and we all know that it is meant to do exclusively that. If classical music is dead or dying, you and people like you have its blood on your hands.


Calm down. I misunderstood you. I thought you were professing a love for rock.

And, if you do love rock, that's your business. I don't know you; I don't have direct influence on your daily life.

However, even dogs seem to carry opinions about others. Dogs [and even cats] will get along with one dog, but fight and growl at some other dog. They'll react the same way toward humans. Some humans they'll like; others they'll attack.

My point is that opinions are probably deeply seated mammalian traits. Thus, as a mammal - and a human one at that - I have an opinion about anyone and everyone who listens to pop/rock music. Oh - behold - and you - you - have have an opinion of me.

But - and it's a big but - the ideas that I;ve posted about rock aren't mere opinions; otherwise, there'd really be no point to this thread - it'd just be some dork's private opinion about a music form beloved all over the world.

Unfortunately [it seems], my ideas are actually built on objective criteria.

" the music I choose to listen to, and whether I like it, and how much, is neither for you to decide nor to judge."

As I've just said, opinions are an early and deeply placed mammalian trait. Ever spend time around horses? If you have, you'll know how clannish they are. Some horses just won't some others; they bicker and fight all the time. I was amazed when I saw the horse I was riding trot up to another horse and pak a fight with it - right out of the blue.

Fortunately, my opinions of what you choose to listen to have zero effect on your life.

But here's the thing. The thing you're missing - and everyone else's missing. If you go to an Evangelical website, you may expect that pretty much everyone there would be against Satanism. Just dead set against it. Indeed, just mentioning Satanism might be offensive to a goodly number of folks. That strikes me as normal. Evangelicals believe in God, and try to live their lives accordingly.

So, here we are, on a website devoted to - allegedly - classical music. Yet, pretty much everyone's bending over backwards demonstrating their love and devotion for ------- rock n roll.

When I started this thread, it wasn't to show off an attitude such as "my tastes and knowledge are so superior to yours" of which you accuse me. I really thought that everyone would be of one mind on the subject. Indeed, I thought that the responses would be of the type that would enlarge and amplify my points.

Instead, the exact opposite's occurred.

I guess it means that it's the end of the world ---- as we know it.


----------



## Neward Thelman

science said:


> Here's a more famous example. There is usually a backbeat, and the rhythm is provided almost exclusively by "drums" and the voice. But see how many other rhythmic patterns you can find. If you can't hear anything but whap THUMP whap THUMP, see a doctor!


Science - really?

Those 2 - --- -- on a classical website??

Really?

I know, I know. You're making a point and providing examples. Entirely valid.

But still. Really???

It's as if you showed up at Temple or a church ----- butt naked.

You walked into an operating rooms smoking a cigar, and flicked ashes into the chest of an open heart surgery patient.

In my opinion.


----------



## Klassik

Neward Thelman said:


> But here's the thing. The thing you're missing - and everyone else's missing. If you go to an Evangelical website, you may expect that pretty much everyone there would be against Satanism. Just dead set against it. Indeed, just mentioning Satanism might be offensive to a goodly number of folks. That strikes me as normal. Evangelicals believe in God, and try to live their lives accordingly.
> 
> So, here we are, on a website devoted to - allegedly - classical music. Yet, pretty much everyone's bending over backwards demonstrating their love and devotion for ------- rock n roll.
> 
> When I started this thread, it wasn't to show off an attitude such as "my tastes and knowledge are so superior to yours" of which you accuse me. I really thought that everyone would be of one mind on the subject. Indeed, I thought that the responses would be of the type that would enlarge and amplify my points.


Music isn't religion. People can and do like many different types of music. This is true even within classical sub-genres. It's just entertainment. It would be silly to say that anyone has to be pure to anything when it comes to music listening. To be honest, I don't even like rock music that much. That said, I consider it music. I respect and understand that people like it. If classical music fans don't respect fans of other genres, they can never expect them to enjoy classical music. And vice versa. And sometimes it's beneficial for classical music to be discussed within the larger musical realm.

The bottom line is that one should listen to what they like. You don't have to like any other types of music, but at least respect the people who listen to what they want to listen to.


----------



## science

Neward Thelman said:


> I really thought that everyone would be of one mind on the subject. ...
> 
> Instead, the exact opposite's occurred.
> 
> I guess it means that it's the end of the world ---- as we know it.





Neward Thelman said:


> Science - really?
> 
> Those 2 - --- -- on a classical website??
> 
> Really?
> 
> I know, I know. You're making a point and providing examples. Entirely valid.
> 
> But still. Really???
> 
> It's as if you showed up at Temple or a church ----- butt naked.
> 
> You walked into an operating rooms smoking a cigar, and flicked ashes into the chest of an open heart surgery patient.
> 
> In my opinion.


I doubt there's more than a few percent of members here who love rock nearly as much as classical music, and I'd guess there are many who don't enjoy it at all. Aside from my time in restaurants, coffee shops, and so on, I _almost_ never listen to it, or to other forms of pop music.

It's just that, like many people here, I'm aware that this rock/classical dichotomy and antagonism doesn't exist anymore. Almost every culturally literate person that I know, on this site or in the real world (and I have been known to hobnob with the quality), likes and respects _both_ to some degree, as well as other pop traditions, jazz, and world music. Most people don't feel the need to negate either one in order to affirm the other. The loss of that dichotomy might be the end of some big part of your world, but it isn't the death of classical music. In fact, it might be one of the reasons that classical music continues to thrive. If you succeeded in persuading everyone that they have to choose, and that only dumbdoodoos don't choose classical.... Probably most people would choose to be dumbdoodoos just to bite their thumbs at you. After all, how'd it work out in the 1950s?

It's exactly parallel to the television-bad/books-good dichotomy. There was a time, but it's over now. It doesn't mean literature is dead. It means it's ok to recognize that _The Simpsons_ or _All in the Family_ is art.

It's just over now, man. You don't have to like rock, or any of the other traditions you're including under that heading, but you might as well realize that you live in a world where people who enjoy classical don't mind a little rock or funk or blues or soul or zydeco or country or hip hop or techno or polka now and then. It's just life post-1968.

And that therefore you live in a world in which if you mischaracterize any of those traditions, even in the sanctuary of an online classical music discussion board, you might be subjected to counterexamples to your claim. It's just life on the internet.


----------



## Guest

Neward Thelman said:


> Unfortunately [it seems], my ideas are actually built on objective criteria.


So you keep saying - but you've not established that your allegedly objective criteria are valid for the purposes of dismissing the value of rock music, or the superiority of one genre of music over another.


----------



## Ingélou

Neward Thelman said:


> No - JAS was right. From the beginning of recorded history, humankind has been at war at one place or another in the world.
> 
> We have Italian, Spanish, Portugese due to wars. With the constant pressure from raiding barbarians, Rome eventually succumbed. It was out of wars in the early medieval period that eventually led to what became Spain and France. Italy remained divided into a series of principalities until unification finally came about in the 19th cent. War ravaged Europe almost continuously for most of its history.
> 
> When ever one group encountered another, they sought to conquer it. Nobody sat down to lovingly and peacefully share ---feelings. That's a late 20th century notion.
> 
> I suggest you study the history of Gengis Khan and the Golden Horde - it tends to snap you to reality.
> 
> And, BTW, there are horrible, inhumane wars raging this very minute in many parts of Africa.


You appear to have misunderstood my post.

I'm not disputing that human beings engage in wars, nor contradicting JAS (if you look, you'll see that I 'liked' his post). 
I was merely saying that when art, literature or music become purist it can lead to sterility, and that most people and most art-forms benefit from engaging with other different forms of expression. Fusion of cultures can nurture creativity.

Wars are *usually** fought on economic or political grounds - grabbing land or power or trying to recover national autonomy - and not because people don't like their neighbour's music or can't stomach his little ways.

Talk Classical benefits from having lots of members who love all kinds of music and there's nothing problematic with members recommending their non-classical choices to others.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_*(Edit: Usually - hence my use of 'sometimes' in my reply to JAS. Religious wars, such as The Crusades, are the exception to this - but even these had their economic and political side, such as providing useful opportunities for the feudal nobles for gaining influence & loot & for practising their favourite pastime & raison d'être, combat skills. The Northern Irish struggle built on sectarian hatred but was really about gaining or preventing a united Ireland and political power for the Republicans. Still nothing to do with art, literature or music.
But this is off topic, much as I love history & always have done...) _


----------



## Merl

Didn't a similar post to this one appear on TC about a year ago? Something about classical music being dead. Unsurprisingly these kinds of posts also turn up on rock sites, my mate's jazz-rock site, etc. What's happening with young people now is that they are listening to a huge array of different styles because they have access to it. When I was young (the 70s) we couldnt hear music that wasn't popular. You had to buy it. Now younger people have Spotify, etc. They aren't as governed by the tribal element in music, either (I'm a mod, I'm a rocker). They are comfortable listening to Little Mix, Metallica and Amy Winehouse within a few minutes. I think that's fine. We have so much access to new music today, you're a fool not to explore different styles. Personally I think it's a great state of affairs.


----------



## Triplets

Classical Music will never be the pablum of the masses. The best one can hope for is to have a core of dedicated listeners who are passionate about it


----------



## Strange Magic

Neward Thelman has a very difficult and unpleasant task that he has undertaken. He has, consciously and deliberately, chosen to tell people that they should not, must not, cannot like the music (or art, or literature, or wine, come to that) that they like, without being aware of the grave consequences that derive therefrom. Now, as human beings sharing common reactions to stimuli, we know that when critics tell us that what we like is No Good, objectively no good at all, we tend to react negatively against this sort of criticism--it comes down to a choice between the critic and what our lying ears, eyes, taste buds, or brains tell us. Sometimes, if a person has only a weak and uncertain respect for the validity of their tastes and affections in the arts, the critic, such as NT, may persuade the wavering aficionado to abandon the lesser art for the greater (the art the critic endorses, that is to say). But most others will cheerfully affirm the integrity, the primacy, of their taste, and either ignore or vilify the questioner of their enthusiasm. And so Neward Thelman's quixotic endeavor should be regarded sympathetically as a kind of martyrdom for his particular art and for his mission, as he will not be universally loved.

I'm sure that all his objective facts about music he dislikes will be shown to be true: limited harmonic range, simple and repetitive rhythm, etc., and many more such true facts. But this is music, art, Art, after all. And in Art with a Capital A, _de gustibus non disputandum est_ is the only universal truth. Once one gets into the Good, Better, Best infinite series, then there logically can be no alternative to listening to only the one, the final masterwork, or contemplating the one great painting. Poulenc? Not as good, objectively, as Bach (or your particular favorite), so junk Poulenc and go for The Best, otherwise you are wasting your time on the lesser rather than the greater.

But perhaps I misinterpret. But I would be shocked--shocked--to find that Neward Thelman cannot instantly provide a very brief list indeed of the Best in every category of music and the arts, or in any of the human endeavors where personal preference operates. I would like to see that list, and be thus instructed, though for my own part, I affirm cheerfully again that I have terrible taste in music, and revel and luxuriate in that certain knowledge; it keeps me warm during the coldest critical winter. Maybe NT just hasn't yet heard enough, or the right sort, of Rock or Pop or whatever else we are supposed to disdain. Maybe that's it.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

AfterHours said:


> I don't have a ton of interest in the overall concept of this thread but I do want to point out that, from my point of view (and perhaps some will agree), Rock music has largely been mis-represented by its "experts/critics/historians" in that it's generally chosen the likes of The Beatles or Elvis Presley as the "pinnacles" of the art form. It's perfectly fine to hold these artists in high esteem (and it's all subjective anyway), however, it is dubious in my opinion to make such a claim.


The Beatles are the pinnacle of the "art form," such as it is.

And no popular music critic equates the Beatles and Elvis. (Some pretend to more or less equate the Beatles and Chuck Berry, but they don't really believe it.)



AfterHours said:


> One will find that there is a common denominator of all the greatest, most "timeless" art -- by timeless I mean art that has absorbed countless evaluation and assimilation and still leaves the vast majority of its critics/historians/serious listeners/viewers in perpetual awe/amazement, no matter what followed -- from Dante Algheri and Shakespeare, to Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel, to Bach, Mozart and Beethoven's greatest works, to Orson Welles and Andrei Tarkovsky's greatest films, to Charles Mingus and John Coltrane's best albums, and so on...


Whoa whoa whoa, hooooooold on - Welles, Tarkovsky, Mingus & Coltrane ain't no Michelangelo, Bach, Mozart & Beethoven.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

Triplets said:


> Classical Music will never be the pablum of the masses.


But Puccini already happened


----------



## AfterHours

Magnum Miserium said:


> The Beatles are the pinnacle of the "art form," such as it is.
> 
> And no popular music critic equates the Beatles and Elvis. (Some pretend to more or less equate the Beatles and Chuck Berry, but they don't really believe it.)
> 
> Whoa whoa whoa, hooooooold on - Welles, Tarkovsky, Mingus & Coltrane ain't no Michelangelo, Bach, Mozart & Beethoven.


Re: Elvis and The Beatles ... They are very commonly ranked as the two greatest artists in the history of Rock

Re: The Beatles are the pinnacle of the art form ... It's okay if you think so, but for the purposes of arguing/explaining such a thing, in purely musical terms: why, if we are considering/responding to the criteria I gave? Is there a single song of theirs that is among the most extraordinary ever created in any such regard? Meaning a song that exhibits the most singular ingenuity and the most extraordinary emotional/conceptual depth of any work of any genre -- or that is even remotely close? Also, an album?

Re: Welles, Tarkovsky, Mingus, Coltrane ... _No one_ is Beethoven, Bach, Michelangelo, Mozart. But yes, the particular selections I gave each are examples that far transcended their arts (Film, Jazz) and very thoroughly and substantially exhibit such a criteria.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

AfterHours said:


> Re: Elvis and The Beatles ... They are very commonly ranked as the two greatest artists in the history of Rock


Only in the same sense that Satie is ranked as "greatest composer" - nobody really thinks he's on Debussy's level, he's listed as a token, for being a "pioneer" and for what he symbolizes rather than for what he actually composed. Except even less than that, because Satie at least _did _compose and Elvis didn't. Critics write about the Beatles' music. They write about Elvis' image. Their reputations aren't comparable. The Beatles' actual rivals are the Rolling Stones.



> Re: The Beatles are the pinnacle of the art form ... It's okay if you think so, but for the purposes of arguing/explaining such a thing, in purely musical terms: why, if we are considering/responding to the criteria I gave? Is there a single song of theirs that is among the most extraordinary ever created in any such regard? Meaning a song that exhibits the most singular ingenuity and the most extraordinary emotional/conceptual depth of any work of any genre -- or that is even remotely close? Also, an album?


Frankly, your asking those questions as if they were at all difficult to answer looks uninformed. "A Day in the Life," "Sgt. Pepper." Or, alternately, "Hey Jude," the white album. Or, alternately, "Tomorrow Never Knows," "Revolver." Next.


----------



## Captainnumber36

It's subjective. I don't think Classical is going anywhere anytime soon. Live and let live! In fact, it's people like OP that I feel push ppl away from Classical by forcing it on listeners as the greatest ever and all else is rubbish.


----------



## mathisdermaler

You analogize enjoying rock music to a drug addiction! Don't you realize how ridiculous you're being? Liking classical and not being able to enjoy other genres is (nearly ) as sad as liking rock and nothing else. Also, classical music fans don't evangelize their music on rock forums because of the pretense falsely associated with the music.


----------



## Captainnumber36

mathisdermaler said:


> You analogize enjoying rock music to a drug addiction! Don't you realize how ridiculous you're being? Liking classical and not being able to enjoy other genres is (nearly ) as sad as liking rock and nothing else. Also, classical music fans don't evangelize their music on rock forums because of the pretense falsely associated with the music.


It's really about, listen to what you want, share it with others who are willing, don't be an elitist about it, and share in the love of music. I listen to mostly classical these days, and I'm ok with that. It's what I enjoy the most!


----------



## Phil loves classical

AfterHours said:


> Re: Elvis and The Beatles ... They are very commonly ranked as the two greatest artists in the history of Rock
> 
> Re: The Beatles are the pinnacle of the art form ... It's okay if you think so, but for the purposes of arguing/explaining such a thing, in purely musical terms: why, if we are considering/responding to the criteria I gave? Is there a single song of theirs that is among the most extraordinary ever created in any such regard? Meaning a song that exhibits the most singular ingenuity and the most extraordinary emotional/conceptual depth of any work of any genre -- or that is even remotely close? Also, an album?
> 
> Re: Welles, Tarkovsky, Mingus, Coltrane ... _No one_ is Beethoven, Bach, Michelangelo, Mozart. But yes, the particular selections I gave each are examples that far transcended their arts (Film, Jazz) and very thoroughly and substantially exhibit such a criteria.


Like in the other thread, the Beatles' Strawberry Fields is among the most original and one of the pinnacles of the art form, and is acknowledged by critics and historians. The song wades between major and minor keys, the rhythms are complex. The musical impact is similar to that of Stravinsky's Rite of Spring.

Even as a huge fan of the big three of classical (Bach, Mozart, Beethoven), Mingus' Black Saint and Sinner Lady is a masterpiece that stands on equal level of any of their works in terms of complexity, and musical impact (not necessarily influence).

p.s. Now you mentioned Welles, I think these are the Citizen Kane's of those art forms.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Magnum Miserium said:


> If it's any consolation, rock is dead


Hey hey, my my
Rock and roll can never die

- Neil Young


----------



## Magnum Miserium

Phil loves classical said:


> Hey hey, my my
> Rock and roll can never die
> 
> - Neil Young


Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?

- John Lydon


----------



## AfterHours

Magnum Miserium said:


> Only in the same sense that Satie is ranked as "greatest composer" - nobody really thinks he's on Debussy's level, he's listed as a token, for being a "pioneer" and for what he symbolizes rather than for what he actually composed. Except even less than that, because Satie at least _did _compose and Elvis didn't. Critics write about the Beatles' music. They write about Elvis' image. Their reputations aren't comparable. The Beatles' actual rivals are the Rolling Stones.
> 
> Frankly, your asking those questions as if they were at all difficult to answer looks uninformed. "A Day in the Life," "Sgt. Pepper." Or, alternately, "Hey Jude," the white album. Or, alternately, "Tomorrow Never Knows," "Revolver." Next.


So what is the overwhelming emotional/conceptual depth you find in these songs/albums? How does "A Day in the Life" compare to the overpoweringly apocalyptic choas and surreal interludes as in Red Crayola's Parable of Arable Land (1967), which performs a similar sensation for 40+ cataclysmic minutes (20 straight) with its structures/songs falling apart as it moves. This album and its beginning 20 minute suite makes Day in the Life look quaint in comparison (even though we may be talking about The Beatles' greatest song). ... So why does Hey Jude, most of which is just a repetitive encapsulation of itself after a very simple, melodic progression, register such depth? Where are such layers of emotion/concept? What aspect goes into any depth about ... anything? Which of its emotions/concepts are more deeply expressed than, say, Van Morrison's Astral Weeks? How about in comparison to Bob Dylan's Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands? Where is the experiential world that The Beatles are spinning? What is so in-depth about it, if anything? ... Like A Day in the Life, TMK is one of their better songs, but looking at it in terms of emotional/conceptual depth, and in relation to rock history, how does its elaboration of concept(s) and emotion compete with the scaling, cosmic journey of something like Pink Floyd's much more considerable Interstellar Overdrive? Or King Crimson's 21st Century Schizoid Man? Or (unfairly perhaps) comparing it to a whole album such as My Bloody Valentine's Loveless?

In regards to albums, many albums far surpassed those. Revolver could very well be the most overrated work of art in music history. Its songs tend to each end before they arrive somewhere substantial -- if they were going to in the first place. None of its vocal performances stand out as anything remotely progressive and as emotional expressions could hardly be more mundane, less nuanced, less detailed/in-depth, or in terms of coloration, could hardly be less expressive about the experiences described. TMK and I'm Only Sleeping are perhaps brief exceptions. Compare its love songs to an album like Astral Weeks or Bob Dylan's winding masterpieces, or to Tim Buckley's lugubrious, elongated, intense spiritual and psychological grip on the subject. Compare Eleanor Rigby to Love's much more suspenseful and surreal Red Telephone, or the orchestrated and poetic ruminations of Nick Drake's Five Leaves Left. Because the instruments throughout the songs of Revolver are generally played with little/meek conviction, most of the songs sound frail and thin and lacking in color and substance. The songs are there and entertaining in some respects but they are mostly novelties and dressed-up ditties instead of immersive experiences about the emotions/concepts on display. Compare any of their weak guitar chord strikes/rhythmic thrusts to such songs of The Kinks, or goodness, of Cream or Jimi Hendrix, to see the difference in _dimension_, substance and intensity created. Compare Yellow Submarine to the charades of Frank Zappa -- there is no comparison in terms of substance even if in this case we're talking of satirical, intentionally "worthless" substance. Ringo's drumming and the band's rhythm in general, could hardly be less creative. Compare to pretty much any good jazz album for all 15 years prior. Compare to, heck, even something like the Ronette's Be My Baby. Compare to The Doors' debut or Strange Days. Etc.

I have to end off because I need to go, but I should be able to briefly pop in a few times throughout the day. Maybe I'll add to this/say more later, if it seems productive or necessary.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

AfterHours said:


> So what is the overwhelming emotional/conceptual depth you find in these songs/albums? How does "A Day in the Life" compare to the overpowerongly apocalyptic choas and surreal interludes as in Red Crayola's Parable of Arable Land (1967), which performs a similar sensation for 40+ cataclysmic minutes (20 straight) with its structures/songs falling apart as it moves.


You might as well ask how Debussy's "...the engulfed cathedral" 'compare' to Chausson's "Poeme de l'amour et de la mer" - you're implying that longer is better without actually saying it because if you actually said it the fallacy would be too obvious.

As for the rest, sorry (not sorry), I don't care enough about rock any more to invest much energy in arguing with people who are wasting _their_ time trying to knock the Beatles off the top of the canon. I will say that you did pretty well except for a couple of outright mistakes: pretending Love is an important band, and this -



> Compare any of their weak guitar chord strikes/rhythmic thrusts to best such songs of The Kinks


The Kinks are a fatal trap for revisionists, because their hipster cred is so high that it tends to make people forget that, brilliant though they were (or rather, brilliant though Ray Davies was), their technique as composers is much more naïve _even_ than the Beatles' and their technique as performers is practically non-existent.


----------



## DaveM

Trying to make a retrospective case for the fact that various Beatles' classic songs are somehow 'less than' those of this or that rock/pop artist is IMO a futile exercise. The effect that the final 4-5 Beatles albums, and songs therein, had when they were released and continue to have is a fact of life. That train has left the station!


----------



## AfterHours

Phil loves classical said:


> Like in the other thread, the Beatles' Strawberry Fields is among the most original and one of the pinnacles of the art form, and is acknowledged by critics and historians. The song wades between major and minor keys, the rhythms are complex. The musical impact is similar to that of Stravinsky's Rite of Spring.
> 
> Even as a huge fan of the big three of classical (Bach, Mozart, Beethoven), Mingus' Black Saint and Sinner Lady is a masterpiece that stands on equal level of any of their works in terms of complexity, and musical impact (not necessarily influence).
> 
> p.s. Now you mentioned Welles, I think these are the Citizen Kane's of those art forms.


I like Strawberry Fields Forever, but would say something like Captain Beefheart's Trout Mask Replica makes a much more apt comparison to Stravinsky. Many artists produced much richer, more daring, more rhythmically sensational and complex songs, both during and around the same time, and certainly later -- than SFF. Looking later, I would say an album like In the Aeroplane Over the Sea by Neutral Milk Hotel was much more substantial in terms of similar, but more powerfully rendered, compositions and emotions on display.

Re: Black Saint ... I absolutely agree with you here. It is among the greatest works of art in history, no question.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

AfterHours said:


> Looking later, I would say an album like In the Aeroplane Over the Sea by Neutral Milk Hotel was much more substantial in terms of similar, but more powerfully rendered, compositions and emotions on display.


Ooooooh boy, make that three mistakes.


----------



## AfterHours

DaveM said:


> Trying to make a retrospective case for the fact that various Beatles' classic songs are somehow 'less than' those of this or that rock/pop artist is IMO a futile exercise. The effect that the final 4-5 Beatles albums, and songs therein, had when they were released and continue to have is a fact of life. That train has left the station!


Their cultural impact is undeniable. There may never be fan enthusiasm following a band to quite the same degree, like what happened in the 60's (or with Elvis). I wasn't talking about popularity or the "sensation" they were on TV, the radio, or with the youth of the time, etc, and their influence in that regard, or culturally -- which was, of course, massive.


----------



## AfterHours

Magnum Miserium said:


> You might as well ask how Debussy's "...the engulfed cathedral" 'compare' to Chausson's "Poeme de l'amour et de la mer" - you're implying that longer is better without actually saying it because if you actually said it the fallacy would be too obvious.
> 
> As for the rest, sorry (not sorry), I don't care enough about rock any more to invest much energy in arguing with people who are wasting _their_ time trying to knock the Beatles off the top of the canon. I will say that you did pretty well except for a couple of outright mistakes: pretending Love is an important band, and this -
> 
> The Kinks are a fatal trap for revisionists, because their hipster cred is so high that it tends to make people forget that, brilliant though they were (or rather, brilliant though Ray Davies was), their technique as composers is much more naïve _even_ than the Beatles' and their technique as performers is practically non-existent.




Re: Day in the Life/Parable of Arable Land ... No, I was actually comparing two very alike compositions and the differential in each achieving their purposes in relation to the emotional/conceptual depth we were supposed to discuss.

The rest of your retorts and empty criticisms are all pointless. I knew I was wasting my time.


----------



## Guest

I'm fascinated by the curious sideshow (which rock/pop acts are worthy) when I thought the thread topic was about the alleged doom of classical music.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

AfterHours said:


> empty criticisms


As opposed to yours? Everything you've posted in this discussion essentially consists of "this is better than that." There's no actual criticism. Granted, same goes for me, but I'm not pretending to be rigorous.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

MacLeod said:


> I'm fascinated by the curious sideshow (which rock/pop acts are worthy) when I thought the thread topic was about the alleged doom of classical music.


Classical music is fine, because pop music is out of ideas.


----------



## AfterHours

Magnum Miserium said:


> Everything you've posted in this discussion essentially consists of "this is better than that."


Really?

I don't have a ton of interest in the overall concept of this thread but I do want to point out that, from my point of view (and perhaps some will agree), Rock music has largely been mis-represented by its "experts/critics/historians" in that it's generally chosen the likes of The Beatles or Elvis Presley as the "pinnacles" of the art form. It's perfectly fine to hold these artists in high esteem (and it's all subjective anyway), however, it is dubious in my opinion to make such a claim. One will find that there is a common denominator of all the greatest, most "timeless" art -- by timeless I mean art that has absorbed countless evaluation and assimilation and still leaves the vast majority of its critics/historians/serious listeners/viewers in perpetual awe/amazement, no matter what followed -- from Dante Algheri and Shakespeare, to Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel, to Bach, Mozart and Beethoven's greatest works, to Orson Welles and Andrei Tarkovsky's greatest films, to Charles Mingus and John Coltrane's best albums, and so on... One will find that the common denominator is each artist (and many more unlisted), far transcended the previously conceived rules or boundaries of their genre(s) and produced works that exhibited emotional or conceptual content with extraordinary conviction and a singular creative intelligence so as to remain permanently distinguished. But try evaluating the emotional/conceptual depth of most Beatles songs and, really, virtually any Elvis song. With few exceptions, they are generally entertaining and well-done, and sometimes moderately impinging in their emotions/concepts -- but the majority are rather superficial and quite lacking in attaining the sort of significance as in the above common denominator. There are actually many, many Rock artists and albums (not to mention Jazz), far less heralded and given little, if any, media attention, that did create music exhibiting such depth, but don't get the same accolades. That these are usually so little known, and that most of Rock criticism/evaluation has been built on meeting a different (in my opinion, much lower) set of ideals, may be a major reason why Classical music listeners often consider Rock a far lesser art form.

... ... ...

So what is the overwhelming emotional/conceptual depth you find in these songs/albums? How does "A Day in the Life" compare to the overpoweringly apocalyptic choas and surreal interludes as in Red Crayola's Parable of Arable Land (1967), which performs a similar sensation for 40+ cataclysmic minutes (20 straight) with its structures/songs falling apart as it moves. This album and its beginning 20 minute suite makes Day in the Life look quaint in comparison (even though we may be talking about The Beatles' greatest song). ... So why does Hey Jude, most of which is just a repetitive encapsulation of itself after a very simple, melodic progression, register such depth? Where are such layers of emotion/concept? What aspect goes into any depth about ... anything? Which of its emotions/concepts are more deeply expressed than, say, Van Morrison's Astral Weeks? How about in comparison to Bob Dylan's Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands? Where is the experiential world that The Beatles are spinning? What is so in-depth about it, if anything? ... Like A Day in the Life, TMK is one of their better songs, but looking at it in terms of emotional/conceptual depth, and in relation to rock history, how does its elaboration of concept(s) and emotion compete with the scaling, cosmic journey of something like Pink Floyd's much more considerable Interstellar Overdrive? Or King Crimson's 21st Century Schizoid Man? Or (unfairly perhaps) comparing it to a whole album such as My Bloody Valentine's Loveless?

In regards to albums, many albums far surpassed those. Revolver could very well be the most overrated work of art in music history. Its songs tend to each end before they arrive somewhere substantial -- if they were going to in the first place. None of its vocal performances stand out as anything remotely progressive and as emotional expressions could hardly be more mundane, less nuanced, less detailed/in-depth, or in terms of coloration, could hardly be less expressive about the experiences described. TMK and I'm Only Sleeping are perhaps brief exceptions. Compare its love songs to an album like Astral Weeks or Bob Dylan's winding masterpieces, or to Tim Buckley's lugubrious, elongated, intense spiritual and psychological grip on the subject. Compare Eleanor Rigby to Love's much more suspenseful and surreal Red Telephone, or the orchestrated and poetic ruminations of Nick Drake's Five Leaves Left. Because the instruments throughout the songs of Revolver are generally played with little/meek conviction, most of the songs sound frail and thin and lacking in color and substance. The songs are there and entertaining in some respects but they are mostly novelties and dressed-up ditties instead of immersive experiences about the emotions/concepts on display. Compare any of their weak guitar chord strikes/rhythmic thrusts to such songs of The Kinks, or goodness, of Cream or Jimi Hendrix, to see the difference in dimension, substance and intensity created. Compare Yellow Submarine to the charades of Frank Zappa -- there is no comparison in terms of substance even if in this case we're talking of satirical, intentionally "worthless" substance. Ringo's drumming and the band's rhythm in general, could hardly be less creative. Compare to pretty much any good jazz album for all 15 years prior. Compare to, heck, even something like the Ronette's Be My Baby. Compare to The Doors' debut or Strange Days. Etc.


----------



## Captainnumber36

You can only objectively state your opinions. There is no factual better or worse in music. You can compare different elements of music and derive a criteria by which to compare/contrast which could be interesting, but what a person enjoys is up to them and it's all good as long as it's genuine.


----------



## Phil loves classical

AfterHours said:


> Re: Day in the Life/Parable of Arable Land ... No, I was actually comparing two very alike compositions and the differential in each achieving their purposes in relation to the emotional/conceptual depth we were supposed to discuss.
> 
> The rest of your retorts and empty criticisms are all pointless. I knew I was wasting my time.


Like in the other thread, I also think Parable of Arable Land is an absolute masterpiece, and one of the pinnacles of rock. Love's Forever Changes I would say is another. Revolver was revolutionary for its time. I say Strawberry Fields is like a modern classical orchestral work, and has no equal with aural impact.


----------



## DaveM

Magnum Miserium said:


> Classical music is fine, because pop music is out of ideas.


Such an unusual sentence. Would classical music not be fine if pop music wasn't out of ideas? Is pop music actually out of ideas and if so, which category of pop music or is it all pop music? Is classical music actually fine notwithstanding the state of pop music? Does one thing have anything to do with the other?


----------



## AfterHours

Phil loves classical said:


> Like in the other thread, I also think Parable of Arable Land is an absolute masterpiece, and one of the pinnacles of rock. Love's Forever Changes I would say is another. Revolver was revolutionary for its time. I say Strawberry Fields is like a modern classical orchestral work, and has no equal with aural impact.


While in terms of aural impact I can think of lots of music I would choose over it, and I wouldn't put Strawberry Fields on that high of a pedestal overall, I do feel it's among the best songs of its type, and respect your opinion -- and really, have no issue with our mild disagreement about it.

Although I don't think Love's Forever Changes is quite the masterpiece it's often made out to be, I do think it's among the best baroque pop albums of the 60's (even though such a genre label only partially explains its confluence of styles). Glad to see we agree on Parable of Arable Land  A very under-recognized masterpiece. There are few albums as cataclysmic, startling and invigorating in all of Rock music.


----------



## Captainnumber36

DaveM said:


> Such an unusual sentence. Would classical music not be fine if pop music wasn't out of ideas? Is pop music actually out of ideas and if so, which category of pop music or is it all pop music? Is classical music actually fine notwithstanding the state of pop music? Does one thing have anything to do with the other?


:lol::lol: Quite witty, my friend, quite! I love jokes like these.


----------



## DaveM

AfterHours said:


> Their cultural impact is undeniable. There may never be fan enthusiasm following a band to quite the same degree, like what happened in the 60's (or with Elvis). I wasn't talking about popularity or the "sensation" they were on TV, the radio, or with the youth of the time, etc, and their influence in that regard, or culturally -- which was, of course, massive.


I would submit that the Beatles had the effect they had because of something more profound than you are giving them credit for. It may be an interesting exercise to compare some of the Beatles' best with some of your favorites of the time, but apparently those works didn't resonate with the masses to the same degree.

Not to mention the fact that even if one can make a case for this song or that song being better than this or that Beatles song, starting with Rubber Soul on, the Beatles kept upping the ante with each subsequent album -each one featuring not just one or two highly original songs, but several- something no other group did at the time with such predictable success!


----------



## AfterHours

DaveM said:


> I would submit that the Beatles had the effect they had because of something more profound than you are giving them credit for. It may be an interesting exercise to compare some of the Beatles' best with some of your favorites of the time, but apparently those works didn't resonate with the masses to the same degree.
> 
> Not to mention the fact that even if one can make a case for this song or that song being better than this or that Beatles song, starting with Rubber Soul on, the Beatles kept upping the ante with each subsequent album -each one featuring not just one or two highly original songs, but several- something no other group did at the time with such predictable success!


I don't think popularity is generally a good index of quality. Infact, it's often the reverse. Just look at the charts in any decade. Very few of the greatest artists were the most popular in their day. Most were only properly recognized later (even much later), with their art truly assimilated and comprehended and given its due. I think you're overstating to what _degree_ they were original, not that I'm arguing that they weren't at all. They only appeared _that_ original next to themselves and some other pop, or less original, acts. Almost all of their 1965 and earlier music is hardly a step forward from what came before at all -- baby steps -- both within their own career and what was happening outside of, and before them in pop/rock. Their post-1965 originality and upping-the-ante pales in comparison to the various avenues Jazz had been walking for over a decade (John Coltrane, Ornette Coleman, Charles Mingus, Sun Ra, Cecil Taylor, Miles Davis, Carla Bley, Albert Ayler, Roscoe Mitchell, Eric Dolphy, Sam Rivers...etc...). Or to what was happening in Classical music of the time ... or over its previous 250 years. Or, what was happening with Rock, such as The Velvet Underground, Bob Dylan, Van Morrison, Frank Zappa, The Doors, Red Crayola, Captain Beefheart, Pink Floyd, Jefferson Airplane, Jimi Hendrix, Robbie Basho, Tim Buckley, Holy Modal Rounders, Colosseum, King Crimson, Soft Machine...


----------



## DaveM

AfterHours said:


> I don't think popularity is generally a good index of quality. In fact, it's often the reverse. Just look at the charts in any decade.


Did you miss my first sentence?: _'I would submit that the Beatles had the effect they had because of something *more profound* than you are giving them credit for.'_ In the case of the Beatles, the popularity flowed from the originality. In any event, popularity does not rise in a vacuum. It may be fleeting in the case of 'one-hit wonders', but in the case of the Beatles, it was sustained in a major way over 7 years and has been essentially unending to the present even as some of the artists/groups you mention below are but a relative memory. That kind of popularity is anything but superficial.



> Very few of the greatest artists were the most popular in their day. Most were only properly recognized later (even much later), with their art truly assimilated and comprehended and given its due. I think you're overstating to what _degree_ they were original, not that I'm arguing that they weren't at all.


Rather than my view of the Beatles' originality being overstated, it seems to be widely accepted.



> They only appeared _that_ original next to themselves and some other pop, or less original, acts. Almost all of their 1965 and earlier music is hardly a step forward from what came before at all -- baby steps -- both within their own career and what was happening outside of, and before them in pop/rock. Their post-1965 originality and upping-the-ante pales in comparison to the various avenues Jazz had been walking for over a decade (John Coltrane, Ornette Coleman, Charles Mingus, Sun Ra, Cecil Taylor, Miles Davis, Carla Bley, Albert Ayler, Roscoe Mitchell, Eric Dolphy, Sam Rivers...etc...). Or to what was happening in Classical music of the time ... or over its previous 250 years. Or, what was happening with Rock, such as The Velvet Underground, Bob Dylan, Van Morrison, Frank Zappa, The Doors, Red Crayola, Captain Beefheart, Pink Floyd, Jefferson Airplane, Jimi Hendrix, Robbie Basho, Tim Buckley, Holy Modal Rounders, Colosseum, King Crimson, Soft Machine...


The appropriate comparison of the Beatles' music is with their contemporaries in the same category of music, not jazz and classical music. Certainly, some of the rock-related bands/artists you mention were influential in major ways and there are some people who will prefer some of them to the Beatles, but the overall effect and influence of the Beatles on pop music was greater than any of these individual entities. That's the train I was talking about.


----------



## AfterHours

DaveM said:


> Did you miss my first sentence?: _'I would submit that the Beatles had the effect they had because of something *more profound* than you are giving them credit for.'_ In the case of the Beatles, the popularity flowed from the originality. In any event, popularity does not rise in a vacuum. It may be fleeting in the case of 'one-hit wonders', but in the case of the Beatles, it was sustained in a major way over 7 years and has been essentially unending to the present even as some of the artists/groups you mention below are but a relative memory. That kind of popularity is anything but superficial.
> 
> Rather than my view of the Beatles' originality being overstated, it seems to be widely accepted.
> 
> The appropriate comparison of the Beatles' music is with their contemporaries in the same category of music, not jazz and classical music. Certainly, some of the rock-related bands/artists you mention were influential in major ways and there are some people who will prefer some of them to the Beatles, but the overall effect and influence of the Beatles on pop music was greater than any of these individual entities. That's the train I was talking about.


First off, I just want to say, that these sorts of conversations usually just go around in circles and I think both of us have better things to do (I hope!). So, if such circles continue much longer, I'm going to move on. Still, let's see if we can find something worthwhile out of all this...

Re: Did I miss your first sentence, etc ... No, I've just already addressed it, in previous posts with the other guy. However, if you can think of any Beatles songs that expressed any emotion/concept in a particularly profound way, _relative to_ the greats of music history (and not just their own bubble, without making concessions for them) ...

Re: Popularity ... Yes, obviously The Beatles have proven more significant than the Mariah Carey's or Miley Cyrus's or Beliebers of the world, and even many mediocre artists. They were a quite a good band.

I simply don't think they belong in (nearly) the same pantheon, qualitatively, as the giants of art history, such as Beethoven, Michelangelo, Bach, Mozart, and others I've stated.

Re: originality, widely accepted ... Yep, as I've already mentioned, they are very commonly mentioned as the greatest pop/rock artist of all time, with Elvis. The Beatles certainly _added to_ pop music, mainly in the latter half of their career, with a plethora of pretty creative arrangements culled from various musics/sub-genres, but realize history and widespread acceptance hasn't yet caught up (for the most part) to those who actually completely changed the art form itself. Since the 1970s you will be very hard pressed to find many substantial, important artists who were directly influenced by the Beatles in a significant, musically evident way. Conversely, you will find countless who were directly influenced and owe entire genres/sub-genres, entire changes of the art form, to artists such as The Velvet Underground -- who have proven far more significantly influential from a purely musical standpoint.

Re: appropriate comparison ... I disagree. If we're comparing The Beatles to "the best of all time", the giants of music, art or whatever (which was my original post that you may or may not have caught), then no concessions should need to be made. No concessions need to be made for Beethoven, or Bach, or Mozart, or for painting/sculpture: Michelangelo. Etc. All their greatest work still astounds and holds up, still widely unsurpassed, no matter the advancements since, technically or ideologically, no matter how great or ambitious a work one compares them to.

Which brings me back to my original post, which perhaps we've gone on an unnecessary sort of tangent from:

_"I don't have a ton of interest in the overall concept of this thread but I do want to point out that, from my point of view (and perhaps some will agree), Rock music has largely been mis-represented by its "experts/critics/historians" in that it's generally chosen the likes of The Beatles or Elvis Presley as the "pinnacles" of the art form. It's perfectly fine to hold these artists in high esteem (and it's all subjective anyway), however, it is dubious in my opinion to make such a claim. One will find that there is a common denominator of all the greatest, most "timeless" art -- by timeless I mean art that has absorbed countless evaluation and assimilation and still leaves the vast majority of its critics/historians/serious listeners/viewers in perpetual awe/amazement, no matter what followed -- from Dante Algheri and Shakespeare, to Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel, to Bach, Mozart and Beethoven's greatest works, to Orson Welles and Andrei Tarkovsky's greatest films, to Charles Mingus and John Coltrane's best albums, and so on... One will find that the common denominator is each artist (and many more unlisted), far transcended the previously conceived rules or boundaries of their genre(s) and produced works that exhibited emotional or conceptual content with extraordinary conviction and a singular creative intelligence so as to remain permanently distinguished. But try evaluating the emotional/conceptual depth of most Beatles songs and, really, virtually any Elvis song. With few exceptions, they are generally entertaining and well-done, and sometimes moderately impinging in their emotions/concepts -- but the majority are rather superficial and quite lacking in attaining the sort of significance as in the above common denominator. There are actually many, many Rock artists and albums (not to mention Jazz), far less heralded and given little, if any, media attention, that did create music exhibiting such depth, but don't get the same accolades. That these are usually so little known, and that most of Rock criticism/evaluation has been built on meeting a different (in my opinion, much lower) set of ideals, may be a major reason why Classical music listeners often consider Rock a far lesser art form."_

I didn't come to this thread with the intention to open up the thousandth such discussion about The Beatles merits (or at least a long-winded one), but I can't say I'm surprised it happened anyway. My only major point to begin with was that they did not create music that is particularly applicable to the criteria I mention: _One will find that the common denominator is each artist (and many more unlisted), far transcended the previously conceived rules or boundaries of their genre(s) and produced works that exhibited emotional or conceptual content with extraordinary conviction and a singular creative intelligence so as to remain permanently distinguished._ And that it was arguable/dubious as regards their (supposed, imo) position in the pantheon, so to speak.

I am not here to argue if you like them more than me, or if I like them more than you, etc. I guess, at this point, I'm just curious: do you feel they created such works consistently in any capacity -- that are truly astonishing, that exhibit the most incredible depths of emotional/conceptual significance, that are highly profound -- relative to the giants of music history? Do you feel they made any songs/albums that are as staggering an experience?


----------



## DaveM

AfterHours said:


> First off, I just want to say, that these sorts of conversations usually just go around in circles and I think both of us have better things to do (I hope!). So, if such circles continue much longer, I'm going to move on. Still, let's see if we can find something worthwhile out of all this...
> 
> I am not here to argue if you like them more than me, or if I like them more than you, etc. I guess, at this point, I'm just curious: do you feel they created such works consistently in any capacity -- that are truly astonishing, that exhibit the most incredible depths of emotional/conceptual significance, that are highly profound -- relative to the giants of music history? Do you feel they made any songs/albums that are as staggering an experience?


Since I don't see the point of comparing the pinnacles of one genre with the pinnacles of an entirely different genre, I think the suggestion that we move on is a good one.


----------



## AfterHours

DaveM said:


> Since I don't see the point of comparing the pinnacles of one genre with the pinnacles of an entirely different genre, I think the suggestion that we move on is a good one.


All good, no worries


----------



## Jacred

Just because people encourage a member to listen to rock doesn't mean classical music is dead. I don't see how this is a logical conclusion to draw, seeing as it's like saying you can't like apples if you like oranges.

If a person says they don't like something, it's a natural response to suggest that they give whatever they don't like a second chance.


----------



## Woodduck

As one whose acquaintance with popular music has been mostly casual and sporadic (which may disqualify me to offer any statement at all about it, but not to inquire), I can only sit in wondering silence when I see pieces of rock music placed on a level of creative genius and ultimate importance with the "greatest works of art in history," and when the highest achievements of Dante, Shakespeare, Michelangelo, Bach, Mozart and Beethoven are invoked to reinforce the point. These are cited as prime examples of artists whose work "has absorbed countless evaluation and assimilation and still leaves the vast majority of its critics/historians/serious listeners/viewers in perpetual awe/amazement, no matter what followed." Well, yes - but the most recent of those artists died nearly two hundred years ago, which allows plenty of time for that evaluation and assimilation. Isn't it a little premature to be bracketing with them popular art that's only forty years old? Who, at this point in time, constitute "the vast majority of its critics/historians/serious listeners/viewers" who exist "in perpetual awe/amazement"?

This sort of extravagance may be understandable as a reflexive reaction to the wholesale dismissal of rock music some feel is the thrust of this thread, or as the happy raving of an enthusiast. But is it understandable otherwise? Nothing _I've_ read here, and no music I've ever heard, helps _me_ to understand it.


----------



## AfterHours

Woodduck said:


> As one whose acquaintance with popular music has been mostly casual and sporadic (which may disqualify me to offer any statement all about it, but not to inquire), I can only sit in wondering silence when I see pieces of rock music placed on a level of creative genius and ultimate importance with the "greatest works of art in history," and when the highest achievements of Dante, Shakespeare, Michelangelo, Bach, Mozart and Beethoven are invoked to reinforce the point. These are cited as prime examples of artists whose work "has absorbed countless evaluation and assimilation and still leaves the vast majority of its critics/historians/serious listeners/viewers in perpetual awe/amazement, no matter what followed." Well, yes - but the most recent of those artists died nearly two hundred years ago, which allows plenty of time for that evaluation and assimilation. Isn't it a little premature to be bracketing with them popular art that's only forty years old? Who, at this point in time, constitute "the vast majority of its critics/historians/serious listeners/viewers" who exist "in perpetual awe/amazement"?
> 
> This sort of extravagance may be understandable as a reflexive reaction to the wholesale dismissal of rock music some feel is the thrust of this thread, or as the happy raving of an enthusiast. But is it understandable otherwise? Nothing _I've_ read here, and no music I've ever heard, helps _me_ to understand it.


Thank you for the thoughtful insight. The important part, for me personally is: _One will find that the common denominator is each artist (and many more unlisted), far transcended the previously conceived rules or boundaries of their genre(s) and produced works that exhibited emotional or conceptual content with extraordinary conviction and a singular creative intelligence so as to remain permanently distinguished._ I added the part before that to put anyone reading it into the proper perspective of the types of works that already exist, that I was referring to: some examples of the most obvious masterpieces/historical greats as ideals to see my point of view by. Personally, I don't have a hard time (usually) recognizing such qualities in a work well before it's been established critically or over a considerable period of time, and I myself don't find it a necessary prerequisite. But, I do understand that others may want to add 100 years of caution/critical evaluation, so to speak, in order to solidify such a position!

For instance, I feel that a recent "Rock" album, Joanna Newsom's _Have One On Me_, clearly deserves its place among, or close to, the great masterpieces of our age, and am quite sure of its place and within the above criteria (which I apply as my own too), but I am not surprised at those less prepared to anoint it so soon. Conversely, as instantly as I've heard the latest Adele song (or many other possible examples), I am quite certain, aside from exhibiting her obvious talent, that it does not deserve such a place (imo). This has all been helped along for me, not due to some random special insight or intelligence, but by having dedicatedly and thoroughly assimilated thousands of amazing works and all-time masterpieces, across Classical, Rock, Jazz, Film, and Paintings/Visual Art -- and to a lesser degree (still in its "rough draft" stages), Sculpture/Architecture. Some day, maybe I'll delve into literature/poetry a bit more than I have, which would truly round it all off. Assimilating the greatest art in as many art forms as possible makes such evaluations much easier to conclude in my opinion, otherwise one's context can be in doubt.


----------



## DaveM

Speaking for myself: I grew up with classical music, but came late to pop/rock music in my late teens. As I've said above, I don't compare the two and don't see how one can possibly come up with appropriate parameters to compare the music-makers of the two genres. I feel lucky that I had the experience of listening to the works of the great classical masters of the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries and then to have experienced (what I call) the grand era of pop/rock starting in the late 60s and continuing on thru the 70s to 90s.

For me, classical music and pop/rock have distinctly different appeals. I associate pop/rock more with the younger years and happy times and while I still listen to it on a more limited basis, as far as my taste is concerned, melody has largely given way to rhythm and beat so there isn't much new material for me to be interested in now. (Occasionally, there are artists such as Adele, Christina Perri and Bruno Mars who spark my interest.) On the other hand, classical music has been with me always and has always been a comforting salve during life's challenges. It's appeal is at a much deeper level.

To me, Lennon & McCartney were, for a time, an example of synergistic genius that resulted in a sea change in pop/rock. Their influence on so many artists who followed is written in history. IMO, Beethoven was a genius whose influence on so many composers who followed is also written in history (I'm almost embarrassed having to add the 'IMO' ). Can I begin to compare the two? No, and I won't even try. All I will say, is that, if I was forced to give up one of the two, I would have to say goodbye to the pop/rock.


----------



## Phil loves classical

AfterHours said:


> Thank you for the thoughtful insight. The important part, for me personally is: _One will find that the common denominator is each artist (and many more unlisted), far transcended the previously conceived rules or boundaries of their genre(s) and produced works that exhibited emotional or conceptual content with extraordinary conviction and a singular creative intelligence so as to remain permanently distinguished._ I added the part before that to put anyone reading it into the proper perspective of the types of works that already exist, that I was referring to: some examples of the most obvious masterpieces/historical greats as ideals to see my point of view by. Personally, I don't have a hard time (usually) recognizing such qualities in a work well before it's been established critically or over a considerable period of time, and I myself don't find it a necessary prerequisite. But, I do understand that others may want to add 100 years of caution/critical evaluation, so to speak, in order to solidify such a position!
> 
> For instance, I feel that a recent "Rock" album, Joanna Newsom's _Have One On Me_, clearly deserves its place among, or close to, the great masterpieces of our age, and am quite sure of its place and within the above criteria (which I apply as my own too), but I am not surprised at those less prepared to anoint it so soon. Conversely, as instantly as I've heard the latest Adele song (or many other possible examples), I am quite certain, aside from exhibiting her obvious talent, that it does not deserve such a place (imo). This has all been helped along for me, not due to some random special insight or intelligence, but by having dedicatedly and thoroughly assimilated thousands of amazing works and all-time masterpieces, across Classical, Rock, Jazz, Film, and Paintings/Visual Art -- and to a lesser degree (still in its "rough draft" stages), Sculpture/Architecture. Some day, maybe I'll delve into literature/poetry a bit more than I have, which would truly round it all off. Assimilating the greatest art in as many art forms as possible makes such evaluations much easier to conclude in my opinion, otherwise one's context can be in doubt.


Agree the time criteria is not necessary when you can recognize similar elements of long established celebrated masterpieces in other more recent works. But Personally I can't accept music in any genre except classical (Lutoslawski, Penderecki) in the last 25 years being up there among the greats. They all seem fake to me, some kind of pseudo-Art (like Radiohead, the Stones' Satanic Majesty's Request, the Who's Tommy). You may say I'm fooling myself, but feel I can tell genuine works of art from fake!


----------



## Neward Thelman

Klassik said:


> Maybe these glory days you speak of were just a bubble.
> 
> So it sounds like orchestra managers are incompetent. And you want us to give more money to these people? Why? It sounds like they'd just squander it.
> 
> While one can complain about the classical music being written these days, I hear conductors say all the time in interviews that the quality of musicians in the US is as good as it's ever been. .


"Maybe these glory days you speak of were just a bubble." Interesting idea. Perhaps you can explore it further. But, as with all history, we won't know for sure for another 100 years or so.

"And you want us to give more money to these people?" Another self contradiction and glaring irony. I've already addressed this early, so I'll just say - think about what you've just said. How about giving money to Adele? Or, The Chain Smokers? Or, Kanye West? If classical music is so alive and well, why would anyone have to donate money? If pop/rock is so rare and endangered as people here seem to think, why's nobody donating large sums of money to Mos Def?

"the quality of musicians in the US is as good as it's ever been" It's better. Way better. Today's musicians are absolutely incredible.


----------



## AfterHours

Phil loves classical said:


> Agree the time criteria is not necessary when you can recognize similar elements of long established celebrated masterpieces in other more recent works. But Personally I can't accept music in any genre except classical (Lutoslawski, Penderecki) in the last 25 years being up there among the greats. They all seem fake to me, some kind of pseudo-Art (like Radiohead, the Stones' Satanic Majesty's Request, the Who's Tommy). You may say I'm fooling myself, but feel I can tell genuine works of art from fake!


Re: Those 3 albums versus Classical ... I do think The Who's Tommy is pretty great (the best of the 3 you mention), in terms of theatrical/Rock-Opera works, but certainly not on the level of the greatest Classical Operas of history. Radiohead produced some very good albums, and The Stones' SMR is a fine answer to Sgt Pepper's, but I agree with you that they're quite a bit below the all time masterpieces of Classical. For an incredible "Jazz-Opera", I would recommend Carla Bley's unbelievable masterpiece _Escalator Over the Hill_ (though, a warning: it is highly experimental and very diversely so. Both of its era in that it evokes hippie communes of the 60's/early 70's, _and_ simultaneously astoundingly original and forward-thinking musically. In many ways, a compendium of 20th century music, merged). It is, in my opinion, the greatest Rock or Jazz opera in history, and up there with many Classical Operas (in its own maximal "everything-plus-the-kitchen-sink" way).


----------



## Neward Thelman

Ingélou said:


> Wars are *usually** fought on economic or political grounds - and not because people don't like their neighbour's music or can't stomach his little ways.
> 
> B[/SIZE][/I]


Hilarious.

In my world, that's exactly what we'd do.


----------



## Neward Thelman

Phil loves classical said:


> Hey hey, my my
> Rock and roll can never die
> 
> - Neil Young


My deepest fear.


----------



## Neward Thelman

Afterhours says: "I feel that a recent "Rock" album, Joanna Newsom's Have One On Me, clearly deserves its place among, or close to, the great masterpieces of our age"

The GREAT MASTERPIECES OF OUR AGE?????!!!!!!!

It really, really hard for me to listen to pop/rock. But, I went to youtube to hear "the great masterpiece of our age".

Exactly as I expected. Melodies that are the just rehashings of previous rock melodies. Chord progressions right out of late 60's Laura Nero - at best. Most of the rest are either the same progressions others use all the time; same old blues-rock chord progressions or dog tired I IV V. Voice is little girl tiny with limited range. 

I've heard this "masterpiece" all before, done better by those who'd done it first.


----------



## Woodduck

AfterHours said:


> Thank you for the thoughtful insight. The important part, for me personally is: _*One will find that the common denominator is each artist (and many more unlisted), far transcended the previously conceived rules or boundaries of their genre(s) and produced works that exhibited emotional or conceptual content with extraordinary conviction and a singular creative intelligence so as to remain permanently distinguished.*_ I added the part before that to put anyone reading it into the proper perspective of the types of works that already exist, that I was referring to: some examples of the most obvious masterpieces/historical greats as ideals to see my point of view by. *Personally, I don't have a hard time (usually) recognizing such qualities in a work well before it's been established critically or over a considerable period of time*, and I myself don't find it a necessary prerequisite. But, I do understand that others may want to add 100 years of caution/critical evaluation, so to speak, in order to solidify such a position!
> 
> For instance, I feel that a recent "Rock" album, Joanna Newsom's _Have One On Me_, clearly deserves its place among, or close to, the great masterpieces of our age, and am quite sure of its place and within the above criteria (which I apply as my own too), but I am not surprised at those less prepared to anoint it so soon. Conversely, as instantly as I've heard the latest Adele song (or many other possible examples), I am quite certain, aside from exhibiting her obvious talent, that it does not deserve such a place (imo). This has all been helped along for me, not due to some random special insight or intelligence, but by having dedicatedly and thoroughly assimilated thousands of amazing works and all-time masterpieces, across Classical, Rock, Jazz, Film, and Paintings/Visual Art -- and to a lesser degree (still in its "rough draft" stages), Sculpture/Architecture. Some day, maybe I'll delve into literature/poetry a bit more than I have, which would truly round it all off. Assimilating the greatest art in as many art forms as possible makes such evaluations much easier to conclude in my opinion, otherwise one's context can be in doubt.


Your formulation - _"One will find that the common denominator is each artist (and many more unlisted), far transcended the previously conceived rules or boundaries of their genre(s) and produced works that exhibited emotional or conceptual content with extraordinary conviction and a singular creative intelligence so as to remain permanently distinguished"_ - begs a number of questions. How far is "far"? How extraordinary is "extraordinary"? How does "conviction" manifest itself? At what point in time is "permanence" established?

I'm not really disputing your criteria as attributes of great music. I just doubt that, as measuring sticks, they have much precision or value in any particular case, especially when applied to music of recent vintage. I do believe there is such a thing as artistic excellence, and that it can be perceived as such, within limits and given certain premises. Like you, I find that, in genres of art with which I feel some affinity, I can tell good stuff from garbage, and sometimes great stuff from good, as indeed many people can. Farther than that in pronouncing a verdict, I hesitate to go without invoking the verdict of history, and preferably a good bit of history. I'm happy to concede that there is highly creative, original, and emotionally compelling rock or rock-derived music, regardless of whether I personally enjoy any of it; I see nothing, in theory, that stands in the way of it (leaving aside the question - but maybe we shouldn't? - of when rock ceases to be "rock," forget the "roll" part). But I'd leave Bach and company out of it. If the basic question here is whether rock, or popular music in general, is equal in artistic potential to classical music, can evoking the highest achievers in music do anything but suggest a negative answer? I think there's plenty of music, classical and otherwise, that fits your description well enough but takes us into far less deep and treacherous waters. If you are really perceptive of levels of musical excellence, perhaps you can find more credible points of comparison.

On the other hand, maybe there's a rock equivalent of Beethoven's late quartets or Wagner's _Parsifal _ that I really need to hear before I die.


----------



## AfterHours

Neward Thelman said:


> Afterhours says: "I feel that a recent "Rock" album, Joanna Newsom's Have One On Me, clearly deserves its place among, or close to, the great masterpieces of our age"
> 
> The GREAT MASTERPIECES OF OUR AGE?????!!!!!!!
> 
> It really, really hard for me to listen to pop/rock. But, I went to youtube to hear "the great masterpiece of our age".
> 
> Exactly as I expected. Melodies that are the just rehashings of previous rock melodies. Chord progressions right out of late 60's Laura Nero - at best. Most of the rest are either the same progressions others use all the time; same old blues-rock chord progressions or dog tired I IV V. Voice is little girl tiny with limited range.
> 
> I've heard this "masterpiece" all before, done better by those who'd done it first.


I can tell by your analysis and lack of preconceived bias that I should give some serious consideration to your views on Rock music. Thank you.


----------



## Neward Thelman

Welcome to www.talkclassical.com

Talk -------- Classical

Let's ------- talk classical:

"Van Morrison's Astral Weeks? How about in comparison to Bob Dylan's Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands? Pink Floyd's much more considerable Interstellar Overdrive? Or King Crimson's 21st Century Schizoid Man? My Bloody Valentine's Loveless Compare Yellow Submarine to the charades of Frank Zappa Ronette's Be My Baby. Compare to The Doors' debut or Strange Days The Velvet Underground, Bob Dylan, Van Morrison, Frank Zappa, The Doors, Red Crayola, Captain Beefheart, Pink Floyd, Jefferson Airplane, Jimi Hendrix, Robbie Basho, Tim Buckley, Holy Modal Rounders, Colosseum, King Crimson, Soft Machine...you will find countless who were directly influenced and owe entire genres/sub-genres, entire changes of the art form, to artists such as The Velvet Underground -- who have proven far more significantly influential from a purely musical standpoint if you like them more than me, or if I like them more than you, etc. I guess, at this point, I'm just curious: do you feel they created such works consistently in any capacity -- that are truly astonishing, that exhibit the most incredible depths of emotional/conceptual significance, that are highly profound -- relative to the giants of music history? Do you feel they made any songs..."

Rock on, 
Severius!


----------



## EdwardBast

Neward Thelman said:


> My arguments aren't based on subjective preferences or choices. Read my subsequent posts and replies. My statements about the value and worth of pop/rock are founded on objective criteria. Read my posts immediately above.
> 
> I'll be posting a thread concisely outlining the objective reasons why pop/rock is an inferior form of music.


Oh good! No new member has done that for at least a week now.  Spoiler alert: These sorts of arguments don't fare very well.


----------



## KenOC

The real question, of course, isn't about the music but about the superiority or inferiority of _listeners _to said music, specifically classical versus pop/rock and its hideous offspring, rap (we will mercifully ignore disco). Some time back I proved, conclusively and with total objectivity, that listeners to classical music were clearly superior to listeners of the more degenerate branches of the musical art. Tonight, unfortunately, I'm too weary to reproduce the logic involved, so I ask that members take it on faith. That shouldn't be too difficult!


----------



## Woodduck

I too went to YouTube and began listening to Joanna Newsom's "Have One on Me." I admit to having little popular music context in which to place it, but after about fifteen minutes it seemed unremarkable enough to leave without regrets. Maybe it qualifies as something in which, as AfterHours suggests, "one will find that the common denominator is each artist far transcended the previously conceived rules or boundaries of their genre(s) and produced works that exhibited emotional or conceptual content with extraordinary conviction and a singular creative intelligence so as to remain permanently distinguished" - but if it does it illustrates emphatically the difficulty of applying in any helpful way criteria such as these, which may exist in a wide range of degrees. Were it not for the odd, immature quality of the singer's voice and its corresponding blankness of expression, I don't think I'd have noticed anything really "singular," much less boundary-pushing, about what I heard. And "permanence"? Let's not go there.

Maybe the next fifteen minutes are more interesting, but - sorry, AfterHours - in the first fifteen I didn't hear the masterpiece you hear, but just a little (or pseudo-little) girl singing some wistful, quizzical, rather pretty, not awfully original, and somewhat monotonous songs.


----------



## Guest

It's good to know that while I've been away for a few months on sabbatical, there's been little change in the nature of debate at TC. That's why I'm back of course, putting on the old cardigan of vigorous and incisive debate on why pop is/not inferior yadda yadda yadda...

I see Neward seems to at least acknowledge that Laura Nero (sic) left a ring round the bath. Rock has left some kind of mark on his consciousness, if a misspelled one.

Criticising rock music for doing what rock music does (not that it always does, mind you, but that's a different argument) is like complaining that a cardigan keeps you warm, and it's not much use for covering your legs or starting the car.

As for the hierarchy of art, I think I'll start a thread...no, a poll...in which you get to put 15 (poll limit people) works of art in order of merit. To kick off, I'll suggest 5 of the 15 and then when everyone's had their say, I'll put the best in rank order. Here we go...

Sculpture - Famous - Kanye West
Painting - Chinese Girl - Tretchikoff
Pop - Da Da Da - Trio
Rock - Roll Over Beethoven - Chuck Berry
Symphony - Toy Symphony - Leopold Mozart

There...how'm I doing?


----------



## Neward Thelman

AfterHours said:


> I can tell by your analysis and lack of preconceived bias that I should give some serious consideration to your views on Rock music. Thank you.


This is no place to discuss rock music. Ya know where there's a good place to do that? On a rock site.

Let's set aside the truly childish and ludicrously low threshold hyperbole concerning "the great masterpiece of our age" business and just concentrate on the music in question.

1. I've listened to it. I didn't like it. Who cares? Nobody. But, here're the parts that are indisputable. Melody - it's either new and original - or it isn't. I'm not talking about influences, or vague similarities. Either melodies are new, mostly new, or ----- they're not.

Today, in pop/rock, it's extremely hard to come up with anything true original melodically. Almost impossible. It takes unGodly talent to do so. The days of easy flowing Paul McCartney melody are long gone. There's a rather simple music technical reason for that, but I won't go into it, since all of the music technical stuff I've posted has either [a] been misunderstood by people without any training, or * fluttered like a breeze over the reader's collective head.

So - are Newsom's melodies new or aren't they?

No - they're not. They sound like stuff that's already been done before.

Given the depth and breath of rock and roll knowledge demonstrated here - especially by you - I should be surprised that you didn't notice the unoriginality of the melodies. But, it's rock and roll - the bar's pretty low.

2. Next - what about the chord progressions? Harmony is - and this may come as a shock, at least to those with some training - harmony's actually available to everyone. For a composer - or anyone with a deep, deep involvement [with knowledge] in music - that's actually a dirt simple yet hugely profound idea. Again, I'm not going to delve into it here. I didn't originate it - I got it from Constant Lambert.

Anyway, for the "greatest masterpiece of our time" I don't think it's unreasonable to expect - something new, good, wonderful here.

So, what do we get? Do we get new, or even just unexpected, interesting chord progressions - maybe - G U L P - even a key change here and there?

Do we?

Again, it's either there or it isn't. There's no way to really slip around with this. Either your car's black or it's white. You say your car's black - OK - let's have a look.

Well, the chord progressions aren't new or novel or particularly interesting. As I said originally, they the same tired chord progressions that every other pop/rocker either has used, or uses. Blues based chord progs are always exactly the same. That's why they're easy recognizable even by the musically untutored as blues.

Newsome just re-uses the same chords everyone else is using.

All of the above's pretty objective. My evaluation of her singing voice is subjective. But, this is no big, rich pop soprano, such as today's Adele. I'm pounding my forehead right now for even having to mention some pop/rock idol [and thus even knowing them], but the point holds. Her voice is tiny, pinched, little-girl sounding. In my opinion.

3. So, what about the "greatest masterpiece of our age" statement? I can't comment further on that. Why? Because if I do, I'll be banned so swiftly that the devil himself won't be able to help me.

Rock on, 
Severius!*


----------



## Neward Thelman

KenOC said:


> The real question, of course, isn't about the music but about the superiority or inferiority of _listeners _to said music, specifically classical versus pop/rock and its hideous offspring, rap (we will mercifully ignore disco). Some time back I proved, conclusively and with total objectivity, that listeners to classical music were clearly superior to listeners of the more degenerate branches of the musical art. Tonight, unfortunately, I'm too weary to reproduce the logic involved, so I ask that members take it on faith. That shouldn't be too difficult!


You're making fun of me - but so well. I love it.

"pop/rock and its hideous offspring, rap" - so true. And, unfortunately, it's not even music. Spoken word would be a closer category.


----------



## science

The Mona Lisa isn't great art because it's basically flat.

Michelangelo's _David_ isn't great art because it's almost as if he didn't even try to paint it.

Pérotin's setting of Viderunt Omnes just ain't got that swing.

The Book of Genesis is unpublishable because it doesn't cite its sources and there was apparently no control group.

Fingernail clippers are simply useless because by the time you're done cutting one side of the lawn the other side has already grown back.

My dentist is no good because no matter how many appointments I have with her my shoes still don't fit right.

Chopin's Funeral March is terrible. It literally ruins every wedding it's played at.

Muhammad Ali: worst masseuse ever.

My chainsaw is no good. No matter how well I oil it up, I just can't get a good clean shave with it.

And a work of rock/pop music isn't good because its chord progressions are unoriginal.


----------



## Neward Thelman

MacLeod "acknowledge that Laura Nero (sic)"

OK. Nyro.


----------



## Neward Thelman

science said:


> And a work of rock/pop music isn't good because its chord progressions are unoriginal.


Sure. Who needs that? Like, ever, dude?

Bass, loud, and a beat so you can pigeon-bob jo head - now THAT'S a "masterpiece of our time".

Rock on, 
Severius!


----------



## Guest

Neward Thelman said:


> MacLeod "acknowledge that Laura Nero (sic)"
> 
> OK. Nyro.


That's all you want to say? To correct your speling? I'm disappointed, nay, crushed!


----------



## AfterHours

Woodduck said:


> Your formulation - _"One will find that the common denominator is each artist (and many more unlisted), far transcended the previously conceived rules or boundaries of their genre(s) and produced works that exhibited emotional or conceptual content with extraordinary conviction and a singular creative intelligence so as to remain permanently distinguished"_ - begs a number of questions. How far is "far"? How extraordinary is "extraordinary"? How does "conviction" manifest itself? At what point in time is "permanence" established?
> 
> I'm not really disputing your criteria as attributes of great music. I just doubt that, as measuring sticks, they have much precision or value in any particular case, especially when applied to music of recent vintage. I do believe there is such a thing as artistic excellence, and that it can be perceived as such, within limits and given certain premises. Like you, I find that, in genres of art with which I feel some affinity, I can tell good stuff from garbage, and sometimes great stuff from good, as indeed many people can. Farther than that in pronouncing a verdict, I hesitate to go without invoking the verdict of history, and preferably a good bit of history. I'm happy to concede that there is highly creative, original, and emotionally compelling rock or rock-derived music, regardless of whether I personally enjoy any of it; I see nothing, in theory, that stands in the way of it (leaving aside the question - but maybe we shouldn't? - of when rock ceases to be "rock," forget the "roll" part). But I'd leave Bach and company out of it. If the basic question here is whether rock, or popular music in general, is equal in artistic potential to classical music, can evoking the highest achievers in music do anything but suggest a negative answer? I think there's plenty of music, classical and otherwise, that fits your description well enough but takes us into far less deep and treacherous waters. If you are really perceptive of levels of musical excellence, perhaps you can find more credible points of comparison.
> 
> On the other hand, maybe there's a rock equivalent of Beethoven's late quartets or Wagner's _Parsifal _ that I really need to hear before I die.


I'll start with posting an explanation of my criteria that is a bit more complete than the concise little tidbit I used for this thread. The following "article" seems to be pretty well understood by most I've known to have read it. It is not an attempt to explain every detail of every thought I have about every work of art I assimilate (obviously), but should give a good overall idea of how I draw my conclusions, what I mean by "depth" and "ingenuity" and so forth. It also includes an "explanation of ratings" section at the bottom, which probably won't mean much, unless one pays attention to such things, which I've posted very little of on this site. Realize, I originally wrote it in response to many questions about how I drew my conclusions so it is being delivered from that point-of-view.

Also, I'm copying and pasting from an old word doc, but I'm pretty sure it's still the most updated version. Still, if obvious errors or confusions, or just want more clarification, feel free to ask. As follows:

*My Criteria For Art*

Perhaps you've looked at my lists or some of my selections and wondered: what is my criteria for art?

I've isolated the major factors I look for as follows:

(1) Expressed Emotional Conviction and/or Conceptual Significance 
(2) Ingenuity

One will find that all art shares these key elements as primary common denominators, to greater or lesser degree.

*1. Expressed Emotional Conviction and/or Conceptual Significance*

By "emotional" I am referring to any emotion or confluence of emotions being expressed, whether happy or depressed, angry or cheerful, grief-stricken or hostile, apathy or ecstacy, nostalgia or bored, etc. It is not so much which emotion is being expressed, but how and to what degree? How strong or compelling is its expression?

By "conceptual" I am referring to any concept or confluence of concepts being evoked by the artist, whether earthly or metaphysical, whether a dangerous or mysterious circumstance, a relationship torn apart or coming together, an existential crises or spiritual revelation, etc. Again, it is not so much which concept is being expressed, but how and to what degree? How strong or compelling is its expression?

These two points are interchangeable. One will find that you can't have an expression of emotional conviction without the artist simultaneously relaying a concept along with it, and vice versa: a concept cannot be expressed without some degree of emotion being relayed. So I do not particularly favor one over the other. Some artists are more conceptually oriented while others are more emotionally oriented, but each produce both effects.

Some extraordinary examples of "Expressed Emotional Conviction":

*Classical Music:* 
Symphony No. 9 in D Minor "Choral" - Beethoven (1824) 
Symphony No. 5 in C Minor - Beethoven (1808) 
Piano Sonata No. 23 in F minor "Appassionata" - Beethoven (1807)

*Rock Music:* 
In the Aeroplane Over The Sea - Neutral Milk Hotel (1998) 
The Doors - The Doors (1967) 
Astral Weeks - Van Morrison (1968)

*Jazz Music: *
The Black Saint & The Sinner Lady - Charles Mingus (1963) 
A Love Supreme - John Coltrane (1964) 
Bitches Brew - Miles Davis (1969)

*Film: *
Metropolis - Fritz Lang (1927) 
The Passion of Joan of Arc - Carl Theodor Dreyer (1927) 
The Godfather - Francis Ford Coppola (1972)

*Visual Art/Paintings:* 
Sistine Chapel (Ceiling & The Last Judgement) - Michelangelo Buonarroti (1541) 
Guernica - Pablo Picasso (1937) 
Fall of the Damned - Peter Paul Rubens (1620)

Anyone could say these are either good or bad works of art but who could truly argue against these displaying a high degree of "expressed emotional conviction" from their respective artists?

Some extraordinary examples of "Expressed Conceptual Significance":

*Classical Music: *
Symphony No. 9 in D Major - Gustav Mahler (1909) 
Mass in B Minor - Johann Sebastian Bach (1749) 
Symphony No. 15 in A Major - Dmitri Shostakovich (1971)

*Rock Music:* 
Trout Mask Replica - Captain Beefheart & His Magic Band (1969) 
The Velvet Underground & Nico - The Velvet Underground (1967) 
Blonde On Blonde - Bob Dylan (1966)

*Jazz Music: *
Escalator Over The Hill - Carla Bley (1971) 
Improvisie - Paul Bley (1971) 
Afternoon of a Georgia Faun - Marion Brown (1970)

*Film:*
Citizen Kane - Orson Welles (1941) 
Persona - Ingmar Bergman (1966) 
Mirror - Andrei Tarkovsky (1974)

*Visual Art/Paintings:*
Garden of Earthly Delights - Hieronymus Bosch (circa 1490-1510) 
Metamorphosis of Narcissus - Salvador Dali (1937) 
The Last Supper - Leonardo Da Vinci (1498)

Anyone could say these are either good or bad works of art but who could truly argue against these displaying a high degree of "expressed conceptual significance" from their respective artists?

*2.	Ingenuity*

By ingenuity I mean, ideally, "an expression that took singular intelligence and creativity to conceive". There are reasons why there isn't another Beethoven, or Orson Welles, or John Coltrane, or Michelangelo, or Captain Beefheart. These are each artists that truly embodied singular visions and are virtually inimitable. I also want to acknowledge that, to greater or lesser degree, each and every artist could be considered "singular", as there are no two that are exactly alike. However, there are degrees of ingenuity and I am most impressed by the most extraordinary and the most singular examples.

Also, and this is key: ingenuity is important largely in proportion to its contribution to the emotional or conceptual expression of the work. Therefore, ingenuity without such a purpose is proportionally less significant to me, and also points to why I stress "singular intelligence and creativity to conceive". There is creativity and a singular perspective or intellect involved. A miscellaneous, less creative or purposeful application can be impressive in ways, but can only go so far. It can even get a very good rating from me, but only so high before it appears lacking requisite significance and depth for the highest ratings, which demand purpose, creativity and conviction from the artist.

Some extraordinary examples of "Ingenuity":

*Classical Music:* 
Symphony No. 9 in D Minor "Choral" - Beethoven (1824) 
Symphonie Fantastique - Hector Berlioz (1830) 
Rite of Spring - Igor Stravinsky (1913)

*Rock Music:* 
Trout Mask Replica - Captain Beefheart & His Magic Band (1969) 
Faust - Faust (1971) 
The Velvet Underground & Nico - The Velvet Underground (1967)

*Jazz Music:*
Escalator Over The Hill - Carla Bley (1971) 
Bitches Brew - Miles Davis (1969) 
Free Jazz - Ornette Coleman (1960)

*Film:* 
Citizen Kane - Orson Welles (1941) 
Persona - Ingmar Bergman (1966) 
Mirror - Andrei Tarkovsky (1974)

*Visual Art/Paintings:* 
Sistine Chapel (Ceiling & The Last Judgement) - Michelangelo Buonarroti (1541) 
Garden of Earthly Delights - Hieronymus Bosch (circa 1490-1510) 
The Beethoven Frieze - Gustav Klimt (1902)

Anyone could say these are either good or bad works of art but who could truly argue against these displaying a high degree of "ingenuity" from their respective artists?

Combined, what do "Expressed Emotional Conviction" and/or "Expressed Conceptual Significance", plus "Ingenuity", equal? In a word, _DEPTH_.

Each factor seems to be dependent upon one another to reach the highest states of art. For me, a work of art can only be so emotionally or conceptually significant without a certain degree of ingenuity involved. Similarly, a work of art can only have so much ingenuity before an extraordinary emotional or conceptual investment and conviction starts becoming evident from the artist. How much awe and wonder and other strong emotional reactions do the most singular works of art across history still inspire years, decades, or hundreds of years later?

All the choices on my lists are a representation of is my opinion of #1 (Expressed Emotional Conviction/Conceptual Significance) and #2 (Ingenuity) in greater and greater collaboration. The higher the rating/ranking, the greater the collaboration of these factors. The greater this collaboration, the more depth the work will possess.

An ideal statement of depth could be described as follows:

Exhibiting emotional or conceptual content with extraordinary conviction and a singular creative intelligence so as to permanently distinguish itself.

A reliable formula for my ratings and rankings is as follows:

ACCUMULATION OF THE DEGREE AND CONSISTENCY OF ITS EMOTIONAL CONTENT, CONCEPTUAL SIGNIFICANCE, AND ITS INGENUITY, WITHIN THE TIME FRAME OR SPACE OF THE WORK OF ART.

With "time frame", I am referring to art such as cinema and music that are produced and assimilated within finite running times. With "space", I am referring to visual arts such as paintings that are produced and assimilated within finite spatial parameters.

The differences in rating and ranking are determined by a precise attempt at measuring the degree of amazement or awe inspired from the experience of the whole work while it is being assimilated. Both its peaks and consistency are carefully considered into the overall rating. During the process of assimilation, I observe and consider in real-time the various emotions and concepts expressed, to what degree and consistency they are being expressed, how creative and singular these expressions are, and their impression upon me. This is compared to other works and ratings, taking into account as much from the history of art as needed, to help isolate and determine an exact rating. In such a determination, the overall significance of the experience (its qualitative peaks and consistency and sum impact) is what is being compared to other works, not necessarily a direct comparison in content, especially if the content is dissimilar. Experiences do tend to differentiate -- even if slightly -- from one to the next, so a resulting evaluation marks an attempt to determine as precisely as possible the highest rating that the work consistently sustains. Therefore, I will tend to assimilate a work several times (particularly in the higher ratings) before I really settle in to a more "permanent" rating and ranking for it. Of course, even then, these are subject to change, but usually I can sooner or later come to terms with a very close estimation of its sustained value within my criteria and in relation to other works of art. After that, there are still variances with that work, from one experience to the next, but in most cases they are so minute that the rating usually doesn't change much, if at all.

*My Ratings Scale:*

*0 - 4.9 - BELOW AVERAGE, IRRELEVANT

5.0 - AVERAGE/MEDIOCRE

5.5 - ABOVE AVERAGE

6.0 - GOOD

6.5 - EXCELLENT

7.0 - SUPERB/EXTRAORDINARY* … At 6.8+ the experience will be superb and bordering on extraordinary. However, with enough evaluation or scrutiny, these will prove short on depth in relation to a 7.3+ rated work. Still, in relation to lower rated works, it will be an outstanding experience, and will often strike a qualitative balance between the extraordinary and the well-executed, but perhaps overly derivative. These are often the most recommendable and dependable works for those wanting great experiences but are just starting off or are relatively unfamiliar with a genre or type of art.

Note: Due to time and efficiency considerations, I generally only devote a lot of time anymore to works rated 7.3+. However, works in this range are quite worthy of attention and I wholeheartedly recommend them.

*7.5 - HISTORICALLY EXTRAORDINARY/AMAZING* ... At 7.3+ the experience will begin to really stand out historically as emotionally/conceptually extraordinary or amazing.

Definitions of extraordinary being applied: "Highly exceptional; remarkable" and "Beyond what is usual, ordinary, regular, or established." --Dictionary.com / The Free Dictionary.com

Definition of amazing being applied: "To affect with great wonder; astonish." --The Free Dictionary.com

*8.0 - AWE-INSPIRING* ... At 7.8+, the work will start becoming a truly awe-inspiring experience. These works are often masterpieces by most (less strict) definitions of the word, and will usually be cornerstones of their genre or confluence of genres.

Definition of awe-inspiring being applied: "an overwhelming feeling of reverence, admiration, fear, etc., produced by that which is grand, sublime, extremely powerful, or the like." --Dictionary.com

*8.5 - NEAR MASTERPIECE* … At 8.3+, the experience will transcend nearly all works of art of its genre or confluence of genres. It will be awe-inspiring like an 8/10 but a bit more consistent and/or reach higher peaks. At this level, the work will usually have taken on most of the main characteristics of an all-time masterpiece (9/10) but just not to as great a degree/extent and/or not as consistently.

*9.0 - ALL TIME MASTERPIECE* ... At 8.8+, the experience will be quite astonishing and will increasingly represent a towering masterpiece and historical achievement that may never be replicated or surpassed. These works will tend to be the most historically singular, powerful and compelling expressions of their particular genre or confluence of genres.

*9.5 - SUPREME MASTERPIECE* ... At 9.3+, the experience seems like an impossible achievement. An achievement so astonishing that, regardless of the type of emotional and conceptual content, it inspires awe comparable to a life-changing religious experience, and does so in a manner so singular and exceptional that it will tend to completely revolutionize one's concept of what an artist and work of art are capable of expressing.

*10 - EPITOME OF ART* … At 9.8+, the experience is so beyond the generally perceived heights of human artistic capability that it is virtually impossible to adequately describe. It is a work that would be overwhelmingly miraculous, and would tend to leave one awestruck and speechless throughout the entirety of the experience towards its seemingly inexhaustible ingenuity, staggering emotional depth and conceptual significance. As we reach 10/10, the work will also have fully achieved a particular quality where even as it can be thoroughly understood and experienced when a knowledgeable, in-depth effort is made, such will also prove so inspiring and its emotional/conceptual weight so transcendent, dynamic, incredible and complete, that perceiving it only seems to extend the possible interpretations into what seems like an infinite, ultimately indefinable greatness that isn't quite within grasp yet always beckoning through the sheer force of will and gift of the artist's display. In short, no matter the scrutiny, it will seem above criticism and evaluation, as if artistically "priceless".


----------



## AfterHours

MacLeod said:


> It's good to know that while I've been away for a few months on sabbatical, there's been little change in the nature of debate at TC. That's why I'm back of course, putting on the old cardigan of vigorous and incisive debate on why pop is/not inferior yadda yadda yadda...
> 
> I see Neward seems to at least acknowledge that Laura Nero (sic) left a ring round the bath. Rock has left some kind of mark on his consciousness, if a misspelled one.
> 
> Criticising rock music for doing what rock music does (not that it always does, mind you, but that's a different argument) is like complaining that a cardigan keeps you warm, and it's not much use for covering your legs or starting the car.
> 
> As for the hierarchy of art, I think I'll start a thread...no, a poll...in which you get to put 15 (poll limit people) works of art in order of merit. To kick off, I'll suggest 5 of the 15 and then when everyone's had their say, I'll put the best in rank order. Here we go...
> 
> Sculpture - Famous - Kanye West
> Painting - Chinese Girl - Tretchikoff
> Pop - Da Da Da - Trio
> Rock - Roll Over Beethoven - Chuck Berry
> Symphony - Toy Symphony - Leopold Mozart
> 
> There...how'm I doing?


What, no Right Said Fred!?! ?


----------



## Guest

AfterHours said:


> What, no Right Said Fred!?! ?


The song or the group? Either way, I was only going for 9.5+ on your scale.


----------



## Guest

I totally get the 'Beethoven is better than Beatles' thing. I really do. I don't agree with it, but not because of the specifics of that argument. No, what bothers me is that to 'get' any kind of musical or artistic hierarchy requires a certain kind of life experience.

I like my life. I'm happy to be able to listen to and enjoy Beatles and Beethoven without feeling compelled to put them in rank order. But I fully understand that the history of art has produced a canon of excellent works that meet with some kind of generic approval. However, such approval is not universal, not least because there are people out there with a completely different experience of life altogether. In putting forward my first-world experience, the soppy liberal inside me says, "Who are you to put your life experience in a qualitatively superior position over someone else's?"

It's much the same as saying that one who asserts that there is a divine purpose to life is in a better place than one who asserts that there isn't.


----------



## AfterHours

MacLeod said:


> The song or the group? Either way, I was only going for 9.5+ on your scale.


THIS. _OBVIOUSLY_


----------



## Guest

No, this is far superior...


----------



## topo morto

Neward Thelman said:


> This is no place to discuss rock music. Ya know where there's a good place to do that? On a rock site.
> 
> Let's set aside the truly childish and ludicrously low threshold hyperbole concerning "the great masterpiece of our age" business and just concentrate on the music in question.
> 
> 1. I've listened to it. I didn't like it. Who cares? Nobody. But, here're the parts that are indisputable. Melody - it's either new and original - or it isn't. I'm not talking about influences, or vague similarities. Either melodies are new, mostly new, or ----- they're not.
> 
> Today, in pop/rock, it's extremely hard to come up with anything true original melodically. Almost impossible. It takes unGodly talent to do so. The days of easy flowing Paul McCartney melody are long gone. There's a rather simple music technical reason for that, but I won't go into it, since all of the music technical stuff I've posted has either [a] been misunderstood by people without any training, or * fluttered like a breeze over the reader's collective head.
> 
> So - are Newsom's melodies new or aren't they?
> 
> No - they're not. They sound like stuff that's already been done before.
> 
> Given the depth and breath of rock and roll knowledge demonstrated here - especially by you - I should be surprised that you didn't notice the unoriginality of the melodies. But, it's rock and roll - the bar's pretty low.
> 
> 2. Next - what about the chord progressions? Harmony is - and this may come as a shock, at least to those with some training - harmony's actually available to everyone. For a composer - or anyone with a deep, deep involvement [with knowledge] in music - that's actually a dirt simple yet hugely profound idea. Again, I'm not going to delve into it here. I didn't originate it - I got it from Constant Lambert.
> 
> Anyway, for the "greatest masterpiece of our time" I don't think it's unreasonable to expect - something new, good, wonderful here.
> 
> So, what do we get? Do we get new, or even just unexpected, interesting chord progressions - maybe - G U L P - even a key change here and there?
> 
> Do we?
> 
> Again, it's either there or it isn't. There's no way to really slip around with this. Either your car's black or it's white. You say your car's black - OK - let's have a look.
> 
> Well, the chord progressions aren't new or novel or particularly interesting. As I said originally, they the same tired chord progressions that every other pop/rocker either has used, or uses. Blues based chord progs are always exactly the same. That's why they're easy recognizable even by the musically untutored as blues.
> 
> Newsome just re-uses the same chords everyone else is using.
> *


*

If you've listened to enough music, then it's possible to take almost any work, in any genre, and point out significant similarities to many things that came before. Are you saying that it's only the very few exceptions to this rule that you feel have significant artistic merit? (It's absolutely fair enough if you are of course, but you'd be writing off most music in most genres, including classical).



Neward Thelman said:



All of the above's pretty objective.

Click to expand...

It certainly is possible to come up with metrics of similarity of harmony and melody. However, it wouldn't be possible to prove those metrics objectively correct (because you could come up with equally valid metrics that would give different results), and it also wouldn't be possible to objectively correlate those metrics with any measure of artistic validity.



Neward Thelman said:



my view of pop/rock's based on objective criteria.

Click to expand...

At best, maybe you can objectively say that certain things happen in your  brain in response to certain types of music. But that's not objective in any sense that would be relevant to any other human being.*


----------



## Headphone Hermit

MacLeod said:


> No, this is far superior...


clear evidence that " to 'get' any kind of musical or artistic hierarchy requires a certain kind of life experience" :devil:


----------



## Magnum Miserium

Neward Thelman said:


> Today, in pop/rock, it's extremely hard to come up with anything true original melodically. Almost impossible. It takes unGodly talent to do so. The days of easy flowing Paul McCartney melody are long gone. There's a rather simple music technical reason for that, but I won't go into it, since all of the music technical stuff I've posted has either [a] been misunderstood by people without any training, or * fluttered like a breeze over the reader's collective head.*


*
The "days of easy flowing melody" are always "long gone" until the next great melodist comes out of nowhere. (And contra conspiracy theorists and - far more pernicious - music critics, McCartney himself ain't dead yet: 



)



Neward Thelman said:



So, what do we get? Do we get new, or even just unexpected, interesting chord progressions - maybe - G U L P - even a key change here and there?

Do we?

Again, it's either there or it isn't. There's no way to really slip around with this. Either your car's black or it's white. You say your car's black - OK - let's have a look.

Well, the chord progressions aren't new or novel or particularly interesting. As I said originally, they the same tired chord progressions that every other pop/rocker either has used, or uses. Blues based chord progs are always exactly the same. That's why they're easy recognizable even by the musically untutored as blues.

Newsome just re-uses the same chords everyone else is using.

Click to expand...

And yet you don't like atonality either.



Neward Thelman said:



"What is the point of Atonal music?"

To make you miserable.

Click to expand...

There's just no pleasing some people. 



Neward Thelman said:



All of the above's pretty objective. My evaluation of her singing voice is subjective. But, this is no big, rich pop soprano, such as today's Adele. I'm pounding my forehead right now for even having to mention some pop/rock idol [and thus even knowing them], but the point holds. Her voice is tiny, pinched, little-girl sounding. In my opinion.

Click to expand...

To paraphrase another distinguished singer, it takes a considerable amount of power to sound that tiny.

One thing: I'm borderline physically sick of hearing Adele's stainless steel wail broadcast in public places. I'm pretty sure I could much better tolerate an equal over-exposure to Newsom's singing.*


----------



## Guest

Neward Thelman said:


> My arguments aren't based on subjective preferences or choices. Read my subsequent posts and replies. My statements about the value and worth of pop/rock are founded on objective criteria. Read my posts immediately above.


I did. I read them again, thinking I'd missed something, but no, no analysis based on objective criteria that I could find.



Neward Thelman said:


> I'll be posting a thread concisely outlining the objective reasons why pop/rock is an inferior form of music.


We're waiting with baited breath. In the meantime, give some thought to why, according to you, "No one - not one person - has paused to really think about what they're saying and examine the underlying assumptions." The fault for that (should it be the case; I'm not so sure) might lie with you, rather than with us.


----------



## Sonata

What a charmed and sheltered life one must lead to compare recommending rock artists to PUSHING DRUGS on someone in recovery. Are you serious??? Get real.


----------



## AfterHours

MacLeod said:


> No, this is far superior...


I almost rated this 9.5 but then realized that the chord progression is vaguely similar to Good Intentions Paving Company from Joanna Newsom's Have One On Me.


----------



## AfterHours

Woodduck said:


> I too went to YouTube and began listening to Joanna Newsom's "Have One on Me." I admit to having little popular music context in which to place it, but after about fifteen minutes it seemed unremarkable enough to leave without regrets. Maybe it qualifies as something in which, as AfterHours suggests, "one will find that the common denominator is each artist far transcended the previously conceived rules or boundaries of their genre(s) and produced works that exhibited emotional or conceptual content with extraordinary conviction and a singular creative intelligence so as to remain permanently distinguished" - but if it does it illustrates emphatically the difficulty of applying in any helpful way criteria such as these, which may exist in a wide range of degrees. Were it not for the odd, immature quality of the singer's voice and its corresponding blankness of expression, I don't think I'd have noticed anything really "singular," much less boundary-pushing, about what I heard. And "permanence"? Let's not go there.
> 
> Maybe the next fifteen minutes are more interesting, but - sorry, AfterHours - in the first fifteen I didn't hear the masterpiece you hear, but just a little (or pseudo-little) girl singing some wistful, quizzical, rather pretty, not awfully original, and somewhat monotonous songs.


Though there are far more "difficult" albums, Have One On Me would be far from my first recommendation to someone not used to engaging with music outside of Classical, and I was merely mentioning it as an example of one of the greatest works of music over the last 20 years or so (not as a recommendation). The album is 2 hours long so certainly listening to the first 15 minutes one time is not going to expound its breadth of emotional/conceptual depths for you. Nor do I expect or am asking you to use 2 hours of your life on it.

I'm too focused on Classical at this time, so am not going to revisit Have One On Me and go into a song-to-song analysis (or on the order of) right now. But, I don't mind illuminating some things about it. The key to the album is that Newsom continuously sounds like she is _on the verge of_ falling, under spell, as if in slow-motion, into the submergence of a dream. The subtle orchestration of the songs swirl, erupt or spiral around her, orbiting her _in slow motion_ (or akin to it), methodically enveloping the songs into further, evocative and detailed dreamy reveries. There is a subtle relay between Newsom and her harp, between her voice and the highly considered instrumentation, that acts as a sort of bridge between the protagonist trying to stay in touch with the real world, while increasingly submerged inside the layers of dreams, inside the fantastic imagination, wonder and innocent, pure pathos as that of a child. As the album progresses, the songs generally become more spartan and nakedly personal. She becomes increasingly lost and submerged in an epic and profound search for self and the songs become increasingly inward, increasingly burrowed in an elongated, stately melt of devastating introspection and forgotten time and place. Another point is that the stylistic palette of the album is quite extraordinary, but never a mere show of spectacle or technique. The album runs the gamut of the most austere songs to multi-cultural/generational synthesis. Merging both the tradition of the most introspective female singer-songwriters with that of avant-garde singing, through child-like bedroom nursery rhymes, Chinese opera and gospel melisma passages, neoclassical chamber music, cool jazz, marching-band and quasi-Caribbean moments, multi-voice choral counterpoint, doses of country-rock, vintage vocal harmonies from yesteryear, quasi-operatic folk, songs reminiscent of chamber lieder, Eastern spirituality, and at times playing her harp in a way reminiscent of Baroque harpsichord pieces -- and so on. One will find very few singer-songwriter albums that mine so much music history, applied in such imaginative ways, towards the emotional/conceptual ends of a work (as opposed to mere derivation). As the songs utilize and accumulate other genres, each nod is part of its long dream, its gradually fading touch with the real world. Each "derivation" is _evoked_ but as an _incomplete incarnation_, as if only a faded, nostalgic reverie that is falling away from her grasp as soon as it arrived. Vocally, Newsom indeed evokes artists such as Joni Mitchell, Jane Siberry, Lisa Germano and Kate Bush, but only superficially. She is in her own element throughout the album, creating her own world, her own pathos, with extraordinary conviction, compositional dexterity and personal insight. She is immersed in lonely states of child-like lullaby and winding, introverted soliloquy, so naturally such artists come to mind.


----------



## AfterHours

Woodduck said:


> maybe there's a rock equivalent of Beethoven's late quartets


I don't know about a strict equivalent to his late quartets -- I mean they're just so extraordinarily singular and peerless -- but, Jazz/"Rock" (so-called) albums such as these approach the level of inward-ness, profundity and emotional depth _in various ways_ (not entirely of course), and are quite amazing in their own right. Each in entirely different ways for the most part, so if you like one, no guarantee you'll like another:

Jazz:
Variations in Dream-time - Anthony Davis (1982) 
Improvisie - Paul Bley (1971) 
Lady of the Mirrors - Anthony Davis (1980) [perhaps the greatest solo piano work since Beethoven's 32nd/23rd/30th/29th, Liszt's B Minor and Schubert's 20th/21st]

Rock:
Astral Weeks - Van Morrison (1968) 
Lorca - Tim Buckley (1970) 
Starsailor - Tim Buckley (1970) 
Ocean Songs - Dirty Three (1997) 
Laughing Stock - Talk Talk (1991) 
Spirit of Eden - Talk Talk (1988)


----------



## Neward Thelman

MacLeod said:


> In the meantime, give some thought to why, according to you, "No one - not one person - has paused to really think about what they're saying and examine the underlying assumptions." The fault for that (should it be the case; I'm not so sure) might lie with you, rather than with us.


Wait. So, this part's my fault?

"No one - not one person - has paused to really think about what they're saying and examine the underlying assumptions."


----------



## Neward Thelman

science said:


> And a work of rock/pop music isn't good because its chord progressions are unoriginal.


Right. Pop/rock is best when there's nothing original, and everything sounds the same, and sounds like what was done before. That's the best.

Oh - that's exactly the state of pop/rock today - whew - no worries. Everything sounds the same. Blue skies.

Rock on, 
Severius!


----------



## Phil loves classical

Good music has to be defined by more than just complexity, since complexity is all relative. You can harmonize any tone with higher harmonic chords, and put any rhythm into a changing key signature. This is where nuance and sophistication comes in.


----------



## EdwardBast

Phil loves classical said:


> Good music has to be defined by more than just complexity, since complexity is all relative. You can harmonize any tone with higher harmonic chords, and put any rhythm into a changing key signature. This is where nuance and sophistication comes in.


More to the point, good music has to be defined in light of the question: Good for what purpose? For example, my current romantic interest has raccoons in her rafters, which sounds like a figure of speech but isn't , and she claims that the music of Tool, when played at full volume, is far superior to that of Mahler in driving away aggressive males of the species, which sounds ironic and is.


----------



## Bulldog

I haven't listened to much rock music since the 1980's, but I did spend about a half-hour with that Joanna Newsome recording. I was surprised at the consistently slow tempos and lack of drive. Is she considered a rock artist?


----------



## AfterHours

Bulldog said:


> I haven't listened to much rock music since the 1980's, but I did spend about a half-hour with that Joanna Newsome recording. I was surprised at the consistently slow tempos and lack of drive. Is she considered a rock artist?


Hardly. Rock only in a very broadly defined sense. Classical, Rock and Jazz are becoming increasingly merged, especially by its more adventurous and diverse artists.


----------



## Bulldog

AfterHours said:


> Hardly. Rock only in a very broadly defined sense. Classical, Rock and Jazz are becoming increasingly merged, especially by its more adventurous and diverse artists.


Thanks for the quick response. Could be I just wasn't in the mood for what Newsome offers. Think I'll stick to artists like Richard Thompson when I get the rare interest in non-classical.


----------



## Phil loves classical

AfterHours said:


> Hardly. Rock only in a very broadly defined sense. Classical, Rock and Jazz are becoming increasingly merged, especially by its more adventurous and diverse artists.


She's definitely the most talked-about artist on this thread.  Some of her vocalizations drives me nuts, like the Cranberries and Alanis Morrisette also does to me. Listened to Cliburn's Beethoven "Emperor" today. There is a lot more musical impact in lack of showiness, something Lang Lang can use :devil:


----------



## AfterHours

Bulldog said:


> Thanks for the quick response. Could be I just wasn't in the mood for what Newsome offers. Think I'll stick to artists like Richard Thompson when I get the rare interest in non-classical.


It's all subjective so no worries. I summed up some key elements of what makes the album extraordinary in my reply to Woodduck above which might prove useful if you revisit it.

Richard Thompson is a great artist in his own right, my favorite albums of his being Shoot Out the Lights and I Want to See the Bright Lights Tonight.


----------



## millionrainbows

What's better, "I'm too sexy for my shirt" or Mozart's Clarinet Concerto? I never liked the clarinet that much, so I'm tempted to choose the Right Said Fred composition. :lol:


----------



## hpowders

We have all been doomed since the moment we were born. Soon none of us will be around to worry about the OP.

Come march with me to oblivion.


----------



## TxllxT

hpowders said:


> We have all been doomed since the moment we were born. Soon none of us will be around to worry about the OP.
> 
> Come march with me to oblivion.


I like Prokofiev's impossible-to-march-on marches


----------



## AfterHours

Phil loves classical said:


> She's definitely the most talked-about artist on this thread.  Some of her vocalizations drives me nuts, like the Cranberries and Alanis Morrisette also does to me. Listened to Cliburn's Beethoven "Emperor" today. There is a lot more musical impact in lack of showiness, something Lang Lang can use :devil:


One thing to think with when listening to Newsom (which may or may not change your mind) is that she is often engaging in theater and recitatives and soliloquys and "live storytelling" (like a live 3-D storybook coming to life in real-time) in her songs, so will use her voice to take on various personas/acting various parts out as she goes. She is not often trying to sing in a traditional manner.


----------



## Phil loves classical

EdwardBast said:


> More to the point, good music has to be defined in light of the question: Good for what purpose? For example, my current romantic interest has raccoons in her rafters, which sounds like a figure of speech but isn't , and she claims that the music of Tool, when played at full volume, is far superior to that of Mahler in driving away aggressive males of the species, which sounds ironic and is.


It was probably the sound of the music  On its purpose, music for scaring away animals is lower than music for entertainment, which is lower than music as Art. I think this is where some objectivity comes in as well.

Further to this, music that is emotional is not necessarily artistic, but more on the entertainment side.


----------



## EdwardBast

Phil loves classical said:


> It was probably the sound of the music  On its purpose, music for scaring away animals is lower than music for entertainment, which is lower than music as Art. I think this is where some objectivity comes in as well.
> 
> Further to this, music that is emotional is not necessarily artistic, but more on the entertainment side.


You're missing the point, and given my example, it is probably my fault. The point is that art music tends to be better at achieving the aesthetic goals of art music than pop music, and vice versa. Does this mean one is superior to the other? No. It means they have different goals.

And since no one has pointed this out yet, the "objective criteria" the OP has provided in his various posts prove unequivocally that Schnittke and Reger are infinitely superior to Mozart and Beethoven. Comfortable with that? If not, you might want to take another look at the objective criteria.


----------



## Phil loves classical

I thought we are just talking about good music in terms of Art? Are we talking about art vs. moving butts again?


----------



## EdwardBast

Phil loves classical said:


> I thought we are just talking about good music in terms of Art? Are we talking about art vs. moving butts again?


From the OP it would seem pop and rock in general are on the agenda, not all of which is for moving butts. There are many stops between the butt and the higher aesthetic sensibilities. Judging pop and rock in general by the standards of art music is perverse, unless the "artists," as they are colloquially known, court that kind of attention.


----------



## Phil loves classical

EdwardBast said:


> From the OP it would seem pop and rock in general are on the agenda, not all of which is for moving butts. There are many stops between the butt and the higher aesthetic sensibilities. Judging pop and rock in general by the standards of art music is perverse, unless the "artists," as they are colloquially known, court that kind of attention.


You never heard or art rock? I don't mean the member on TC.


----------



## hpowders

TxllxT said:


> I like Prokofiev's impossible-to-march-on marches


Or waltz with me to Tchaikovsky's impossible waltz to dance to from the Sixth Symphony.


----------



## hpowders

Klassik said:


> Music isn't religion. People can and do like many different types of music. This is true even within classical sub-genres. It's just entertainment. It would be silly to say that anyone has to be pure to anything when it comes to music listening. To be honest, I don't even like rock music that much. That said, I consider it music. I respect and understand that people like it. If classical music fans don't respect fans of other genres, they can never expect them to enjoy classical music. And vice versa. And sometimes it's beneficial for classical music to be discussed within the larger musical realm.
> 
> The bottom line is that one should listen to what they like. You don't have to like any other types of music, but at least respect the people who listen to what they want to listen to.


Looks good on paper, but unfortunately not in practice. You have many classical music fanatics here who DO substitute composers and their works for religion.

Yes. People should lighten up and respect each others likes and dislikes.

Like I said. Looks good on paper.


----------



## Triplets

I live in a bubble, musically. I listen to Classical Music a bout 99.999%. One of my kids told me that I was being very limited that way. I pointed out that I listen to a range of music that written over a one thousand year time span, yet most of the world, which largely rejects anything not written in the last 50 years, finds me to be close minded. Something is wrong with that picture.
I had to spend an hour in the Dentist Chair last week. The background music was some basic MOR station. My dentist numbed my mouth but should have provided something for my ears. It was painful, much more so than anything that could have been happening in a tooth. Popular music is so unoriginal, unimaginative, and panders to the lowest common element. The world really has embraced mass idiocy, and not just in music. Has anyone ever watched daytime television for 5 minutes? You can feel the
Myelin in your brain cells deteriorating.
People hurl the charge of "Elitist" at me, as if it were meant to be an insult. Heck, I embrace it. However, I think that many people cringe when called that, on this site, and elsewhere in the world as well. About 3% of the Western World listens to Classical Music. I think that people are so fearful of be tagged with the "E" label that they feel they have to bend over backwards to show that they are "normal" and tout their love of other musical genres--on a site devoted to Classical Music, for crying out loud.


----------



## EdwardBast

Phil loves classical said:


> You never heard or art rock? I don't mean the member on TC.


Yes I have. Two examples with high value:











This is serious art music perfectly attuned to its historical moment.


----------



## Richard8655

Triplets said:


> I live in a bubble, musically. I listen to Classical Music a bout 99.999%. One of my kids told me that I was being very limited that way. I pointed out that I listen to a range of music that written over a one thousand year time span, yet most of the world, which largely rejects anything not written in the last 50 years, finds me to be close minded. Something is wrong with that picture.
> I had to spend an hour in the Dentist Chair last week. The background music was some basic MOR station. My dentist numbed my mouth but should have provided something for my ears. It was painful, much more so than anything that could have been happening in a tooth. Popular music is so unoriginal, unimaginative, and panders to the lowest common element. The world really has embraced mass idiocy, and not just in music. Has anyone ever watched daytime television for 5 minutes? You can feel the
> Myelin in your brain cells deteriorating.
> People hurl the charge of "Elitist" at me, as if it were meant to be an insult. Heck, I embrace it. However, I think that many people cringe when called that, on this site, and elsewhere in the world as well. About 3% of the Western World listens to Classical Music. I think that people are so fearful of be tagged with the "E" label that they feel they have to bend over backwards to show that they are "normal" and tout their love of other musical genres--on a site devoted to Classical Music, for crying out loud.


I agree, sitting in the dentist chair can be painful for more than one reason. But I try to think how it might be to spend 8 hours a day looking inside people's mouths. Round the clock easy listening or oldies probably helps make the day go faster and easier for staff. Serious music requires a bit more attention and best left to free time dedicated for that, I think. But your point is well taken... much of popular music is unimaginative... it's whatever sells.


----------



## hpowders

Triplets-Popular music-unoriginal, unimaginative? Well then, count me as one of the lowest common elements, along with hydrogen, I guess.

I would place the songs on the Beatle's Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band at the same level as any of the great opera arias composed by Mozart. Melody, harmony, humanity, cutting right to one's heart. It's all there!

Pop music at its best is the equal of anything great in classical music.


----------



## Art Rock

Triplets said:


> I think that people are so fearful of be tagged with the "E" label that they feel they have to bend over backwards to show that they are "normal" and tout their love of other musical genres--on a site devoted to Classical Music, for crying out loud.


Or, you know, maybe, just maybe, they really love other genres as well. Just a thought. Hate to burst your bubble.


----------



## JAS

hpowders said:


> I would place the songs on the Beatle's Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band at the same level as any of the great opera arias composed by Mozart. Melody, harmony, humanity, cutting right to one's heart. It's all there!
> 
> Pop music at its best is the equal of anything great in classical music.


There was a time when I would have eagerly taken that argument bait, but a good deal of experience has mostly shown me that such discussions result only in a lot of expended effort and little value, particularly if either side is trying to "win" the battle. For me, there is nothing at all of interest or appeal in rock or pop music, and that is fine. (And this is an opinion confirmed and hardened by years of having to actually hear quite a bit of it whether I liked it or not.) If others find much to admire in it, that is fine too.

More and more, I am convinced that it is hardly worth my while to exert more than a little time in exploring musical forms that are not inherently pleasing to me beyond what might satisfy my intellectual curiosity. And there is no point at all in trying to convince others that they are wrong (even if I am sure of it in my own heart).


----------



## topo morto

Triplets said:


> I had to spend an hour in the Dentist Chair last week. The background music was some basic MOR station. My dentist numbed my mouth but should have provided something for my ears. It was painful, much more so than anything that could have been happening in a tooth. Popular music is so unoriginal, unimaginative, and panders to the lowest common element.


I hope the dental work went well!

Bear in mind that the vast majority of people who were into pop/rock would probably feel the same as you about listening to a MOR, designed-to-pander-to-the-lowest-common-element radio station. Also bear in mind that there are lowest-common-element classical stations out there too!



Triplets said:


> Has anyone ever watched daytime television for 5 minutes? You can feel the
> Myelin in your brain cells deteriorating.


Daytime TV is designed for old people are stuck on the sofa and whose minds probably _aren't _what they once were, to give them a bit of company.


----------



## Strange Magic

topo morto said:


> Daytime TV is designed for old people are stuck on the sofa and whose minds probably _aren't _what they once were, to give them a bit of company.


Daytime TV is why National Public Radio and books were invented.


----------



## Ingélou

Secular early music, and quite a bit of renaissance music, which is 'counted as' classical music actually started off as 'popular music', the hip stuff of its day.

I'm a retired teacher of English literature, and enjoyed teaching Shakespeare (the height of popular fashion in his day) and Jane Austen and the Metaphysical poets - and also twentieth century writers who wrote short, apparently simple pieces - but actually, there was a great deal of artistry & skilled construction in something like, for example, Steinbeck's _*The Pearl*_ or Chinua Achebe's *Things Fall Apart*.

Or even, sometimes, in a football report! Not my natural territory, but some writers that we critically discussed in class had a great command of structure, imagery & irony.

I enjoy *the classics* as much as anyone, and I admire Shakespeare to the point of Bardolatry, but if a painting, a story or a piece of music make me *think* & *wonder*, I don't care how popular it is.


----------



## DaveM

hpowders said:


> Triplets-Popular music-unoriginal, unimaginative? Well then, count me as one of the lowest common elements, along with hydrogen, I guess.
> 
> I would place the songs on the Beatle's Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band at the same level as any of the great opera arias composed by Mozart. Melody, harmony, humanity, cutting right to one's heart. It's all there!
> 
> Pop music at its best is the equal of anything great in classical music.


Wel-l-l, a Piper Cub has all the basic elements that a Boeing 757 has, but other than that... I love Sgt Pepper, but it didn't require writing music for all the instruments in the orchestra and the voices in duets, trots, quartets and quintets.


----------



## topo morto

DaveM said:


> Wel-l-l, a Piper Cub has all the basic elements that a Boeing 757 has, but other than that... I love Sgt Pepper, but it didn't require writing music for all the instruments in the orchestra and the voices in duets, trots, quartets and quintets.


But then, there are all sorts of things that had to be done to get Sgt Pepper onto wax that an orchestral composer typically doesn't have to trouble themselves with. None of which necessarily matters, because there's no particular reason that a work should be measured as greater due to the effort involved. Some people may value perspiration, some may be more interested in inspiration, and some might care nothing for either and simply be interested in the final result.


----------



## Barbebleu

topo morto said:


> Daytime TV is designed for old people are stuck on the sofa and whose minds probably _aren't _what they once were, to give them a bit of company.


I find this comment more than a little condescending.


----------



## Strange Magic

Barbebleu said:


> I find this comment more than a little condescending.


.

At 76 years of age, I'll match my descent into geezerdom against anyone! (Excuse me while I trim my ear hairs.)


----------



## Vaneyes




----------



## Klassik

hpowders said:


> Looks good on paper, but unfortunately not in practice. You have many classical music fanatics here who DO substitute composers and their works for religion.


I agree, the way some people worship music (pop, classical, or both) as a religion of sorts is very odd IMO. To each their own I guess and I suppose they aren't hurting anyone if they do that. Still, it's not that much different in my view than teenyboppers worshiping One Direction or the latest boy band of the week. But, again, to each their own.



> The world really has embraced mass idiocy, and not just in music. Has anyone ever watched television for 5 minutes? You can feel the Myelin in your brain cells deteriorating.


There, fixed that for you. I watch very little TV these days, but it's so painful when I do. Maybe one would not notice the level of stupidity on TV if one watches it all the time, but it's so obvious when you watch something after being away from TV for a while.

I did see something odd on the boobtube the other day while I happened to pass by one that was on. I could have sworn I saw a commercial for an overactive bladder medication that was using the 1812 Overture as the background music. Perhaps they were trying to symbolize water cannons?


----------



## Phil loves classical

We should change the thread topic to TV is doomed.


----------



## Logos

12345678901234567890


----------



## Pugg

Logos said:


> 12345678901234567890


Finally: The Da Vinci Code cracked.


----------



## Sonata

Strange Magic said:


> Daytime TV is why National Public Radio and books were invented.


That's a head-scratcher since books were around before television, but I'm sure you were being ironic there....


----------



## Lenny

Triplets said:


> I live in a bubble, musically. I listen to Classical Music a bout 99.999%. One of my kids told me that I was being very limited that way. I pointed out that I listen to a range of music that written over a one thousand year time span, yet most of the world, which largely rejects anything not written in the last 50 years, finds me to be close minded. Something is wrong with that picture.
> I had to spend an hour in the Dentist Chair last week. The background music was some basic MOR station. My dentist numbed my mouth but should have provided something for my ears. It was painful, much more so than anything that could have been happening in a tooth. Popular music is so unoriginal, unimaginative, and panders to the lowest common element. The world really has embraced mass idiocy, and not just in music. Has anyone ever watched daytime television for 5 minutes? You can feel the
> Myelin in your brain cells deteriorating.
> People hurl the charge of "Elitist" at me, as if it were meant to be an insult. Heck, I embrace it. However, I think that many people cringe when called that, on this site, and elsewhere in the world as well. About 3% of the Western World listens to Classical Music. I think that people are so fearful of be tagged with the "E" label that they feel they have to bend over backwards to show that they are "normal" and tout their love of other musical genres--on a site devoted to Classical Music, for crying out loud.


While I don't entirely agree on everything here, I think the same way in general. Something is wrong with the society that values dumb things over high arts and literacy. Yes, I'm a proud elitist.

But.... of course there are lots of intelligent and talented people who for whatever reason do other things than CM. Basically human can create beatiful art out of anything, and also music without symphony orchestra.


----------



## Strange Magic

Lenny said:


> Something is wrong with the society that values dumb things over high arts and literacy. Yes, I'm a proud elitist.


Could you supply a list of societies that value or valued high arts and literacy over dumb things? Ancient Greece? Rome? Italy during the Renaissance? Tudor England? My hunch is that they had the same distinctions of high and low culture then as we do now.


----------



## Klassik

Strange Magic said:


> Could you supply a list of societies that value or valued high arts and literacy over dumb things? Ancient Greece? Rome? Italy during the Renaissance? Tudor England? My hunch is that they had the same distinctions of high and low culture then as we do now.


Valuing dumb things is the human way!


----------



## Lenny

Strange Magic said:


> Could you supply a list of societies that value or valued high arts and literacy over dumb things? Ancient Greece? Rome? Italy during the Renaissance? Tudor England? My hunch is that they had the same distinctions of high and low culture then as we do now.


Well... uh... hm... no. But I like to tell myself that after the great wars there was a period in time when it was kinda obvious to everyone that dumb things are dumb. But I'm getting old... And I just read Neil Postman's book


----------



## Magnum Miserium

Lenny said:


> Well... uh... hm... no. But I like to tell myself that after the great wars there was a period in time when it was kinda obvious to everyone that dumb things are dumb.


After the great wars:


----------



## JAS

Strange Magic said:


> Could you supply a list of societies that value or valued high arts and literacy over dumb things? Ancient Greece? Rome? Italy during the Renaissance? Tudor England? My hunch is that they had the same distinctions of high and low culture then as we do now.


I believe the phrase you may be looking for is "bread and circuses."


----------



## Barbebleu

Or if you really want to be highbrow about it - panem et circenses!!


----------



## maestro267

*enters forum for first time in a while; sees this thread*

*leaves*


----------



## DaveM

maestro267 said:


> *enters forum for first time in a while; sees this thread*
> 
> *leaves*


Sometimes you come across a post that has meaning that is so profound and astounding in its deeper meaning that you are left almost reeling from the effect of it. Here you have the picture of someone contemplating entering the forum after a long absence and then after a period of contemplation, pressing the operative key(s) to enter, after which following another period of careful evaluation, this thread is accessed.

At this point, there is a sense of excitement: What will be next? Where is this going? What will unfold? And then, he leaves!! Amazing! That's exactly the last thing we thought would happen. You're left almost breathless by the experience! What a gift that we were not only told about it, but that we were able to be here at the very moment it occurred!


----------



## Razumovskymas

The question if popular music has less value than classical-music is not really relevant. Of course pop music has its value. It's the disproportionate attention it gets and the disproportionate quantities that's really the "problem". 

It's as if 99% of the world population (including the intellectual majority, our leaders, important cultural people...) would be into reading comics and would find the western canon for world literature quite boring. 

Me personally, I don't really care actually. People reap what they sow. But if you're worried about preserving the history of western music (and I mean before pop music) then maybe you should look at pop music in it's correct value. If a minister of cultural policy values a comic as high as a novel....


----------



## Guest

Lenny said:


> And I just read Neil Postman's book


Which one...he wrote a few?


----------



## Magnum Miserium

Razumovskymas said:


> It's as if 99% of the world population (including the intellectual majority, our leaders, important cultural people...) would be into reading comics and would find the western canon for world literature quite boring.


So, it's as if the world today was exactly the way the world is today.



Razumovskymas said:


> But if you're worried about preserving the history of western music (and I mean before pop music) then maybe you should look at pop music in it's correct value.


Pop music is as old as cities, which is to say, older than "the west."


----------



## Razumovskymas

Magnum Miserium said:


> Pop music is as old as cities, which is to say, older than "the west."


In your assumption pop music is today's folk music. So you could say folk music has conquered the world. Pretty much a consequence of technological progress and these technologies being available for virtually everyone. Without these technologies, folk music was passed on from one generation to the next, that method being a natural "filter" because that music could only be passed on to the ones who were talented enough to learn that music. In these days virtually everyone can listen to virtually every pop song and try to make his own (more primitive) version of it and thus evolving backwards.


----------



## Dan Ante

Logos said:


> 12345678901234567890


I noticed that you had to edit your original post, so I thought I would offer a helping hand, after 9 comes 10 (Ten) then 11 and 12, 13, 14 etc a little practice and you will soon get the hang of it.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

Razumovskymas said:


> In your assumption pop music is today's folk music.


No that's exactly incorrect. "Popular music" is distinguished from folk music by the fact that popular music is urban and folk music isn't. Hence pop music is as old as cities. Folk music much older than that.


----------



## Razumovskymas

Magnum Miserium said:


> No that's exactly incorrect. "Popular music" is distinguished from folk music by the fact that popular music is urban and folk music isn't. Hence pop music is as old as cities. Folk music much older than that.


Cities are pretty old too though


----------



## JAS

Dan Ante said:


> I noticed that you had to edit your original post, so I thought I would offer a helping hand, after 9 comes 10 (Ten) then 11 and 12, 13, 14 etc a little practice and you will soon get the hang of it.


It is apparently a one-digit sequence; it truncates the left digit at 10.


----------



## Dan Ante

JAS said:


> It is apparently a one-digit sequence; it truncates the left digit at 10.


That is fiendishly clever, no recurring. Think what JSB could have done with it, perpetual motion.


----------



## Woodduck

Razumovskymas said:


> The question if popular music has less value than classical-music is not really relevant. Of course pop music has its value. It's the disproportionate attention it gets and the disproportionate quantities that's really the "problem".
> 
> It's as if 99% of the world population (including the intellectual majority, our leaders, important cultural people...) would be into reading comics and would find the western canon for world literature quite boring.
> 
> Me personally, I don't really care actually. People reap what they sow. But if you're worried about preserving the history of western music (and I mean before pop music) then maybe you should look at pop music in it's correct value. *If a minister of cultural policy values a comic as high as a novel....*


...he's probably working for the present administration in Washington.


----------



## Bettina

Triplets said:


> ... About 3% of the Western World listens to Classical Music. I think that people are so fearful of be tagged with the "E" label that *they feel they have to bend over backwards to show that they are "normal"* and tout their love of other musical genres--on a site devoted to Classical Music, for crying out loud.


I highly doubt it. Nobody on TC seems to be making any attempt to pretend to be normal - and that's exactly why I love this site so much!


----------



## Lenny

MacLeod said:


> Which one...he wrote a few?


Technopolis. I really enjoy those technology/culture critics of 70-80's. I don't know what it is, but something clicks there. Most likely I'm just old grumpy luddite.


----------



## Pugg

maestro267 said:


> *enters forum for first time in a while; sees this thread*
> 
> *leaves*


Nominated post of the day.


----------



## JAS

Bettina said:


> I highly doubt it. Nobody on TC seems to be making any attempt to pretend to be normal - and that's exactly why I love this site so much!


Maybe we are making an attempt to pretend to be normal -- we just aren't succeeding very well. (The only thing worse than not being cool, is not being cool and trying to pretend that you are.)


----------



## Guest

Bettina said:


> I highly doubt it. Nobody on TC seems to be making any attempt to pretend to be normal - and that's exactly why I love this site so much!


The idea of being normal is something wich changes contantly,life is a puppet-show with a large wardrobe( otherwise you are lost).Glad to see that you feel at home,:tiphat:


----------



## Pugg

Traverso said:


> The idea of being normal is something which changes contantly,life is a puppet-show with a large wardrobe( otherwise you are lost). Glad to see that you feel at home,:tiphat:


You are very awake I see.


----------



## Guest

Pugg said:


> You are very awake I see.


I am a very sad Muppet.:lol:


----------



## Magnum Miserium

Woodduck said:


> ...he's probably working for the present administration in Washington.


Michelle Obama called "Hamilton" "the best piece of art in any form I have ever seen in my life."


----------



## Strange Magic

Magnum Miserium said:


> Michelle Obama called "Hamilton" "the best piece of art in any form I have ever seen in my life."


I haven't seen "Hamilton", but the strong endorsement of Michelle Obama would count for a lot with me as an impetus to see it.


----------



## Bettina

Lenny said:


> While I don't entirely agree on everything here, I think the same way in general. Something is wrong with the society that values dumb things over high arts and literacy. Yes, I'm a proud elitist.
> 
> *But.... of course there are lots of intelligent and talented people who for whatever reason do other things than CM*. Basically human can create beatiful art out of anything, and also music without symphony orchestra.


That is absolutely true! Some people on this site have claimed (or at least implied) that there is a correlation between classical music and intelligence. But, at least based on the anecdotal evidence that I've observed, there is no such correlation. Some of my friends (English professors and such) have never heard a symphony in their lives, and yet they run circles around me intellectually. My many years of symphony-listening do nothing to help me keep up intellectually, when my professor friends start debating political and philosophical issues! :lol:


----------



## hpowders

Just because those English professors haven't been exposed to classical music, doesn't mean they wouldn't be receptive to it.


----------



## hpowders

I have written on TC many times my opinion that one doesn't NEED any outstanding intelligence to like classical music over other genres, to experience the pleasure and emotion provided.

The impressive intelligence comes from the composers of classical music.

Let us not give ourselves too much credit, and for those flexible types, no excessive pats on our own backs, for simply listening to classical music. No special skills or intelligence required....although to get an invitation to my house, intelligence gets you through the gate. Bringing a rum cake gets the Pit Bull back on leash.


----------



## Bettina

hpowders said:


> Just because those English professors haven't been exposed to classical music, doesn't mean they wouldn't be receptive to it.


I've tried to convince them to give it a try, but some of them just aren't interested. They are totally obsessed with words, and classical music really isn't on their radar. However, their musical ignorance certainly doesn't hamper their intellectual abilities! Maybe I should turn off the CD player and grab a book of poetry instead...


----------



## hpowders

Bettina said:


> I've tried to convince them to give it a try, but some of them just aren't interested. They are totally obsessed with words, and classical music really isn't on their radar. However, their musical ignorance certainly doesn't hamper their intellectual abilities! Maybe I should turn off the CD player and grab a book of poetry instead...


That's too bad. They are really missing something special.

"It was the best of times & the worst of times...."


----------



## Richard8655

I think it much more likely that educated folks would be more receptive to classical music. I think there is a relationship between education and cultural/artistic literacy. It's not elitism or one group being superior over another, but just the way it is.


----------



## hpowders

Richard8655 said:


> I think it much more likely that educated folks would be more receptive to classical music. I think there is a relationship between education and cultural/artistic literacy. It's not elitism or one group being superior over another, but just the way it is.


I agree with your first sentence in that kids lucky enough to be born into a situation with 2 college educated parents are more likely to be exposed to classical music, but to like it, in my opinion, is a sensitivity issue, rather than demonstrating a direct correlation of innate intelligence.


----------



## Richard8655

hpowders said:


> I agree with your first sentence in that kids lucky enough to be born into a situation with 2 college educated parents are more likely to be exposed to classical music, but to like it, in my opinion is a sensitivity issue, rather than demonstrating a direct correlation of innate intelligence.


Yes, good point.


----------



## Lenny

Bettina said:


> Maybe I should turn off the CD player and grab a book of poetry instead...


No no, there's no reason to turn off CD while reading!


----------



## hpowders

Richard8655 said:


> Yes, good point.


I was so fortunate. Parents were both college grads who played CM at home. Who knows, if it wasn't played in my house when I was a kid, if I would have discovered it on my own?

One of life's "lucky accidents" as far as I'm concerned.

Yet there are those from similar backgrounds who hate CM and rebel against it...not because they are dumb....probably because they couldn't stand their parents.


----------



## Klassik

hpowders said:


> Just because those English professors haven't been exposed to classical music, doesn't mean they wouldn't be receptive to it.


Right, some people just aren't into music. Perhaps some people just don't derive much pleasure from their auditory sense or maybe some people just have not had exposure to good music. It happens.

Vegging out on the sofa listening to some ~40 minute or longer symphony probably isn't the most intellectual activity out there given the opportunity loss. Then again, there are far worse things one could do than listen to classical music. I consider music listening to be an enjoyable hobby instead of knowledge building time or something like that. Someone who spends their hour listening to 4 minutes of _Barbie Girl_ and the other 56 minutes reading a great history book may well be much better off intellectually than someone who spent a whole hour listening to classical music.

This is the great thing about Haydn, Mozart, and most Baroque composers. They give you their best and do so quickly so you can get on with things!


----------



## hpowders

Klassik said:


> Right, some people just aren't into music. Perhaps some people just don't derive much pleasure from their auditory sense or maybe some people just have not had exposure to good music. It happens.
> 
> Vegging out on the sofa listening to some ~40 minute or longer symphony probably isn't the most intellectual activity out there given the opportunity loss. Then again, there are far worse things one could do than listen to classical music. I consider music listening to be an enjoyable hobby instead of knowledge building time or something like that. Someone who spends their hour listening to 4 minutes of _Barbie Girl_ and the other 56 minutes reading a great history book may well be much better off intellectually than someone who spent a whole hour listening to classical music.
> 
> This is the great thing about Haydn, Mozart, and most Baroque composers. They give you their best and do so quickly so you can get on with things!


Yes. Who are we to judge? I love_ Barbie Girl_, by the way!


----------



## hpowders

Lenny said:


> No no, there's no reason to turn off CD while reading!


People cannot do reading AND listening to music at the same time and do justice to either activity.

The human brain cannot multitask in that way.

If you think you can, you are simply fooling yourself.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

Strange Magic said:


> I haven't seen "Hamilton",


Me neither. It sucks.



Strange Magic said:


> but the strong endorsement of Michelle Obama would count for a lot with me as an impetus to see it.


Well, follow your bliss, but the point is there's nothing remarkable about Trump's flaunted ignorance of high culture. (Used to presidents either had respectably stuffy opinions on high art - Theodore Roosevelt on the Armory show - or just kept their mouths shut. The current trend of making fools of themselves over current junk seems to me to have started, like so much of our neoliberal era, with JFK - naming his administration after Lerner & Loewe's show - and reached maturity, like so much of our neoliberal era, with Bill Clinton - playing saxophone, badly, on TV; engaging Maya Angelou to read at his inauguration).


----------



## hpowders

Without being exposed to classical music, the closest I may have gotten to Talk Classical, may have been as a worker, condemned to scrub the floors of the TC sub-forums.


----------



## hpowders

Magnum Miserium said:


> Me neither. It sucks.
> 
> Well, follow your bliss, but the point is there's nothing remarkable about *Trump's flaunted ignorance* *of high culture.* (Used to presidents either had respectably stuffy opinions on high art - Theodore Roosevelt on the Armory show - or just kept their mouths shut. The current trend of making fools of themselves over current junk seems to me to have started, like so much of our neoliberal era, with JFK - naming his administration after Lerner & Loewe's show - and reached maturity, like so much of our neoliberal era, with Bill Clinton - playing saxophone, badly, on TV; engaging Maya Angelou to read at his inauguration).


How would you really know? You are simply projecting your dislike of the man, when you really know nothing about his private, personal life.

Trump just might have more classical CDs than any of us. Anything's possible! 

By the way, the last culture president was JFK, thanks in large part to his wife Jacqueline, back in the early 1960's.


----------



## lluissineu

Bettina said:


> That is absolutely true! Some people on this site have claimed (or at least implied) that there is a correlation between classical music and intelligence. But, at least based on the anecdotal evidence that I've observed, there is no such correlation. Some of my friends (English professors and such) have never heard a symphony in their lives, and yet they run circles around me intellectually. My many years of symphony-listening do nothing to help me keep up intellectually, when my professor friends start debating political and philosophical issues! :lol:


Liberame domini de teachers and similars. I studied Law. As I love English, I passed first The Advance, then The proficiency exam. One of my others hobbies are History, mainly English and Scottish history.

Well, many of my friends are teachers, they hardly speak English (many of them keep to yes or no), they don't listen to classical music (I suppose Beethoven, Mozart and Bach are the names they know) and talking about history with them is sticking to Philip The V because he limited catalan laws and rights.

Well, to be honest one of them is a professor of international prívate law, speaks German and love Classical music.

What I mean is that there is not any especial link between being teacher, being a cultured person or loving classical music.


----------



## Ingélou

hpowders said:


> Yet there are those from similar backgrounds who hate CM and rebel against it...not because they are dumb....probably because they couldn't stand their parents.


Exactly! One of my friends gave up the violin at school because she wanted to play the music of her time, not classical stuff. She is now into Argentinian tango, and knows a great deal about the history of tango and its musical construction. She identifies classical music with staidness, conservative values, lack of spirit and so on. She is an intelligent and sensitive person, all the same.


----------



## hpowders

Ingélou said:


> Exactly! One of my friends gave up the violin at school because she wanted to play the music of her time, not classical stuff. She is now into Argentinian tango, and knows a great deal about the history of tango and its musical construction. She identifies classical music with staidness, conservative values, lack of spirit and so on. She is an intelligent and sensitive person, all the same.


Typical CM stereotypes. I would say "too bad", but then I would be projecting my own thoughts, so as long as she is happy...but so much of what I listen to has plenty of spirit!!! That stings much more than the "conservative values" accusation.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

hpowders said:


> How would you really know? You are simply projecting your dislike of the man, when you really know nothing about his private, personal life.


I chose my words carefully: "flaunted ignorance"

That said, at least one witness has described Trump expressing the kind of enthusiasm you can't fake for songs from Andrew Lloyd Webber's "The Phantom of the Opera" when they were broadcast at his campaign events. THAT'S the kind of music he likes. Which, to be fair, is better than "Hamilton."



hpowders said:


> By the way, the last culture president was JFK, thanks in large part to his wife Jacqueline, back in the early 1960's.


JFK was the FIRST "culture president," that is, the first president who made a big deal about culture. This is probably usually a sign of decadence - Lorenzo bankrupted the Medicis, and at least he had better taste.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

Ingélou said:


> Exactly! One of my friends gave up the violin at school because she wanted to play the music of her time, not classical stuff. She is now into Argentinian tango, and knows a great deal about the history of tango and its musical construction.


Well maybe she told herself she "wanted to play the music of her time," but that was obviously a lie. Tango is music of Ravel's time.


----------



## DaveM

Magnum Miserium said:


> JFK was the FIRST "culture president," that is, the first president who made a big deal about culture...


?????How so?????


----------



## Magnum Miserium

DaveM said:


> ?????How so?????


https://www.jfklibrary.org/JFK/JFK-in-History/Arts-and-Culture-in-the-Kennedy-White-House.aspx

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/11/11/kennedys-cultural-legacy-an-arts-neophyte-a-pop-icon


----------



## topo morto

Richard8655 said:


> I think it much more likely that educated folks would be more receptive to classical music. I think there is a relationship between education and cultural/artistic literacy. It's not elitism or one group being superior over another, but just the way it is.


Why would being receptive to *classical* music in particular be a marker of cultural/artistic literacy, as opposed to grunge, jazz, microsound, folk music, hip-hop, or pansori?


----------



## Magnum Miserium

topo morto said:


> Why would being receptive to *classical* music in particular be a marker of cultural/artistic literacy, as opposed to grunge, jazz, microsound, folk music, hip-hop, or pansori?


Same reason being receptive to Milton indicates a higher level of literacy than being receptive to Alan Moore.


----------



## topo morto

Magnum Miserium said:


> Same reason being receptive to Milton indicates a higher level of literacy than being receptive to Alan Moore.


There, the inference is clearer, as you're literally talking about literature.


----------



## Richard8655

topo morto said:


> Why would being receptive to *classical* music in particular be a marker of cultural/artistic literacy, as opposed to grunge, jazz, microsound, folk music, hip-hop, or pansori?


I didn't say those forms necessarily wouldn't as this is addressing classical music. These facts address some of this:

https://www.princeton.edu/culturalpolicy/quickfacts/audiences/classical02.html


----------



## topo morto

Richard8655 said:


> I didn't say those forms necessarily wouldn't as this is addressing classical music.


OK... it's just that 'It's not elitism or one group being superior over another' made it sound like you were talking comparatively with other forms, so I was curious as to what you meant by 'cultural literacy'...



Richard8655 said:


> These facts address some of this:
> 
> https://www.princeton.edu/culturalpolicy/quickfacts/audiences/classical02.html


... but if you meant 'education level', then I too would expect a correlation.


----------



## JAS

I am a bit bemused to find that we are in a terrible state. Here we have a forum dedicated (primarily) to the discussion of what is broadly termed Classical Music. We also have words and terminology in a range of languages by which various aspects of this music may be dissected, classified, characterized and described. We also have a substantial body of actual examples of music from which to draw, and a pool of forum participants with a wide range of experiences, education and expertise, united (to the degree that we are united) by an interest in, if not actually a deep love of, Classical Music. And yet we are utterly unable to make even a token case that Beethoven is a greater artist than Justin Bieber. (I am picking on Bieber specifically because I see him as a relatively easy target in such a quandary, and presume that he has few ardent advocates here, although I may be mistaken on this point. I also think that, speaking financially, he can afford the abuse.)


----------



## Magnum Miserium

JAS said:


> I am a bit bemused to find that we are in a terrible state.


I mean dude you live in Maryland


----------



## topo morto

JAS said:


> I am a bit bemused to find that we are in a terrible state. Here we have a forum dedicated (primarily) to the discussion of what is broadly termed Classical Music. We also have words and terminology in a range of languages by which various aspects of this music may be dissected, classified, characterized and described. We also have a substantial body of actual examples of music from which to draw, and a pool of forum participants with a wide range of experiences, education and expertise, united (to the degree that we are united) by an interest in, if not actually a deep love of, Classical Music. And yet we are utterly unable to make even a token case that Beethoven is a greater artist than Justin Bieber.


The thing that would be bemusing would be if anyone of experience, education and expertise would want to make such a case (in any seriousness), given that 'greatness' comes down to personal value judgments, and also that Bieber and Beethoven are rather different types of musician.


----------



## Richard8655

topo morto said:


> OK... it's just that 'It's not elitism or one group being superior over another' made it sound like you were talking comparatively with other forms, so I was curious as to what you meant by 'cultural literacy'..
> 
> ... but if you meant 'education level', then I too would expect a correlation.


That's right. There is an apparent correlation between education and interest in classical music, at least from this survey. Not to say this is absolute or definitive. As to whether it has anything to do with intelligence, that's much debatable. But it also doesn't exclude other forms of music, as you mentioned.


----------



## Triplets

hpowders said:


> How would you really know? You are simply projecting your dislike of the man, when you really know nothing about his private, personal life.
> 
> Trump just might have more classical CDs than any of us. Anything's possible!
> 
> By the way, the last culture president was JFK, thanks in large part to his wife Jacqueline, back in the early 1960's.


Jimmy Carter used to have Classical Music playing in the background when he occupied the Hallowed Ground. Perhaps he got the albums from his brother.


----------



## topo morto

Richard8655 said:


> That's right. There is an apparent correlation between education and interest in classical music, at least from this survey. Not to say this is absolute or definitive. As to whether it has anything to do with intelligence, that's much debatable. But it also doesn't exclude other forms of music, as you mentioned.


And of course you do have to be careful with statistics in general, and correlations in particular. Concert going is often quite expensive and is an activity that is more accessible to those with the money to do it; it may be that this factor is more causatively correlated with education level than any inherent ability to appreciate the music.


----------



## JAS

Magnum Miserium said:


> I mean dude you live in Maryland


I can assure that it is quite a fine state, despite the fact that I live in it. (There is no reason to hold that minor fact against a whole state.)


----------



## AfterHours

JAS said:


> I am a bit bemused to find that we are in a terrible state. Here we have a forum dedicated (primarily) to the discussion of what is broadly termed Classical Music. We also have words and terminology in a range of languages by which various aspects of this music may be dissected, classified, characterized and described. We also have a substantial body of actual examples of music from which to draw, and a pool of forum participants with a wide range of experiences, education and expertise, united (to the degree that we are united) by an interest in, if not actually a deep love of, Classical Music. And yet we are utterly unable to make even a token case that Beethoven is a greater artist than Justin Bieber. (I am picking on Bieber specifically because I see him as a relatively easy target in such a quandary, and presume that he has few ardent advocates here, although I may be mistaken on this point. I also think that, speaking financially, he can afford the abuse.)


I can understand your sentiment on this. While it's arguable to say such a comparison could be unequivocally proven in a purely objective sense, it could probably be proven or at least strongly suggested that:

(a) Beethoven was much more creative in relation to his precedents and music history in general. Beethoven's compositions were a much more singular phenomenon.
(b) Beethoven was much more musically ambitious, covering a far wider scope of emotional/conceptual content and with a greater depth of feeling/personal conviction.
(c) Those who assimilate Beethoven's works tend to have a much more profound or singularly impactful experience from it, than those who make a similar effort with Justin Bieber's, providing each have a similar knowledge and experience of music history.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

JAS said:


> I can assure that it is quite a fine state, despite the fact that I live in it. (There is no reason to hold that minor fact against a whole state.)


I on the other hand reside in a pristine dystopia that lives by draining the life's blood of the rest of the country (the Boston metropolitan area, like New York except second rate), but I'm here so that makes it better.


----------



## EdwardBast

JAS said:


> I am a bit bemused to find that we are in a terrible state. Here we have a forum dedicated (primarily) to the discussion of what is broadly termed Classical Music. We also have words and terminology in a range of languages by which various aspects of this music may be dissected, classified, characterized and described. We also have a substantial body of actual examples of music from which to draw, and a pool of forum participants with a wide range of experiences, education and expertise, united (to the degree that we are united) by an interest in, if not actually a deep love of, Classical Music. *And yet we are utterly unable to make even a token case that Beethoven is a greater artist than Justin Bieber. *(I am picking on Bieber specifically because I see him as a relatively easy target in such a quandary, and presume that he has few ardent advocates here, although I may be mistaken on this point. I also think that, speaking financially, he can afford the abuse.)


Speak for yourself. Beethoven is a greater composer of instrumental music because he actually composed instrumental music and Bieber doesn't. Do we even know that Bieber composes at all? Many pop "artists" just perform works for hire, which usually means they pay for songs up front and claim composing credit. If that is the case then it is case closed, obviously. And when they do compose, pop "artists" sometimes make a minimal contribution of melody or words and then the real work is done by someone competent with things like theory, arranging and notation. Beethoven is a greater composer of choral music, piano music, symphonies, quartets, etc., etc. He was one of the greatest virtuosos of his day. Bieber isn't. I would say the job is done, although you are welcome to strain your imagination coming up with any criterion for the contrary case.


----------



## Phil loves classical

AfterHours said:


> I can understand your sentiment on this. While it's arguable to say such a comparison could be unequivocally proven in a purely objective sense, it could probably be proven or at least strongly suggested that:
> 
> (a) Beethoven was much more creative in relation to his precedents and music history in general. Beethoven's compositions were a much more singular phenomenon.
> (b) Beethoven was much more musically ambitious, covering a far wider scope of emotional/conceptual content and with a greater depth of feeling/personal conviction.
> (c) Those who assimilate Beethoven's works tend to have a much more profound or singularly impactful experience from it, than those who make a similar effort with Justin Bieber's, providing each have a similar knowledge and experience of music history.


The problem with making objective criteria on what is considered good music is it first takes agreement and understanding of the criteria itself. Like I was discussing some time before, some can argue that making butts move is a more valid criteria in good music over making people feel sad. Best thing is to just enjoy what you like, while exposing yourself to as much music as you can manage, and then naturally you can come to know what is better. I think it is impossible to prove that Beethoven is better than Bieber. Like I said, I've tried, but it's just doesn't work.


----------



## Phil loves classical

EdwardBast said:


> Speak for yourself. Beethoven is a greater composer of instrumental music because he actually composed instrumental music and Bieber doesn't. Do we even know that Bieber composes at all? Many pop "artists" just perform works for hire, which usually means they pay for songs up front and claim composing credit. If that is the case then it is case closed, obviously. And when they do compose, pop "artists" sometimes make a minimal contribution of melody or words and then the real work is done by someone competent with things like theory, arranging and notation. Beethoven is a greater composer of choral music, piano music, symphonies, quartets, etc., etc. He was one of the greatest virtuosos of his day. Bieber isn't. I would say the job is done, although you are welcome to strain your imagination coming up with any criterion for the contrary case.


You got a strong case here. How about proving Beethoven over Taylor Swift, or some average Joe which writes and plays his own songs?


----------



## Ziggabea

Phil loves classical said:


> You got a strong case here. How about proving Beethoven over Taylor Swift, or some average Joe which writes and plays his own songs?


Then you'd simply be in subjective territory


----------



## AfterHours

Phil loves classical said:


> The problem with making objective criteria on what is considered good music is it first takes agreement and understanding of the criteria itself. Like I was discussing some time before, some can argue that making butts move is a more valid criteria in good music over making people feel sad. Best thing is to just enjoy what you like, while exposing yourself to as much music as you can manage, and then naturally you can come to know what is better. I think it is impossible to prove that Beethoven is better than Bieber. Like I said, I've tried, but it's just doesn't work.


I think my post speaks for itself without needing to add much in reply to yours ... "it could probably be proven or at least strongly suggested that..."

I agree that it depends on the criteria and those who favor Bieber obviously have a very different one, or even lack awareness of such a criteria of music potential outside of a limited pop spectrum. In perhaps every such case, one would likely find that their knowledge and experience of music history was far less extensive than those who listened to, assimilated and were able to demonstrably evaluate and appreciate the emotional/conceptual content and creativity in the works of Beethoven (and many other such artists).


----------



## KenOC

Phil loves classical said:


> You got a strong case here. How about proving Beethoven over Taylor Swift, or some average Joe which writes and plays his own songs?


You can't do the boogie
If you can't write that fugie.


----------



## Strange Magic

I don't understand why it is important (or so important) that it be established that a case be made showing that Beethoven is a greater artist than Justin Bieber. I don't care for Justin Bieber's music, and I like Beethoven's music, but I don't need outside confirmation of the validity or authenticity of my taste. Is it just among classical music lovers, some anyway, that there is such angst about the preferences of both themselves but also others? Why not just listen to the music (as the Doobie Brothers urge us)?


----------



## DaveM

Justin Bieber's songs are so close to classical that they are sometimes called Bieber Lieder.


----------



## topo morto

EdwardBast said:


> Speak for yourself. Beethoven is a greater composer of instrumental music because he actually composed instrumental music and Bieber doesn't. Do we even know that Bieber composes at all? Many pop "artists" just perform works for hire, which usually means they pay for songs up front and claim composing credit. If that is the case then it is case closed, obviously. And when they do compose, pop "artists" sometimes make a minimal contribution of melody or words and then the real work is done by someone competent with things like theory, arranging and notation. Beethoven is a greater composer of choral music, piano music, symphonies, quartets, etc., etc. He was one of the greatest virtuosos of his day. Bieber isn't. I would say the job is done, although you are welcome to strain your imagination coming up with any criterion for the contrary case.


So, then, we've established that being an orchestral composer in the 18th century is _a very different occupation that involves doing very different things_ to being a solo pop act in the 21st.

Next question : Cicero vs Kim Jong Un. Who is the better politician? Serious, objective answers only please.


----------



## PJaye

Sometimes it seems like postmodernist ideas are influencing popular culture and ways of thinking more and more every day. artistic merit is just becoming a relativist conjecture to many. Maybe not necessarily because they want to feel that way, or hold that belief. It's just this thing that's going on in society. Maybe it has to do with the push for ideals like equity and fairness, or maybe it's a reaction to the falseness of idolising that came with excessive adulation and setting apart of artists from the past who's work we enjoy so much; and now we're facing up to the effects of that. I'm just thinking out loud. Any other ideas? It seems like debates of this nature have been happening alot lately. I remember a while back shortly after I joined this forum there was this long running thread on postmedernism and people started wondering -rightly so- 'why is this damn topic going on for so long?' I think a thread like this might partlly answer that philosophical question.


----------



## EdwardBast

Strange Magic said:


> I don't understand why it is important (or so important) that it be established that a case be made showing that Beethoven is a greater artist than Justin Bieber. I don't care for Justin Bieber's music, and I like Beethoven's music, but I don't need outside confirmation of the validity or authenticity of my taste. Is it just among classical music lovers, some anyway, that there is such angst about the preferences of both themselves but also others? Why not just listen to the music (as the Doobie Brothers urge us)?


Did someone say it was important? I think it's silly. I just didn't like being told we couldn't do it.


----------



## Phil loves classical

PJaye said:


> Sometimes it seems like postmodernist ideas are influencing popular culture and ways of thinking more and more every day. artistic merit is just becoming a relativist conjecture to many. Maybe not necessarily because they want to feel that way, or hold that belief. It's just this thing that's going on in society. Maybe it has to do with the push for ideals like equity and fairness, or maybe it's a reaction to the falseness of idolising that came with excessive adulation and setting apart of artists from the past who's work we enjoy so much; and now we're facing up to the effects of that. I'm just thinking out loud. Any other ideas? It seems like debates of this nature have been happening alot lately. I remember a while back shortly after I joined this forum there was this long running thread on postmedernism and people started wondering -rightly so- 'why is this damn topic going on for so long?' I think a thread like this might partlly answer that philosophical question.


You are right, it is a reaction against tradition, looking for new ways of expression. It is not only Classical but some other forms of music and other art too.


----------



## Triplets

Hpowder brings up Sgt Pepper as an example of pop music that he thinks is as great as anything ever written. For the record ( pun intended), I do enjoy the Beatles and some other classic Rock Groups. However, invoking Sgt Pepper as a masterpiece for the ages is a hackneyed cliche the go to album for those who always argue for the equivalency of genres. And would that album be as good as it is if not for the contributions of the Classically trained 5th Beatle-- George MArtin? I don't think that it was Ringo's idea to use a harpsichord for Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds. And yes it would be nice if the typical Dentist office fare was the Beatles and not Garth Brooks


----------



## Strange Magic

EdwardBast said:


> Did someone say it was important? I think it's silly. I just didn't like being told we couldn't do it.


JAS's post #256 in this thread gave me the impression that he felt it was important that the case be made for Beethoven, and he was frustrated that there seemed--here on this CM forum--so little immediate support. I personally think Beethoven is OK with things as they are (to the extent that Beethoven is ever OK with things as they are).


----------



## Magnum Miserium

Triplets said:


> However, invoking Sgt Pepper as a masterpiece for the ages is a hackneyed cliche [...]


So is invoking Beethoven's 9th symphony as a masterpiece. Doesn't change the fact that it is.



Triplets said:


> And would that album be as good as it is if not for the contributions of the Classically trained 5th Beatle-- George MArtin?


The only reason you know who George Martin was is because he worked for two geniuses.

The only reason you care who George Martin was is because he gives you an excuse to pretend said two geniuses weren't.



Triplets said:


> I don't think that it was Ringo's idea to use a harpsichord for Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds.


That's not a harpsichord. (It's an electronic organ, played by McCartney.)


----------



## David OByrne

The best Beatles album is the White Album because it *actually has something fun to listen to:* Revolution 9, their single best track. I LOVE it!


----------



## Magnum Miserium

David OByrne said:


> The best Beatles album is the White Album because it *actually has something fun to listen to:* Revolution 9, their single best track. I LOVE it!


Enjoy:


----------



## Phil loves classical

Triplets said:


> Hpowder brings up Sgt Pepper as an example of pop music that he thinks is as great as anything ever written. For the record ( pun intended), I do enjoy the Beatles and some other classic Rock Groups. However, invoking Sgt Pepper as a masterpiece for the ages is a hackneyed cliche the go to album for those who always argue for the equivalency of genres. And would that album be as good as it is if not for the contributions of the Classically trained 5th Beatle-- George MArtin? I don't think that it was Ringo's idea to use a harpsichord for Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds. And yes it would be nice if the typical Dentist office fare was the Beatles and not Garth Brooks


Agree on Martin's importance in some of their best tracks. Strawberry Fields FOREVER.....


----------



## Pugg

DaveM said:


> Justin Bieber's songs are so close to classical that they are sometimes called Bieber Leider.


This is close to : Post of the day.


----------



## Lenny

hpowders said:


> People cannot do reading AND listening to music at the same time and do justice to either activity.
> 
> The human brain cannot multitask in that way.
> 
> If you think you can, you are simply fooling yourself.


Yes, I do it all the time, fooling myself I guess.

I listen to music all day long while working and reading. BUT, I have to choose which one is top priority. Sometimes I switch the priorities on and off.. but this works only for familiar pieces. So for example, I can listen to some piece while working, and then focus more on the music for some time, and then continue working. All this without even lifting my fingers from the keyboard.

Professionally, I've done the best work while listening to Mahler symphonies. Non-stop, over and over again, sometimes for weeks 

For me it is actually quite hard to get music fully anyways at home. I need to go to concert for full experience.

There are many ways to enjoy music.


----------



## topo morto

PJaye said:


> Sometimes it seems like postmodernist ideas are influencing popular culture and ways of thinking more and more every day. artistic merit is just becoming a relativist conjecture to many. Maybe not necessarily because they want to feel that way, or hold that belief. It's just this thing that's going on in society. Maybe it has to do with the push for ideals like equity and fairness, or maybe it's a reaction to the falseness of idolising that came with excessive adulation and setting apart of artists from the past who's work we enjoy so much; and now we're facing up to the effects of that. I'm just thinking out loud. Any other ideas? It seems like debates of this nature have been happening alot lately. I remember a while back shortly after I joined this forum there was this long running thread on postmedernism and people started wondering -rightly so- 'why is this damn topic going on for so long?' I think a thread like this might partlly answer that philosophical question.


Over the last couple of centuries or so, cultures of the world in general have been a lot more aware of each other (sometimes in happy circumstances, sometimes not). And they've discovered that while they can create measurable standards for some things (like, for example, the length of a metre, if not its spelling), they can't agree absolute standards for artistic merit. So we are forced to conclude that such things are matters of opinion. It's not just the fact we can't agree on a standard for measurement that makes something subjective - it's the fact when we look behind our vague notional value judgement, we find that even we can't work out specifically what it is that we are gauging. This lack of specific criteria can be unclear in the context of a homogeneous culture where people tend to follow each other, as we assume that it's due to something fundamental, rather than just 'groupthink'.

A related trend is less reliance on authority for our information. We don't have to bow to the will of authority figures who tell us what is and isn't good; we can find out for ourselves what we like when it comes to art and culture. It may well be that over the next couple of hundred years or so, the mechanisms by which things come to be seen as classics also change.

Of course relativism can be taken too far - some of the 'fake news' thing is a question of people 'deciding for themselves what they like when it comes to _facts_'. So I don't think that more relativism is good. Rather, i'd say that it's important to be clear where the line is.


----------



## JAS

Strange Magic said:


> JAS's post #256 in this thread gave me the impression that he felt it was important that the case be made for Beethoven, and he was frustrated that there seemed--here on this CM forum--so little immediate support. I personally think Beethoven is OK with things as they are (to the extent that Beethoven is ever OK with things as they are).


That was the gist of my post, and given the tepid and even defensive responses from a group that presumably represents some of its most devoted fans, then classical music is indeed doomed, or at least on life support and headed to hospice care. I hope it can suffer along sufficient to linger for the rest of my lifetime. (Thirty or forty years should do it.)


----------



## Magnum Miserium

topo morto said:


> Over the last couple of centuries or so, cultures of the world in general have been a lot more aware of each other (sometimes in happy circumstances, sometimes not). And they've discovered that while they can create measurable standards for some things (like, for example, the length of a metre, if not its spelling), they can't agree absolute standards for artistic merit.


Europeans' standards of artistic merit were repeatedly smashed by Europeans in the last two centuries. There's less difference in standards between Tang Yin and Claude Lorrain than there is between Claude Lorrain and Monet, and again between Monet and Matisse, and again between Matisse and Duchamp.


----------



## topo morto

Magnum Miserium said:


> Europeans' standards of artistic merit were repeatedly smashed by Europeans in the last two centuries. There's less difference in standards between Tang Yin and Claude Lorrain than there is between Claude Lorrain and Monet, and again between Monet and Matisse, and again between Matisse and Duchamp.


"Smashing" ideas isn't necessarily quite the same thing as "accepting them as different, but equally valid". It seems to me that styles changing over time is often interpreted as 'improvement' or 'progress' - an active rejection of what came before.

Of course the idea that there's no accounting for taste probably isn't new - there's presumably a reason why "De gustatibus non disputandum" is quoted in Latin.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

topo morto said:


> "Smashing" ideas isn't necessarily quite the same thing as "accepting them as different, but equally valid". It seems to me that styles changing over time is often interpreted as 'improvement' or 'progress' - an active rejection of what came before.


Maybe, but one of the results is people come away asking "Is that art?" (By asking the question they already admit the possibility that it might be.)


----------



## TurnaboutVox

DaveM said:


> Justin Bieber's songs are so close to classical that they are sometimes called Bieber Lieder.


I'm not a Belieder...


----------



## JAS

Magnum Miserium said:


> Maybe, but one of the results is people come away asking "Is that art?" (By asking the question they already admit the possibility that it might be.)


If _everything_ is art, then _nothing_ is art, for the word then has no meaning or purpose.


----------



## pcnog11

For anyone feels that classical music is doomed, you should see the following link:

https://www.ted.com/talks/benjamin_zander_on_music_and_passion


----------



## topo morto

JAS said:


> If _everything_ is art, then _nothing_ is art, for the word then has no meaning or purpose.


If by 'meaning' you mean a somewhat precise definition on which people broadly agree, then it's pretty obvious that the word 'art' does indeed have no such meaning. "What is art?" has been a running joke in human circles for some time now...

Of course you, I and everyone else can come up with all sorts of cute and clever suggestions for definitions... many of which would be entirely contradictory.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

pcnog11 said:


> For anyone feels that classical music is doomed, you should see the following link:
> 
> https://www.ted.com/talks/benjamin_zander_on_music_and_passion


I think Ted talks are doomed


----------



## Strange Magic

JAS said:


> That was the gist of my post, and given the tepid and even defensive responses from a group that presumably represents some of its most devoted fans, then classical music is indeed doomed, or at least on life support and headed to hospice care. I hope it can suffer along sufficient to linger for the rest of my lifetime. (Thirty or forty years should do it.)


I'll return again to Leonard Meyer and the concept of the New Stasis in the arts (though I already hear the groans ): since there is a place for everything at the table under the New Stasis, there is now and will be for the foreseeable future a place for classical music--even a place for Beethoven. New audiences--maybe smaller, maybe larger--will replace today's audiences. And, under the extension and reinforcement of Meyer's concept with the explosion of ubiquitous and instantaneous transmission of information--including music and all the arts--all audiences' needs are being met, and every cup is filled to the brim. As I posted before, if you are not getting enough of the music or art (Art, or The Arts, if you prefer), you are just not trying very hard.


----------



## JAS

Strange Magic said:


> I'll return again to Leonard Meyer and the concept of the New Stasis in the arts (though I already hear the groans ): since there is a place for everything at the table under the New Stasis, there is now and will be for the foreseeable future a place for classical music--even a place for Beethoven. New audiences--maybe smaller, maybe larger--will replace today's audiences. And, under the extension and reinforcement of Meyer's concept with the explosion of ubiquitous and instantaneous transmission of information--including music and all the arts--all audiences' needs are being met, and every cup is filled to the brim. As I posted before, if you are not getting enough of the music or art (Art, or The Arts, if you prefer), you are just not trying very hard.


I _am_ getting the music and art I prefer, although mainly by digging back into the long stretches of the past. What saddens me is that there seems to be diminishing interest in the value of art and the ability to make discerning judgment which bodes ill for the future.


----------



## Strange Magic

JAS said:


> I _am_ getting the music and art I prefer, although mainly by digging back into the long stretches of the past. What saddens me is that there seems to be diminishing interest in the value of art and the ability to make discerning judgment which bodes ill for the future.


I think what you perceive is an artifact of today's communication revolution. In yesteryear, much "art", "culture", etc. was produced by, controlled by, critiqued by, disseminated by a small cultural elite. That world is shattered and now Facebook, Spotify, YouTube rule. Chairman Mao, the Great Helmsman, said "Let a hundred flowers bloom!" Now it's "Let an infinite number of flowers bloom!" The flowers will jostle for position and nourishment, but there will continue to be space for all. But the old hierarchies and arbiters of taste are gone, and we might indeed dread their return.


----------



## JAS

Strange Magic said:


> I think what you perceive is an artifact of today's communication revolution. In yesteryear, much "art", "culture", etc. was produced by, controlled by, critiqued by, disseminated by a small cultural elite. That world is shattered and now Facebook, Spotify, YouTube rule. Chairman Mao, the Great Helmsman, said "Let a hundred flowers bloom!" Now it's "Let an infinite number of flowers bloom!" The flowers will jostle for position and nourishment, but there will continue to be space for all. But the old hierarchies and arbiters of taste are gone, and we might indeed dread their return.


In that world, there will always be more dandelions than roses. Weeds have the advantage, and will inevitably choke out pretty much everything else. (Yes, I am feeling particularly gloomy today.)


----------



## JAS

A somewhat more optimistic view: https://www.bsomusic.org/stories/rethinking-the-modern-music-school-training/


----------



## DaveM

JAS said:


> I _am_ getting the music and art I prefer, although mainly by digging back into the long stretches of the past. What saddens me is that there seems to be diminishing interest in the value of art and the ability to make discerning judgment which bodes ill for the future.


Yes, I'm in that category also. Present day classical music, for the most part doesn't have the type of melody I used to assume would be part of any new work. So I have to look to the past and hope to find things like the Andante of the Stenhammar 1st Piano Concerto I heard for the first time the other day (thanks stomanek). Likewise, pop music has IMO largely gone south with melody losing out to rhythm. Overall, I don't know what the parameters are for legitimate art anymore.

On the other hand, I know that the generation gap is widening and so I can never be sure if my perspective is totally valid anymore. I will say, thank God for YouTube. I can still find new things classical and pop to listen to (e.g. more recently all the great live rock stuff recorded at Daryl's House (Daryl from Hall and Oates)).


----------



## pcnog11

Magnum Miserium said:


> I think Ted talks are doomed


Ted talks are a collection of forward thinking ideas, insights, experience and value for many, many individuals, intellects and professionals. For those who say it is doomed, need to consider if they are in the first place.

Sorry I strongly disagree!!!


----------



## Magnum Miserium

Ted talks are middlebrowism for cool people


----------



## hpowders

I would say classical music is in a definite decline, but doomed, no.

As long as sensitive human beings still walk the earth, classical music will survive.

Only nuclear annihilation can wipe out classical music.


----------



## Ingélou

hpowders said:


> I would say classical music is in a definite decline, but doomed, no.
> 
> As long as sensitive human beings still walk the earth, classical music will survive.
> 
> Only nuclear anihilation can wipe out classical music.


I agree. Why would it be doomed? There'll always be people who love the great writers of English (or any other) literature - and there'll always be people who aspire to *become* great writers, in this age and the next.

It's a human thing, called *ambition*.

Why would music be different from the other arts?


----------



## hpowders

Ingélou said:


> I agree. Why would it be doomed? There'll always be people who love the great writers of English literature - and there'll always be people who aspire to *become* great writers, in this age and the next.
> 
> It's a human thing, called *ambition*.
> 
> Why would music be different from the other arts?


Yes. The only thing that can wipe out Great Art completely is nuclear annihilation....so let's pray with all our might that this will never happen.


----------



## Guest

Magnum Miserium said:


> Europeans' standards of artistic merit were repeatedly smashed by Europeans in the last two centuries.


This might sound like a silly question, but what do you mean by 'standards' and in what way 'smashed'?

Do you mean that the criteria by which art was judged were challenged? Reset? Or do you mean simply that during the last two centuries, the quality of 'art' declined, at least in part because the 'standards' hegemony was broken up?


----------



## Magnum Miserium

MacLeod said:


> This might sound like a silly question, but what do you mean by 'standards' and in what way 'smashed'?
> 
> Do you mean that the criteria by which art was judged were challenged?


Yes.



MacLeod said:


> Reset?


Yes.



MacLeod said:


> Or do you mean simply that during the last two centuries, the quality of 'art' declined, at least in part because the 'standards' hegemony was broken up?


Maybe.

I do think the quality of art has declined, both at the top (Stravinsky is great but less than Beethoven or Wagner) and at level of mere craftsmanship (look at what happens practically every time somebody commissions a representational sculpture). But I think Romanticism's overt rebellion against existing standards probably isn't the direct cause. Instead I locate the original sin in the Decadent/Modernist _reaction_ against Romanticism, when the question of artistic quality (necessarily generalizing here) changes from a question of what art _is_ to a question of what art _isn't_ - i.e. a question of _avoiding bad taste_ (which attained what would be a reductio ad absurdum in minimalism except connoisseurs don't think it's absurd).


----------



## Woodduck

Magnum Miserium said:


> I do think the quality of art has declined, both at the top (Stravinsky is great but less than Beethoven or Wagner) and at level of mere craftsmanship (look at what happens practically every time somebody commissions a representational sculpture). But I think Romanticism's overt rebellion against existing standards probably isn't the direct cause. Instead *I locate the original sin in the Decadent/Modernist reaction against Romanticism, when the question of artistic quality (necessarily generalizing here) changes from a question of what art is to a question of what art isn't**...*


Do I think this is a keen observation because I agree with it, or because it is, or because I don't realize how often it's been made? Well, I haven't encountered it before, and I'm not as conceited as I look, so I'll go with number two.

Banish personal expression from music. Banish tonality from music. Banish melody and harmony from music. Banish moralism from the novel. Banish plot from the novel. Banish grammar from the novel. Banish narrative from poetry. Banish rhyme from poetry. Banish poetry from poetry. Get narrative out of painting. Get representation out of painting. Get the third dimension out of painting. Get paint out of painting. Hell, get rid of painting.

With everything gone - the fulfillment of Modernism - people didn't know how to be modern and actually create anything, so some of them started trying to make art with stuff in it again, but that was too hard because they were no longer trained to do it, and so they made things recognizable but a little weird so that no one could be sure whether they meant it or they were being fashionably ironic and self-mocking, and they called that Postmodernism.

It's hard to be a great postmodern (or post-postmodern) composer, but as this thread http://www.talkclassical.com/48688-what-makes-great-composer.html shows, we needn't worry because being "great" just means being popular.

Vox pop, vox poop.


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck, I agree with everything you posted above, and with MM's post also, to the extent that each of us, individually, holds the reins of esthetic judgment firmly in our own hands. As an absurdly simple example, I note that there is plenty of poetry I love that doesn't rhyme. The question indeed is, Who is to be Master? I vote for me, every time.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

Woodduck said:


> Do I think this is a keen observation because I agree with it, or because it is, or because I don't realize how often it's been made? Well, I haven't encountered it before, and I'm not as conceited as I look, so I'll go with number two.


Thank you for the kind words. I'm basically footnoting Camille Paglia's theory of Decadent art: https://books.google.com/books?id=8Fx2yBkLIqoC&pg=PA389



Woodduck said:


> With everything gone - the fulfillment of Modernism - people didn't know how to be modern and actually create anything, so some of them started trying to make art with stuff in it again, but that was too hard because they were no longer trained to do it, and so they made things recognizable but a little weird so that no one could be sure whether they meant it or they were being fashionably ironic and self-mocking, and they called that Postmodernism.


There may be an analog in the transition from ancient to medieval Mediterraenean art - or perhaps simply the decline of ancient Mediterraenean art - conventionally dated from the arch of Constantine (315 CE), though we have slightly earlier examples of the style, for example the portrait of the four tetrarchs (c. 300 CE), which is to say the new style definitely _precedes_ the official toleration of Christianity.

The process by which the ancient Mediterraenean got there and the process by which we got here may have very little to do with each other, but I think a common thread may be that society, as a whole, ceased to feel that the high style was worth the effort.

Well, the Renaissance only took about a thousand years to get going, so if I'm right, we've got about a hundred down, only nine hundred to go.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

Magnum Miserium said:


> The process by which the ancient Mediterraenean got there and the process by which we got here may have very little to do with each other, but I think a common thread may be that society, as a whole, ceased to feel that the high style was worth the effort.


Or maybe I can be more precise than that. The 5 1/2 centuries between the end of the Roman republic and the establishment of the Codex Justinianus saw the patriarchal family structure of the Roman elite collapse into the nuclear family - a collective relaxing of discipline and thus somewhat similar to the political revolutions of the last two centuries. So maybe the common thread is a cultural elite that feels society is getting out of control and withdraws into itself.


----------



## Zhdanov

brianvds said:


> why classical music takes a beating is because lots of people see it as stuck up and elitist


and its *their* problem, because in fact there's nothing bad about being elitist but only lots of *honor*.



brianvds said:


> you never see classical lovers arrive at a rock board to enthuse about rock


for same reason as you never see a gourmet dining at fast-food's.


----------



## JAS

Magnum Miserium said:


> Well, the Renaissance only took about a thousand years to get going, so if I'm right, we've got about a hundred down, only nine hundred to go.


Let us hope that it does not also require a wide-spread and highly-effective plague.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

JAS said:


> Let us hope that it does not also require a wide-spread and highly-effective plague.


Well, you know what they say about death and focusing the mind. Seriously, though, Giotto predates the plague anyway.


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> Woodduck, I agree with everything you posted above, and with MM's post also,


I can't say I agree to any extent.

One of the several problems I have with MM's analysis is, I think, that it depends on being able to identify wholly discrete bodies of work from different periods that can then be qualitatively compared: the Romantic v the Modern, for example. Unless of course, there is a proxy comparison: the best of the Romantic v the best of the Modern.

One of the other problems is that it depends on accepting a particular narrative about the evolution/progress/development of art that brings to the fore a crumb-trail of who did what when and why: "And then Beethoven wrote the Eroica because...and then Duchamp exhibited a toilet and what he wanted to achieve by this was...and Emin exhibited her slept-in bed so we could all..."

There are many possible narratives, but I don't think any could reasonably include what I take to be, perhaps, a little hyperbole on WD's part, "With everything gone - the fulfillment of Modernism". There is also the question of 'Whose narrative is right?'

The fact that there was a succession of artists who challenged the artistic orthodoxy of their day (in all periods, not just those pesky 'modernists') should not be overinterpreted. There was no concerted and successful attempt by all artists of a particular period to overthrow all that had gone before, though there were indeed some groups of artists with their various agendas and manifestos. Yet while "The" Surrealists, and "The" Dadaists and "The" Darmstadt School were all busy stealing the limelight, and claiming the right to be prominent in the narrative, others just got on with their work, some of which or may not have been worthy, but which got less attention from the cognoscenti.

Hasn't civilisation been in decline since the supremacy of Athens?


----------



## Chronochromie

MacLeod said:


> The fact that there was a succession of artists who challenged the artistic orthodoxy of their day (in all periods, not just those pesky 'modernists') should not be overinterpreted. There was no concerted and successful attempt by all artists of a particular period to overthrow all that had gone before, though there were indeed some groups of artists with their various agendas and manifestos. Yet while "The" Surrealists, and "The" Dadaists and "The" Darmstadt School were all busy stealing the limelight, and claiming the right to be prominent in the narrative, others just got on with their work, some of which or may not have been worthy, but which got less attention from the cognoscenti.


This. Woodduck's post goes on about "elimination of emotion, tonality, etc." as if everyone marched to the tune (haha...) of early Boulez towards a cliff, when not even Boulez stuck to his brand of total serialism for more than 20 years.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

MacLeod said:


> One of the several problems I have with MM's analysis is, I think, that it depends on being able to identify wholly discrete bodies of work from different periods that can then be qualitatively compared: the Romantic v the Modern, for example. Unless of course, there is a proxy comparison: the best of the Romantic v the best of the Modern.


I mentioned examples of the best - "Stravinsky is great but less than Beethoven or Wagner" - and also examples of what passes for professional craftsmanship ("look at what happens practically every time somebody commissions a representational sculpture" - which would of course take way more work to prove than I care to do to, but I'm still right).



MacLeod said:


> One of the other problems is that it depends on accepting a particular narrative about the evolution/progress/development of art that brings to the fore a crumb-trail of who did what when and why:


No it doesn't. Saying Stravinsky is less great than Beethoven or Wagner doesn't require taking any particular position on where Beethoven and Wagner stand in relation to each other, or to Mozart, Bach, or Palestrina.



MacLeod said:


> The fact that there was a succession of artists who challenged the artistic orthodoxy of their day (in all periods, not just those pesky 'modernists') should not be overinterpreted.


I said that too. ("But I think Romanticism's overt rebellion against existing standards probably isn't the direct cause.")


----------



## Guest

Magnum Miserium said:


> I mentioned examples of the best - "Stravinsky is great but less than Beethoven or Wagner" - and also examples of what passes for professional craftsmanship ("look at what happens practically every time somebody commissions a representational sculpture" - which would of course take way more work to prove than I care to do to, but I'm still right).
> 
> No it doesn't. Saying Stravinsky is less great than Beethoven or Wagner doesn't require taking any particular position on where Beethoven and Wagner stand in relation to each other, or to Mozart, Bach, or Palestrina.
> 
> I said that too. ("But I think Romanticism's overt rebellion against existing standards probably isn't the direct cause.")


Point 1 - You're entitled to your opinion, but you're not 'right'.

Point 2 - My interpretation of what you claimed - and what Woodduck claimed - about Modernists and Romantics as a whole does require it. I was not comparing representatives of periods - a misguided approach IMO.

Point 3 - You said what too? Sorry, I don't understand.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> Woodduck, I agree with everything you posted above, and with MM's post also, to the extent that each of us, individually, holds the reins of esthetic judgment firmly in our own hands. As an absurdly simple example, I note that there is plenty of poetry I love that doesn't rhyme. The question indeed is, Who is to be Master? I vote for me, every time.


Of course rhyme isn't essential to poetry (we share a profound admiration for the "blank verse" of your avatar, Jeffers). It's just one of he resources of the art which one may choose to employ, and to master or not. My point, as I believe you understand, was that Modernism did quite a job of throwing overboard one resource of art after another until it was no longer necessary to master anything to assume the title of "artist." It justified doing so in ways both legitimate and not, and art was simultaneously expanded and shrunk in the process - but mostly shrunk, able to do a vast number of new things but rarely anything reaching the heights attained when art was still building upon itself.

I'm well aware that there are some who'd put Stockhausen on a level with Beethoven. I believe those folks are now over on that other forum, toasting each other and singing in microtonal chorus.


----------



## Strange Magic

The point of my post was that, while I appreciate the various analyses of Where We Are in Art--progressing, retrogressing, immobile--I neither let those analyses affect my choices, nor do I really wish to critique the choices others make. There is ample room--and more--within the vast halls of the New Stasis for everybody and their several enthusiasms.


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> nor do I really wish to critique the choices others make.


Nor do I. But I do wish to 'critique' the 'critiques' that would have us believe that art has been in some kind of terminal decline and that anyone who claims to prefer the modern over the past, must, by implication, have inferior tastes.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

MacLeod said:


> Point 3 - You said what too? Sorry, I don't understand.


I think I misunderstood you here - "The fact that there was a succession of artists who challenged the artistic orthodoxy of their day (in all periods, not just those pesky 'modernists') should not be overinterpreted." - I thought you were accusing me of defending orthodoxy, but on rereading it seems to me that's not what you meant at all, and that what you _did_ mean construes "Modernism" much too narrowly. What I'm talking about applies as much to the Empire State Building as to Duchamp's "Fountain" and as much to Charlie Parker as to Boulez.


----------



## Guest

Magnum Miserium said:


> I think I misunderstood you here - "The fact that there was a succession of artists who challenged the artistic orthodoxy of their day (in all periods, not just those pesky 'modernists') should not be overinterpreted." - I thought you were accusing me of defending orthodoxy, but on rereading it seems to me that's not what you meant at all, and that what you _did_ mean construes "Modernism" much too narrowly. What I'm talking about applies as much to the Empire State Building as to Duchamp's "Fountain" and as much to Charlie Parker as to Boulez.


Weren't you defending _an _orthodoxy (not all)?
What do you think I meant that leads you to conclude I menat Modernism much too narrowly?
Remember I was replying to SM and responding to what I read in both yours and WD's posts - you need to check what he said too.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> The point of my post was that, while I appreciate the various analyses of Where We Are in Art--progressing, retrogressing, immobile--I neither let those analyses affect my choices, nor do I really wish to critique the choices others make. There is ample room--and more--within the vast halls of the New Stasis for everybody and their several enthusiasms.


I don't let analyses affect my artistic choices either, or denigrate anyone merely for liking what those analyses tell me is less-than-great art, plenty of which I enjoy. I do enjoy analyzing these things, though, and I've cogitated about music, right along with listening to it and writing, playing, and singing it, for decades. I trust that those who take exception to my thoughts will voice their own views thoughtfully, as you always do.


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod said:


> Nor do I. But i do wish to 'critique' the 'critiques' that would have us believe that art has been in some kind of terminal decline and that anyone who claims to prefer the modern over the past, must, by implication, have inferior tastes.


Art itself is unlikely to decline terminally, but cultures do decline. To criticize Modernism is not to reject any particular art (not all modern art is Modernist anyway). And taste is that thing for which there's no accounting. I say, "Taste away!"


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> Art itself is unlikely to decline terminally, but cultures do decline.


Agreed. And undoubtedly they do.



Woodduck said:


> To criticize Modernism is not to reject any particular art (not all modern art is Modernist anyway). And taste is that thing for which there's no accounting. I say, "Taste away!"


I'm not sure it's possible to 'criticise' Modernism, is it? It's possible to criticise particular works, and particular artists, and particular manifestos where they exist. But there was no (is no) Modernist manifesto...was there?


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod said:


> I'm not sure it's possible to 'criticise' Modernism, is it? It's possible to criticise particular works, and particular artists, and particular manifestos where they exist. But there was no (is no) Modernist manifesto...was there?


Whew! You're opening a can of boa constrictors with that question! Actually there were lots of Modernist manifestos, and I wouldn't be surprised if more than one of them called itself "The Modernist Manifesto." The basic idea that art had to change in radical ways and sweep away traditional philosophies, practices and forms to reflect, or create, a new society, took various forms in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The different Modernist currents often had little in common except for their acceptance of that underlying assumption, which was more than the usual understanding that the new would be different from, or even superior to, the old. Even the most radical composers of the Romantic era - Berlioz, Liszt and Wagner - continued to revere their predecessors and even to see themselves as their artistic heirs, as did a late Romantic like Mahler. Schoenberg was ambivalent about his own Modernist identity, while Stravinsky reveled in his, and hung out at the proper salons.

If I criticize Modernist assumptions, I'm no less happy to listen to Stravinsky -without, however, mistaking brilliance for profundity.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Whew! You're opening a can of boa constrictors with that question! Actually there were lots of Modernist manifestos, and I wouldn't be surprised if more than one of them called itself "The Modernist Manifesto." The basic idea that art had to change in radical ways and sweep away traditional philosophies, practices and forms to reflect, or create, a new society, took various forms in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The different Modernist currents often had little in common except for their acceptance of that underlying assumption, which was more than the usual understanding that the new would be different from, or even superior to, the old. Even the most radical composers of the Romantic era - Berlioz, Liszt and Wagner - continued to revere their predecessors and even to see themselves as their artistic heirs, as did a late Romantic like Mahler. Schoenberg was ambivalent about his own Modernist identity, while Stravinsky reveled in his, and hung out at the proper salons.
> 
> If I criticize Modernist assumptions, I'm no less happy to listen to Stravinsky -without, however, mistaking brilliance for profundity.


Just in case somebody interprets modern music as simply the product of modernist ideologies, and that "ideologies kill art & individuality," and assumes that modern music is an "ideology," but traditional stick-in-the-mud academic conservatism is not, as if tradition and academia were not an assumed "ideology" as well even though the status quo is usually not formed into a movement:

I'd like to say that music is music, and that "all music was once new."


----------



## millionrainbows

The Bauhaus was specifically designed as a movement and an ideology which promoted modernism. I think it was successful.

I also think that Bartok consciously pursued a modernist vision, and approached musical materials in a distinctly modern way.

In art, you can't argue with real concrete things, like the materials. Forms are not "ideologies," but are new ways of thinking about the same old materials. If you want to call this "new way of thinking" an "ideology," that's like saying Einstein was a "modernist" who overthrew the Newtonian universe.

This sounds suspiciously resistant to the new; it sounds suspiciously like "thinking inside the box" to me.

Who am I talking to? You know who you are!


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> My point, as I believe you understand, was that Modernism did quite a job of throwing overboard one resource of art after another until it was no longer necessary to master anything to assume the title of "artist." It justified doing so in ways both legitimate and not, and art was simultaneously expanded and shrunk in the process - but mostly shrunk, able to do a vast number of new things but rarely anything reaching the heights attained when art was still building upon itself.


If you are equating this with "minimal" art (Rothko, Warhol, abstraction, Stella, Ellsworth Kelly, or in music Steve Reich, John Adams, Glass), or the way John Cage systematically got rid of the Western ego, then you are barking up the wrong tree, and attempting to equate "modernity" with "minimalism" and dilettantes. Theses are all good, valid artists, whom history has already established.



> I'm well aware that there are some who'd put Stockhausen on a level with Beethoven. I believe those folks are now over on that other forum, toasting each other and singing in microtonal chorus.


That's the wrong analogy, there is no more "greatness," no more "masterpieces," or "history." This is the post-modern era, and those old, worn-out paradigms do not apply. Your "lament" about art having shrunk, or expanded into nothingness, is simply nostalgia for something that is dead and gone, and will never return in the same way again. We have it to appreciate, as museums do, but this should not hinder us from creating new art of our times.

There is ONE Beethoven, and he should not be held up to Stockhausen as representing "success" vs. "failure."


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> If you are equating this with "minimal" art (Rothko, Warhol, abstraction, Stella, Ellsworth Kelly, or in music Steve Reich, John Adams, Glass), or the way John Cage systematically got rid of the Western ego, then you are barking up the wrong tree, and attempting to equate "modernity" with "minimalism" and dilettantes. Theses are all good, valid artists, whom history has already established.
> 
> ...there is no more "greatness," no more "masterpieces," or "history." This is the post-modern era, and those old, worn-out paradigms do not apply. Your "lament" about art having shrunk, or expanded into nothingness, is simply nostalgia for something that is dead and gone, and will never return in the same way again. We have it to appreciate, as museums do, but this should not hinder us from creating new art of our times.
> 
> There is ONE Beethoven, and he should not be held up to Stockhausen as representing "success" vs. "failure."


Honestly, I would never have dreamed of putting the names "Beethoven" and Stockausen" in the same sentence. But since others have, why not hold up a few more names? Dufay, Ockeghem, Josquin, Lassus, Victoria, Tallis, Byrd, Dowland, Purcell, Monteverdi, Bach, Handel, Haydn, Mozart, Schubert, Weber, Mendelssohn, Schumann, Berlioz, Wagner... (OOPS! I forgot about Stockhausen's _Licht_ - every bit as great as _Der Ring des Nibelungen_, I remember someone here saying).

I try not to make foolish comparisons. But as long as people insist on doing it, I won't hesitate to comment.

I haven't equated Modernism's rejection of the past with minimalism. I've merely described what happened: the purview of art, the issues and meanings it could concern itself with, shrank as its forms were fragmented, abstracted, or abolished as anachronisms (just as you wish to abolish what you consider "worn out paradigms," good Modernist that you are). This is not a comment on any particular artist. The dilemmas of modern art, as Modernism reached and passed its climax somewhere past mid-century, are well-enough documented.

As for there being "no more greatness or masterpieces" - well that's farther than I would have gone, but thanks for the support.


----------



## Chronochromie

I see no problem in saying that Messiaen and Ligeti are the equals of Beethoven et al. If that gets me called foolish then so be it.


----------



## DaveM

Chronochromie said:


> I see no problem in saying that Messiaen and Ligeti are the equals of Beethoven et al. If that gets me called foolish then so be it.


It would make me wonder what parameters you're using to compare them other than the fact that you really like them all.


----------



## Chronochromie

DaveM said:


> It would make me wonder what parameters you're using to compare them other than the fact that you really like them all.


Pretty much. I just hear mastery in their best compositions that I don't hear in other composers from each of their respective eras, not to the same level.
I wish I could write a thesis on what makes Éclairs sur l'au-dela... or Clocks and Clouds astonishing works of art, but I haven't yet learned to play Chopsticks on the piano.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> Actually there were lots of Modernist manifestos,


Yes, we agree on that - I acknowledged this in post #314.



Woodduck said:


> The basic idea that art had to change in radical ways and sweep away traditional philosophies, practices and forms to reflect, or create, a new society, took various forms in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The different Modernist currents often had little in common except for their acceptance of that underlying assumption, which was more than the usual understanding that the new would be different from, or even superior to, the old.


An underlying idea is not the same as a coherent, conscious movement, with all artists signed up as paying members. It was that which I was rejecting; pointing out that whilst you might be able to identify an individual manifesto, or a 'Modernist', or a specific piece, or even an underlying idea which could be criticised, you can't criticise 'Modernism' as I believe we are taking it to mean. (And just to be clear for other readers, we're not simply talking about 'modern' art, as in 'present day' or 'present day and the last 30/40/50 years'.)



Woodduck said:


> Even the most radical composers of the Romantic era - Berlioz, Liszt and Wagner - continued to revere their predecessors


True. And yet they didn't merely attempt to replicate their predecessors' work. They may not have wanted to completely overthrow the orthodoxy in the same way as some Modernists did, but they were not traditionalists. Besides, that's one narrative. There is another, written by the traditionalists, that says otherwise. My earlier point was that there have always been those whose desire to extend, develop, invent, innovate caused upset with whoever held the prevailing view.



Woodduck said:


> Schoenberg was ambivalent about his own Modernist identity, while Stravinsky reveled in his, and hung out at the proper salons.


So the two often cited as the most iconoclastic (at least from the early 20thC) couldn't be relied upon to cohere and rebel together.



Woodduck said:


> If I criticize Modernist assumptions, I'm no less happy to listen to Stravinsky -without, however, mistaking brilliance for profundity.


I assume that 'profundity' is what you seek if we're talking 'greatness', as opposed to 'brilliance'. I'm not sure I see the comparison between the two (with one worthier than the other) but perhaps that's because I'm not sure what profundity sounds like in musical terms.


----------



## brianvds

DaveM said:


> It would make me wonder what parameters you're using to compare them other than the fact that you really like them all.


That is the only parameter anyone ever uses.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

brianvds said:


> That is the only parameter anyone ever uses.


No I dislike a lot of great music.


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod said:


> *An underlying idea is not the same as a coherent, conscious movement*, with all artists signed up as paying members. It was that which I was rejecting; pointing out that *whilst you might be able to identify an individual manifesto, or a 'Modernist', or a specific piece, or even an underlying idea which could be criticised, you can't criticise 'Modernism' as I believe we are taking it to mean. *(And just to be clear for other readers, we're not simply talking about 'modern' art, as in 'present day' or 'present day and the last 30/40/50 years'.)
> 
> My earlier point was that *there have always been those whose desire to extend, develop, invent, innovate caused upset with whoever held the prevailing view.*
> 
> So the two *[Stravinsky and Schoenberg]* often cited as the most iconoclastic (at least from the early 20thC) *couldn't be relied upon to cohere and rebel together.
> *
> I assume that 'profundity' is what you seek if we're talking 'greatness', as opposed to 'brilliance'. I'm not sure I see the comparison between the two (with one worthier than the other) but perhaps that's because *I'm not sure what profundity sounds like in musical terms.*


I'm afraid I can't tell what your argument with me is.

Why can't I criticize Modernism? Because it isn't a coherent philosophy? Why does it have to be? Across its various manifestations, it does make certain basic assumptions which are very much open to question.

I've made a distinction between innovation as a natural development and the Modernist assumption that the past must be swept away and art purged of its traces ("burn the opera houses"). Do you reject that distinction?

Why should the neoclassicists and the atonalists have to make common cause in order to both manifest Modernist assumptions? Can Modernists not have diversity and disagreements?

Your underlying premise seems to be that anything that isn't an easily perceived and described object with uniform color and sharp edges isn't anything at all. Well, cultural trends aren't like that.

As for my comment on brilliance versus profundity, just take it as an aside. How profound Stravinsky's music is is another whole conversation.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> Why can't I criticize Modernism? Because it isn't a coherent philosophy?


Well, you're perfectly capable of criticising Modernism, but essentially, yes.



Woodduck said:


> Across its various manifestations, it does make certain basic assumptions which are very much open to question.


That's fine - question the assumptions, but let's not aggregate them into 'Modernism', let's link them to the manifestations.



Woodduck said:


> I've made a distinction between innovation as a natural development and the Modernist assumption that the past must be swept away and art purged of its traces ("burn the opera houses").


That's your narrative, from your perspective. From the perspective of those who didn't want their established traditions to be 'naturally developed' (the Church for example) it looks like an attempt to sweep away the past.



Woodduck said:


> Your underlying premise seems to be that anything that isn't an easily perceived and described object with sharp edges isn't anything at all. Well, cultural trends aren't like that.


Of course not. That's exactly my point. The Dada manifesto gives something to get your teeth stuck into. "Modernism" doesn't.



Woodduck said:


> As for my comment on brilliance versus profundity, just take it as an aside. How profound Stravinsky's music is is another whole conversation.


Except that it's the aside that encapsulates your underlying judgement about the comparative merits of this "Modernist" composer versus that "Classical/Romantic" composer.


----------



## Guest

Just to be clear what prompted my taking issue:

*Magnum Miserium: *I locate the original sin in the Decadent/Modernist _reaction_ against Romanticism,

*Woodduck*: I think this is a keen observation [...] Banish personal expression from music. Banish tonality from music. Banish melody and harmony from music. Banish moralism from the novel. Banish plot from the novel. Banish grammar from the novel. Banish narrative from poetry. Banish rhyme from poetry. Banish poetry from poetry. Get narrative out of painting. Get representation out of painting. Get the third dimension out of painting. Get paint out of painting. Hell, get rid of painting.

With everything gone - the fulfillment of Modernism.


----------



## DaveM

In a recent edition of the Los AngelesTimes, there was a presentation of art pieces on display. These were placed in a large room with random 'works' here and there. One was described as 3 pieces of lumber (2x4s?) with one lying on the floor and the others attached such as to represent north-south and east-west. That was it for that 'work'. IMO, that is an example of the worst of modern art and it has creeped into a lot of modern 'music'. The Emporer and his alleged clothes is very much alive.


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod said:


> That's your narrative, from your perspective. From the perspective of those who didn't want their established traditions to be 'naturally developed' (the Church for example) it *looks like* an attempt to sweep away the past.
> 
> The Dada manifesto gives *something to get your teeth stuck into*. "Modernism" doesn't.
> 
> Except that it's the aside that encapsulates *your underlying judgement about the comparative merits of this "Modernist" composer versus that "Classical/Romantic" composer.*


The early 20th century's conscious, zealous, and draconian rejection of age-old and time-honored concepts of art (and not only art), with the consequent fragmentation, abstraction, and outright elimination of art's forms and physical embodiments, had no precedent in the limited artistic "revolutions" of earlier periods, no matter how radical they "looked" to the conservatives of their time. Anything new and different can, to someone, "look like" an attempt to sweep away the past. That doesn't mean that it is. I've already pointed out that major innovators in earlier periods didn't, for the most part, see themselves as doing that. That was Modernism's project.

Dada was absolutely a Modernist movement. What of it? Feel free to sink your own teeth into Dada. I'd rather chew on the larger significance, implications, and consequences of the Modernist stance toward cultural continuity and change.

I haven't discussed the merits of this composer versus that composer. You seem to want me to, so I threw you a crumb. My mistake.


----------



## millionrainbows

I think World War II had a "sweeping" influence on 20th century artists who wished to seek a new paradigm. They had to get out their brooms and "sweep away" all the debris after the devastation of Europe, and Mankind's newly-discovered ability to destroy itself and civilization with the hydrogen bomb. It makes me wonder about the old pre-modern paradigm, and its bombastic (pun intended) tendencies, and the creation of "geniuses" like Wagner, and the elevation of the Human ego to dangerous heights. Modernism, like John Cage's, at least gives us a break from this.

_Open up the window and let the bad air out! _It's starting to smell like a man-cave in here!

Viva modernism, viva Cage!!


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Honestly, I would never have dreamed of putting the names "Beethoven" and Stockausen" in the same sentence.


It seems that you already have, and are playing it for all it's worth. For me, it's ridiculous for much different reasons, which are grounded in a knowledge of the criteria and forms and intents, and goals of the art, not my philistine taste.



> I haven't equated Modernism's rejection of the past with minimalism. (no, not directly-ed.) I've merely described what happened: the purview of art, the issues and meanings it could concern itself with, shrank as its forms were fragmented, abstracted, or abolished as anachronisms…


Those are all fairly negative descriptors. You would have us believe that modern art "destroyed" and "displaced" tradition, and this is simply inaccurate, especially if one discards the convenient generalizations and follows the history of the development of new art.



> As for there being "no more greatness or masterpieces" - well that's farther than I would have gone, but thanks for the support.


That's not to say "greatness" and "masterpieces" are no longer possible as intrinsic qualities; just that these concepts are worn-out "historicisms" which are possible only through the telescope of history, which is dependent on an extensive past…Now is now, and it's necessary to approach modern art with a more open, fresh mind, unencumbered by such notions.

History has quite a bit of weight around these parts.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

millionrainbows said:


> I think World War II had a "sweeping" influence on 20th century artists who wished to seek a new paradigm. They had to get out their brooms and "sweep away" all the debris after the devastation of Europe, and Mankind's newly-discovered ability to destroy itself and civilization with the hydrogen bomb.


Boulez's "Structures 1a," Stockhausen's "Spiel," and Cage's "4'33"" predate the first hydrogen bomb test.



> It makes me wonder about the old pre-modern paradigm, and its bombastic (pun intended) tendencies, and the creation of "geniuses" like Wagner, and the elevation of the Human ego to dangerous heights.


I'm typing this at a rally ostensibly about climate change where 9 out of 10 signs function primarily to tell you how clever and quirky the signmaker is. Trust me, the ego's doing fine.



> Modernism, like John Cage's, at least gives us a break from this.
> 
> _Open up the window and let the bad air out! _It's starting to smell like a man-cave in here!
> 
> Viva modernism, viva Cage!!


Cage is a man.

I'm pretty sure you are too.


----------



## millionrainbows

Magnum Miserium said:


> Boulez's "Structures 1a," Stockhausen's "Spiel," and Cage's "4'33"" predate the first hydrogen bomb test.


…..…but not World War II, and the devastation of Europe. The hydrogen bomb was just the cherry on top. :lol:



> Cage is a man.
> 
> I'm pretty sure you are too.


I was referring to the older definition of 
"Man;" let's hope that we have been able to redefine ourselves in some small ways. BTW, I love you, man...


----------



## Magnum Miserium

millionrainbows said:


> Now is now, and it's necessary to approach modern art with a more open, fresh mind, unencumbered by such notions.


"Now" is Postmodern (if not later), which basically consists of recognizing that the Modern idea of an "open, fresh mind, unencumbered" is a fallacy.



millionrainbows said:


> …..…but not World War II, and the devastation of Europe. The hydrogen bomb was just the cherry on top. :lol:


Yeah well Cubism and atonality predate World War I.


----------



## Guest

Magnum Miserium said:


> "Now" is Postmodern (if not later)


Er, no, it's 'now' - that is, until some wag or wit in the future classifies it as something else and the tag sticks. That means that if million wants to apprach things with an open mind, he can - he doesn't have to be post-modern about it.



Magnum Miserium said:


> Yeah well Cubism and atonality predate World War I.


Well, what's a World War between friends. WW1 had a similar, if not more profound impact (and it came first so can claim prior influence)


----------



## Magnum Miserium

MacLeod said:


> That means that if million wants to apprach things with an open mind, he can - he doesn't have to be post-modern about it.


No, because the Postmodernists are just RIGHT about that: you're the product of your specific history and you can't just will that away.



MacLeod said:


> Well, what's a World War between friends. WW1 had a similar, if not more profound impact (and it came first so can claim prior influence)


Yeah but the point is Modernism came before WW1.


----------



## Guest

Magnum Miserium said:


> No, because the Postmodernists are just RIGHT about that: you're the product of your specific history and you can't just will that away.
> 
> Yeah but the point is Modernism came before WW1.


Of course I'm the product of MY specific history - but I'm actually only a product of the experiences I've had, the values and attitudes I've formed etc etc...I'm not automatically Postmodern because I live in what some have chosen to describe as a Postmodern age. I'm in _my _age, no-one else's.

As for Modernism coming before WW1, I know - at least, that the roots of it go deep before that event.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

MacLeod said:


> I'm not automatically Postmodern because I live in what some have chosen to describe as a Postmodern age.


You pretty much are though. It's not that we have to like being Postmodern - dear God I don't - it's just we don't know how to be anything else.



MacLeod said:


> I'm in _my _age, no-one else's.


I mean, this is obviously wishful thinking here.



MacLeod said:


> As for Modernism coming before WW1, I know - at least, that the roots of it go deep before that event.


Not just the roots. If Picasso's Analytical Cubist paintings of 1910-1912 aren't Modernist, nothing is.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> It seems that you already have, and are playing it for all it's worth. For me, it's ridiculous for much different reasons, which are grounded in a knowledge of the criteria and forms and intents, and goals of the art, not my philistine taste.


Try, for once, simply expressing your own beliefs and tastes, instead of telling me what mine are. Those are for me to tell you, and for you hear, if you choose. I've stated a view of Modernism and its fallacies, and what I believe has occurred in the arts. If you have a different view, just state it plainly. Nobody gives a **** whether you think my "tastes" are "philistine."


----------



## EdwardBast

Magnum Miserium said:


> You pretty much are though. It's not that we have to like being Postmodern - dear God I don't - it's just we don't know how to be anything else.


Is that the royal we? Hope so. I know how to be many other things.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

EdwardBast said:


> Is that the royal we?


No.



> Hope so. I know how to be many other things.


No you don't.


----------



## EdwardBast

Magnum Miserium said:


> No.
> 
> No you don't.


:lol::lol: That gave me a great laugh. (Partly because I pictured Brad Pitt saying it in Twelve Monkeys - it's a direct quote from the script I think - with his eyes looking in opposite directions) Thanks dude! How is it you think you know what it is I know? Because you haven't a frickin' clue. Do you really think people are so poorly centered as to be fundamentally moved by post-packaged cultural trends? Seriously, I invite you to join the living in this thing we call reality.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> I've stated a view of Modernism and its fallacies, and what I believe has occurred in the arts.


I must have missed that. Neither of us, I'm sure, want to either give or receive a lecture on it here, but if I give my view here, perhaps you'll point me to where you stated your view.

There seem to be (at least, but sticking with TC) two views going on here. One is (simplistically) that 'Modernism' is, narrowly, just one of the succession of -isms that emerged at a time of social and political turbulence between, roughly, 1880 and 1930. I know less about modernism in music, but some say that it lagged behind the other arts. I also know less about the sequence of what was happening in the leading cultural centres, but it was not a simultaneous event.

The other is that 'Modernism' is an all-encompassing term that includes Cubism, Surrealism, Fauvism, Vorticism etc and covers a longer period, with older antecedents ("the seeds sown in Romanticism").

The problem with taking either view alone is that the desire for change was, in some -isms, a positive embracing of industrialisation (cars, planes, telephones, speed!) and in others a negative rejection of the establishments (political, social, cultural). For some, the sheer human loss and folly of WW1 was a mere reinforcing of what artists already knew. For others, WW1 was that start, an annihilation of what was loved and a catalyst for a kind of artistic nihilism and despair.

It seems to me that declaring that Modernism was all about "sweeping everything away" (or whatever it was Woodduck said earlier) fails to unpick the mulitiple strands of change, and resistance to change that continue today. Freud, Darwin, the rise of Germany, the crisis in Russia, industrialisation, WW1, imperial aggression and colonialism, mass reproduction of recorded music - these all made contributions to the context for the loss of certainty that was reflected in art; in the same way that the Bomb, Vietnam, civil rights, flower-power, communism, the jet engine, feminism, the computer contributed to the historical legacy and context for the 21st C.

To MM. I may be living, in the UK, as a Windsorian, but that does not make me a monarchist (whether I like it or not). It's a fatuous observation to say that I must 'be' and can only 'think' in the Way that, allegedly, predominates. It's true that I cannot _be _a post-impressionist or a cubist - their time has come and gone and only those who lived at that time could be one - but if I were an artist, I could choose to paint like one, and without any of the knowing irony that typifies the post-modern. What I can't escape is that I am a product of my time, but that 'time', like everyone else's, is personal. We might have much in common - and if one is in one's 60s (or older), one can't 'unknow', for example, the experience of the impact of The Beatles - assuming that one paid attention to it sufficiently to be aware of it first hand. But my parents' experience of that time and mine are significantly different and in any case, whilst I acknowledge the influence of the Fab Four on me and my tastes, and on my cultural awareness, there was much elses besides - Catholicism, divorce, sibling rivalry, grammar school, teaching, fatherhood - that brought me to be who I am today. To suggest that I must be and can't help but be 'post-modern' is simplistic and a misreading of history (or perhaps historicity) - I might even go so far as to say insulting.

* Just be clear, I'm not objecting to post-modernism itself, but to the idea that I have no choice at all about who or what I can be.


----------



## Woodduck

For Macleod, from my earlier posts:

_"The basic idea that art had to change in radical ways and sweep away traditional philosophies, practices and forms to reflect, or create, a new society, took various forms in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The different Modernist currents often had little in common except for their acceptance of that underlying assumption, which was more than the usual understanding that the new would be different from, or even superior to, the old."_

_"Modernism did quite a job of throwing overboard one resource of art after another until it was no longer necessary to master anything to assume the title of 'artist.' It justified doing so in ways both legitimate and not, and art was simultaneously expanded and shrunk in the process - but mostly shrunk, able to do a vast number of new things but rarely anything reaching the heights attained when art was still building upon itself."_

_"Banish personal expression from music. Banish tonality from music. Banish melody and harmony from music. Banish moralism from the novel. Banish plot from the novel. Banish grammar from the novel. Banish narrative from poetry. Banish rhyme from poetry. Banish poetry from poetry. Get narrative out of painting. Get representation out of painting. Get the third dimension out of painting. Get paint out of painting. Hell, get rid of painting."_

All of those things actually happened in the 20th-century, as the content and forms of art fragmented and artists manipulated them in isolation from one another, discovering a vast range of new "effects" but increasingly unable to express the complex human values which art in earlier periods had assumed to be art's high purpose. The results were justified by an unprecedented explosion of "art theory" which purported to explain the otherwise imperceptible profundity and the historical necessity of what artists were doing (to see how esoteric this became, how detached from the felt reality of human life, just read Clement Greenberg on the crucial importance of "flatness" in painting, or the impenetrable gobbledegook of any modern art journal, or the attempts at the verbal description of music by a serial composer such as Milton Babbitt).

Your observation about the diverse strains of modern thought in the early 20th century are valid. But the very diversity and contradictions within what has come to be called "Modernism" - and no one here just made up that designation, it is generally accepted in histories of art as meaning something (go to Wiki if you like) - points to the reason why the ideology of "Modernism" is problematic. When the common value among diverse trends is a hostility to traditional values and a fetishizing of the new and different (or "challenging"), you can surely expect difficult times ahead for art. That's what we got, and as "isms" come and go there are no signs (none I've seen, anyway) of a new Renaissance in classical music.

It's unfortunate that you come online at just the time I should be going to bed, so I may not be at my best in responding to your statements and questions.


----------



## topo morto

Magnum Miserium said:


> "Now" is Postmodern (if not later), which basically consists of recognizing that the Modern idea of an "open, fresh mind, unencumbered" is a fallacy.


Have they given later-than-postmodern a name yet?


----------



## Art Rock

topo morto said:


> Have they given later-than-postmodern a name yet?


Post Mortem? ...........


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> For Macleod, from my earlier posts:


Thank you.



Woodduck said:


> _"The basic idea that art had to change in radical ways and sweep away traditional philosophies, practices and forms to reflect, or create, a new society, took various forms in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. _


Let me stop you there. That art had to change was not 'a basic idea'. It was one among many about what art had to do, including that it had to continue unchanged.



Woodduck said:


> _The different Modernist currents often had little in common except for their acceptance of that underlying assumption, which was more than the usual understanding that the new would be different from, or even superior to, the old."_


We clearly agree on the point that there were many currents; we disagree on whether there was some basic idea or underlying assumption.

I suspect that is all that divides us, except that what flows from that divide is my belief that Modernism was _not _solely a force for destruction, nor could it be said that its most iconoclastic forms led to some kind of total or enduring reductio ad absurdum across all artistic endeavour.

I have no problem at all with the various explorations into what is and isn't art; into what makes a novel or a symphony or a painting; into new art forms that only became possible as a result of new technologies and ongoing cultural influences. Like you I reject many of the forms those explorations took (and still take). What I will not do is characterise the whole as some kind of irreversible _decline_ (as MM does) that has been ongoing for 150 odd years.


----------



## Razumovskymas

Just some general thoughts about this.

-I think the "modernist"- trick to sweep away all artistic tradition to start from scratch so to say was a brilliant trick the first time but I have the impression that it's still being used a lot in contemporary art. That making it a very dull and old-fashioned starting point for art. And at least it gives the impression that it has more to do with a lack of skill or trade.

-Why shouldn't it be relevant to try to do better than for example Beethovens' Appassionata in that very same musical language. Arguments against it sound like: "that would be just trying to emulate Beethoven and wouldn't really be interesting artistically". Well, why don't they try harder. Beethoven surpassed his own Appassionata with his later works so why can't anybody else? Of course it's easier to start from scratch. But that trick has been done before so it has lost a bit of its relevance itself.


----------



## Phil loves classical

EdwardBast said:


> :lol::lol: That gave me a great laugh. (Partly because I pictured Brad Pitt saying it in Twelve Monkeys - it's a direct quote from the script I think - with his eyes looking in opposite directions) Thanks dude! How is it you think you know what it is I know? Because you haven't a frickin' clue. Do you really think people are so poorly centered as to be fundamentally moved by post-packaged cultural trends? Seriously, I invite you to join the living in this thing we call reality.


It also reminds me of Total Recall, where Arnold says to his newer self: "You are not you... you're me!" And the newer self does everything predicted snd planned by the older self. The voice of postmodern. 

Until we can get of this age, we are stuck like MM says, but once we got out, then retoactively the newer age applied to our age. Hope topo is right. Maybe the 2nd Age of Enlightenment... :angel:


----------



## Strange Magic

The Arts today are like a Pointillist painting. Zillions of tiny dots. If you look closely at certain areas, and use your imagination, you can "see" or sometimes even see, coherent patterns. But if you stand back and look, you see the fuzzy, constantly moving "white" screen of an old TV set when the last channel has gone off the air. Meanwhile, we await--some with confidence; others with dread--the Yeatsian Second Coming that will impose by means yet unknown the magnetic field strong enough to provide a widely-recognized focus or set of foci for artistic endeavor. Post-Modernism is the New Stasis; the New Stasis is Post-Modernism.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

Strange Magic said:


> The Arts today are like a Pointillist painting. Zillions of tiny dots. If you look closely at certain areas, and use your imagination, you can "see" or sometimes even see, coherent patterns. But if you stand back and look, you see the fuzzy, constantly moving "white" screen of an old TV set when the last channel has gone off the air. Meanwhile, we await--some with confidence; others with dread--the Yeatsian Second Coming that will impose by means yet unknown the magnetic field strong enough to provide a widely-recognized focus or set of foci for artistic endeavor. Post-Modernism is the New Stasis; the New Stasis is Post-Modernism.


Saying it over and over again after I told you why you're isn't going to make you right.


----------



## Petwhac

This whole issue (the doomedness of classical music) isn't a thing worth worrying about. Composers write what they feel like writing and listeners listen to what they wish. Some listeners may even pay for the pleasure.

What exactly is the problem? In this time of youtube, iTunes, numerous small specialist ensembles, labels, radio and television, if you're having trouble finding something to listen to, you're not looking hard enough. It's all here, now.

Styles, practices, fashions, world-views and even civilisations come and go. There is and has never been any going back, only forward!


----------



## Magnum Miserium

Petwhac said:


> Styles, practices, fashions, world-views and even civilisations come and go. There is and has never been any going back, only forward!


No, because if your civilization is "going" - and you don't get to pick - then somebody else may or may not be going forward, but for you there isn't and never again will be any going forward, only back.

(Unless maybe you're Chinese or Indian, but nobody else gets second chances.)


----------



## Petwhac

Magnum Miserium said:


> No, because if your civilization is "going" - and you don't get to pick - then somebody else may or may not be going forward, but for you there isn't and never again will be any going forward, only back.
> 
> (Unless maybe you're Chinese or Indian, but nobody else gets second chances.)


Maybe I'm dim but I don't understand what you're trying to say. Perhaps you can rephrase it?


----------



## Magnum Miserium

Petwhac said:


> Maybe I'm dim but I don't understand what you're trying to say. Perhaps you can rephrase it?


You say "going forward" like it's a good thing. Which, from a certain point of view, it is, e.g. if you think Greece is better off now, as an ageing German colony where nothing important ever happens, but they have antibiotics and smartphones, than during the Golden Age of Athens. But that point of view is wrong.


----------



## amfortas

Magnum Miserium said:


> You say "going forward" like it's a good thing. Which, from a certain point of view, it is, e.g. if you think Greece is better off now, as an ageing German colony where nothing important ever happens, but they have antibiotics and smartphones, than during the Golden Age of Athens. But that point of view is wrong.


Depending on who I was during that Golden Age of Athens, I might not be so terribly wrong to prefer today.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Petwhac said:


> This whole issue (the doomedness of classical music) isn't a thing worth worrying about. Composers write what they feel like writing and listeners listen to what they wish. Some listeners may even pay for the pleasure.
> 
> What exactly is the problem? In this time of youtube, iTunes, numerous small specialist ensembles, labels, radio and television, if you're having trouble finding something to listen to, you're not looking hard enough. It's all here, now.
> 
> Styles, practices, fashions, world-views and even civilisations come and go. There is and has never been any going back, only forward!


Moving forward, yes always, but usually in a circle.


----------



## amfortas

Phil loves classical said:


> Moving forward, yes always, but usually in a circle.


From the day we arrive on the planet
And blinking, step into the sun . . .


----------



## Phil loves classical

amfortas said:


> Depending on who I was during that Golden Age of Athens, I might not be so terribly wrong to prefer today.


Yes, and depending on who you were, your opinion may or may not count. Likely not.


----------



## Petwhac

Magnum Miserium said:


> You say "going forward" like it's a good thing. Which, from a certain point of view, it is, e.g. if you think Greece is better off now, as an ageing German colony where nothing important ever happens, but they have antibiotics and smartphones, than during the Golden Age of Athens. But that point of view is wrong.


I didn't say it was good or bad. It just is. You can't halt progress whether or not you like it. What are we progressing toward? Your guess is as good as mine but there is *no going back*, that's for sure.


----------



## hpowders

Petwhac said:


> This whole issue (the doomedness of classical music) isn't a thing worth worrying about. Composers write what they feel like writing and listeners listen to what they wish. Some listeners may even pay for the pleasure.
> 
> What exactly is the problem? In this time of youtube, iTunes, numerous small specialist ensembles, labels, radio and television, if you're having trouble finding something to listen to, you're not looking hard enough. It's all here, now.
> 
> Styles, practices, fashions, world-views and even civilisations come and go. *There is and has never been any going back, only* *forward*!


So maybe you can explain the fact that we are all going to die, to me.


----------



## Petwhac

hpowders said:


> So maybe you can explain the fact that we are all going to die, to me.


What's to explain?


----------



## Strange Magic

Magnum Miserium said:


> Saying it over and over again after I told you why you're isn't going to make you right.


You'll just have to try harder to convince me I'm wrong .


----------



## Petwhac

Phil loves classical said:


> Moving forward, yes always, but usually in a circle.


How so? We have never arrived at a point we were once at. There's always something new added.


----------



## JAS

"History never repeats itself, but the Kaleidoscopic combinations of the pictured present often seem to be constructed out of the broken fragments of antique legends" (Mark Twain, _The Gilded Age_, 1874)


----------



## PJaye

If someone wants to have hangups about stylistic intent and what that represents, or be guided by notions of modernism/postmodernism, that's not something that can be imposed on them by society. That's something they choose to indulge in as an individual. Art, invention, transcends time, because it's of the mind and spirit, History is an open book for exploring that. You just need the conviction, work ethic and strength to do so on your own terms.


----------



## hpowders

Petwhac said:


> What's to explain?


The "moving forward" part. For me decomposing into dust after death is not my idea of "moving forward".

When society "moves forward", it's usually with a new group of humans to replace the one's who marched toward oblivion, as we all will do eventually.

It's a weird concept: society moves forward, as we all get replaced.


----------



## Petwhac

hpowders said:


> The "moving forward" part. For me decomposing into dust after death is not my idea of "moving forward".


Well perhaps you've hit upon the singular example of circular motion. The atoms that make us, have been and are continually being recycled. It has been shown that it is a mathematical certainty that some atoms in my body were once in Beethoven-yippee! But also in Ghengis Khan-boo!

So yes, once I wasn't and in the future once again I won't be. Unless you believe in a soul or afterlife (I don't).


----------



## Phil loves classical

Petwhac said:


> How so? We have never arrived at a point we were once at. There's always something new added.


Social cycle theory. There is a case also for social evolutionism.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_cycle_theory


----------



## Petwhac

Phil loves classical said:


> Social cycle theory. There is a case also for social evolutionism.
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_cycle_theory


Even so, there would be many more differences in the details and fabric of society, art or whatever, so it would not be a complete return. And that is the important point.

To bring the discussion back to music..

When a musical style such as neo-classicism borrows from or looks back towards another period, the new music is far from identical to that period.


----------



## hpowders

Petwhac said:


> Well perhaps you've hit upon the singular example of circular motion. The atoms that make us, have been and are continually being recycled. It has been shown that it is a mathematical certainty that some atoms in my body were once in Beethoven-yippee! But also in Ghengis Khan-boo!
> 
> So yes, once I wasn't and in the future once again I won't be. Unless you believe in a soul or afterlife (I don't).


This is the way I think and one of the main reasons that I have no friends. :lol:


----------



## Petwhac

hpowders said:


> This is the way I think and one of the main reasons that I have no friends. :lol:


Well _I_ have friends. Are you sure you haven't any other issues?:lol:


----------



## hpowders

Petwhac said:


> Well _I_ have friends. Are you sure you haven't any other issues?:lol:


Superiority complex. Manic depression. Obsessed with death and dying. Excessive rum cake consumption. No ability to empathize. Fox News 24/7.

Nope! Everything's normal.


----------



## Petwhac

hpowders said:


> Superiority complex. Manic depression. Excessive rum cake consumption. Fox News 24/7.
> 
> Nope! Everything's normal!


On the rum cake issue I may have similar leanings though actually any cake will do!


----------



## hpowders

Petwhac said:


> On the rum cake issue I may have similar leanings though actually any cake will do!


I use pound cake to do reps.


----------



## Bettina

hpowders said:


> Superiority complex. Manic depression. Obsessed with death and dying. *Excessive rum cake consumption*. No ability to empathize. Fox News 24/7.
> 
> Nope! Everything's normal.


When I'm in the mood to get tipsy, I find that it's more efficient to drink the rum straight. Saves calories too!


----------



## amfortas

hpowders said:


> Superiority complex. Manic depression. Obsessed with death and dying. Excessive rum cake consumption. No ability to empathize. *Fox News 24/7*.


Well there's your problem right there . . .


----------



## hpowders

amfortas said:


> Well there's your problem right there . . .


I thought it was the rum.


----------



## hpowders

Bettina said:


> When I'm in the mood to get tipsy, I find that it's more efficient to drink the rum straight. Saves calories too!


I used to enjoy some dark rum over ice. Part of my dark past.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

amfortas said:


> Depending on who I was during that Golden Age of Athens, I might not be so terribly wrong to prefer today.


Which is the same as saying that, depending on who you were, you might be terribly wrong to prefer today.


----------



## Petwhac

It's not a question of right or wrong to prefer today or ancient Athens. There is no choice. We are here and now and whatever delusion we may be under concerning some idyllic past that we have no experience of, we'd best make the most of what we have.
There's no point wanting what we can't have. We can't have another Beethoven, Socrates, Shakespeare or Cezanne. Hell, we can't even have another Stockhausen or Jackson Pollock! They were of their time and their time is gone. We can enjoy what they left behind- or not, as our tastes dictate.

We can, if we choose, immerse ourselves in the past or in the present or in any mixture of the two.

We live in an age of consumerism and information. Such an age has never been. More people are making more kinds of music than ever before. Music consumption today is a smorgasbord so we can just help ourselves to a bit of this and a bit of that.


----------



## amfortas

Magnum Miserium said:


> Which is the same as saying that, depending on who you were, you might be terribly wrong to prefer today.


That may well be true, especially depending on who I _am_--that is, if I couldn't count on my own relatively privileged circumstances, but were assigned the life of a random person presently on this planet.


----------



## JAS

I would not wish to give up modern dentistry, or accept what must have been the constant stench of many populous areas in older times. (I suppose one might get accustomed to that.) But I do think that our general obsession with "clean lines" and "streamlined design," too often used as an excuse for cheaper and easier to manufacture, has stripped us of a beneficial trait of much of what we, as humans, have historically created and valued.


----------



## Guest

Magnum Miserium said:


> Saying it over and over again after I told you why you're isn't going to make you *right*.





Magnum Miserium said:


> You say "going forward" like it's a good thing. Which, from a certain point of view, it is, e.g. if you think Greece is better off now, as an ageing German colony where nothing important ever happens, but they have antibiotics and smartphones, than during the Golden Age of Athens. But that point of view is *wrong*.





Magnum Miserium said:


> Which is the same as saying that, depending on who you were, you might be terribly *wrong *to prefer today.


You seem jolly keen not just to put a different point of view, but to tell those who think differently that they are *wrong*. By all means assert that you are right, but please go no further.



Magnum Miserium said:


> No, because if your civilization is "going" - and you don't get to pick - then somebody else may or may not be going forward, but for you there isn't and never again will be any going forward, only back.


I get this. But you're no more entitled to assert the supremacy of 'your' civilisation than I am mine. In fact, I don't even believe you're entitled to claim such a thing as a 'civilisation' at all. Your life experience is just that, and no more: a life experience. It is of no more significance than mine, or President Trump's, or a 3 week old baby killed in Syria (the latter, had they a voice, might be indignant at any claim that they are 'post-modern'.) The fact that you have chosen to (had the good fortune to) structure your experience with certain cultural attitudes is fine, and I can accept that you might find common cause with others of like mind. But to claim a civilisation for your own is taking things too far.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

MacLeod said:


> You seem jolly keen not just to put a different point of view, but to tell those who think differently that they are *wrong*. By all means assert that you are right, but please go no further.


No.



MacLeod said:


> I get this. But you're no more entitled to assert the supremacy of 'your' civilisation than I am mine.


Who said anything about "entitled"? I get it, though, you're mad you went down before we did. Well, sorry (really), you should've taken down Germany fast when you had the chance.



MacLeod said:


> In fact, I don't even believe you're entitled to claim such a thing as a 'civilisation' at all.


Your civilization is your civilization whether you like it or not. You don't get to claim or not claim.



MacLeod said:


> Your life experience is just that, and no more: a life experience. It is of no more significance than mine, or President Trump's, or a 3 week old baby killed in Syria (the latter, had they a voice, might be indignant at any claim that they are 'post-modern'.)


Yeah well they'd be wrong just like the indignant person in this thread is wrong. Syria isn't magical place that just exists so that you can feel sorry for it - for the part of it that you think is on the right side, that is, of course - it's part of the world like everybody else.


----------



## Petwhac

Magnum Miserium said:


> Your civilization is your civilization whether you like it or not. You don't get to claim or not claim.


'Civilisation' is an umbrella term for many separate things. It's actually a fiction, a concept, a perception. The Greek and Roman 'civilisations' are still with us in aspects such as language. The USA has a Senate, we study and are influenced by the great Classical philosophers thoughts. We talk of Logic, Ethos, Pathos. We have our Spas and our straight roads and our plumbing.
Then there's the Arabs and Indians with their numerals and algebra. And the Chinese with paper and writing.

We live on a rock and ideas and people intermingle. If you want to protect your own particular life from the influence of other peoples and ideas- good luck with that but you will ultimately fail or create a worse environment for yourself in the trying.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

Petwhac said:


> 'Civilisation' is an umbrella term for many separate things. It's actually a fiction, a concept, a perception. The Greek and Roman 'civilisations' are still with us in aspects such as language. The USA has a Senate, we study and are influenced by the great Classical philosophers thoughts. We talk of Logic, Ethos, Pathos. We have our Spas and our straight roads and our plumbing.
> Then there's the Arabs and Indians with their numerals and algebra. And the Chinese with paper and writing.


Wrong. The fiction is the name - the name of the deliberative body of the ancient Roman republic, given to a deliberative body of a modern English settler-state. The fact is that contemporary American neoliberalism is so strong (though maybe not for much longer) that it influences even countries that basically hate it, like France and Germany, and even Japan and China. American neoliberalism isn't Roman. When Americans imagine Rome, they don't imagine Rome, they imagine a place where everybody acts like snootier-than-snooty Anglo-Saxons, complete with stage-English accents. Meanwhile, Italy wasn't trans-substantiated into America just because we pretend to get ideas from Cicero. Italy is still in Italy, and still has its own ways of doing things - albeit partly submerged under American and other foreign ways of doing things, because Italy is weak. Americans on the other hand aren't influenced by the way actual Italians do things, because we don't even know what that is - because Italy is weak. The last actually influential Italian idea was fascism.



Petwhac said:


> We live on a rock


No we don't.



Petwhac said:


> and ideas and people intermingle. If you want to protect your own particular life from the influence of other peoples and ideas- [...]


Everybody wants to do that. If you think you don't, it's because you think your ideas are winning.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

Petwhac said:


> It's not a question of right or wrong to prefer today or ancient Athens. There is no choice. We are here and now and whatever delusion we may be under concerning some idyllic past that we have no experience of, we'd best make the most of what we have.
> There's no point wanting what we can't have. We can't have another Beethoven, Socrates, Shakespeare or Cezanne. Hell, we can't even have another Stockhausen or Jackson Pollock! They were of their time and their time is gone. We can enjoy what they left behind- or not, as our tastes dictate.
> 
> We can, if we choose, immerse ourselves in the past or in the present or in any mixture of the two.
> 
> We live in an age of consumerism and information. Such an age has never been. More people are making more kinds of music than ever before. Music consumption today is a smorgasbord so we can just help ourselves to a bit of this and a bit of that.


Missed this before. "Make the most of what we have" is well and good. The problem is people who confuse that with pretending that what we have is better than it is.


----------



## Reukeboom

Everybody I know who "likes" classical, spends 1% of their time listening to it, if that. People want to be on the record saying that they like it, when actually they appreciate it from a distance whenever they might happen to think about it. Another inaccurate phrase is "I like all kinds of music" when, upon learning that person's tastes, they are really like anybody else; they like a lot of music but also, they don't like a lot of music too. They aren't actually as open-minded as they'd like to think they are, and that's normal. Not all music is good music.


----------



## amfortas

Magnum Miserium said:


> . . . because Italy is weak . . . because Italy is weak.


Absolutely. That's the problem in a nutshell.


----------



## Petwhac

Magnum:
I'm afraid one of us is confused.

If we don't live on a rock albeit with a molten iron core, what do we live on? Chopped liver?

What for you are the defining properties that make a 'civilisation'?

You say everyone wants to protect themselves from the influence of other ideas and peoples? Really? 
I'm talking about influence not being bulldozed into submission.

You say-" the problem is people pretending what we have is better than it is"
I say- you are not the judge of how good things are for anyone but yourself and there is more of a problem if people think what we had was better than it was. It was never as good as they think.


----------



## JAS

Magnum Miserium said:


> Missed this before. "Make the most of what we have" is well and good. The problem is people who confuse that with pretending that what we have is better than it is.


It also presupposes that you have _something_ to begin with, one would hope at least enough to sustain your actual needs. There is, of course, something that resounds as true in the idea that the secret to happiness is to be content with what you have. _Want_ is, from all appearances, unending and insatiable.


----------



## amfortas

JAS said:


> _Want_ is, from all appearances, unending and insatiable.


As anyone with a classical music CD collection can tell you.


----------



## Petwhac

JAS said:


> It also presupposes that you have _something_ to begin with, one would hope at least enough to sustain your actual needs. There is, of course, something that resounds as true in the idea that the secret to happiness is to be content with what you have. _Want_ is, from all appearances, unending and insatiable.


Yes, I believe a certain Brahmin's son worked that out some millennia ago!


----------



## Petwhac

amfortas said:


> As anyone with a classical music CD collection can tell you.


Haha! I tried to like your comment but the little thumb isn't there! (??)


----------



## amfortas

Petwhac said:


> Haha! I tried to like your comment but the little thumb isn't there! (??)


I'm sorry. A reaping accident?


----------



## Petwhac

amfortas said:


> I'm sorry. A reaping accident?


Now it's back! Very strange!


----------



## hpowders

I sent away for one of those gizmos that will freeze dry your food for 25 years, assuming the worst, that classical music is doomed.

Please don't be wrong. I'm not even sure if this dang thing will even work!!


----------



## Guest

Magnum Miserium said:


> Who said anything about "entitled"? I get it, though, you're mad you went down before we did. Well, sorry (really), you should've taken down Germany fast when you had the chance.


Eh? You've lost me. I'm beginning to think that not only we talking about different attitudes to civilisations, we're actually inhabiting different dimensions.



Magnum Miserium said:


> Your civilization is your civilization whether you like it or not. You don't get to claim or not claim.


There are undoubtedly geographical, political and historical facts we all have to face. Yes, I live in the UK. I accept the implications of that as a UK citizen - nationality, particulars of our democracy, the geography of where in the UK I live, the fact that there is a collection of received facts and cultural habits that "belong" to the country and that the UK is part of a wider collection of countries with whom it has a shared history etc etc. I certainly can't escape any of that.

However, what no-one can impose - not even you - is my perception of the life I lead and the collection of experiences I have had and continue to have. This goes for all of us. You are just someone in my story, as I am in yours. In my story, I get to claim whatever I like - though I'm not going to claim contrary to widely accepted facts such as Henry VIII having had 6 wives and the sun never setting on the British Empire. But in my life, blue is exactly the way I see it, and not the same way that you see it. Beethoven's 5th Symphony sounds to me the way it sounds only to me - different from the way you hear it. In my story, there is no god, though there is a debate about the existence of God. In my story, there were historians who, for reasons of convenience, and almost certainly political bias, wrote stories about the Most Important People Who Lived Long Ago which had chapters such as 'Classical Greece' and 'The Loss of the Thirteen Colonies' and 'The Rise of Bolshevism'. In many of their stories, they ignored the fact that the millions of residents of Greece, 18th C USA and Russia enjoyed widely differing lifetime experiences but just lumped them altogether as if they all had exactly the same one. So, "The British" colonised and civilised parts of North America, Canada, India, Africa - even though no real meaning can be attached to the term "The British" except a crude political one. Even today, historians write about what "The British" have done in Iraq over the past 25-odd years, despite the fact that "The British" who did anything in Iraq was actually a very small number compared to the number of UK passport holders. In my story, I am able to reject what was done by the British government on behalf of me, though, I can't deny that our PM and our Parliament will assert that they took their decisions on my behalf, whether I wanted them to or not.

Fortunately, I can continue to enjoy my life and tell my story the way I want it, because there are many "facts" about the civilisations that have come and gone which have no meaningful bearing on my existence. This includes the Darmstadt School, the Minimalists, the Spectralists etc etc who, in my story, play bit parts in my perception of my life, not a defining role. None of them, nor their forbears, nor those who, like the historians, came up with convenient labels for things they thought were important ("Romanticism", "Post-Impressionism" etc) do anything more than add colour or shade to my life as I choose to experience it.



Magnum Miserium said:


> Syria isn't magical place that just exists so that you can feel sorry for it - for the part of it that you think is on the right side, that is, of course - it's part of the world like everybody else.


As I said above, we're inhabiting different dimensions. It's certain that you will tell me I'm wrong and so almost certain that trying to continue my story with you in it is fruitless.


----------



## JAS

Petwhac said:


> Yes, I believe a certain Brahmin's son worked that out some millennia ago!


Well, there goes my patent claim.


----------



## NishmatHaChalil

Magnum Miserium said:


> I do think the quality of art has declined, both at the top (Stravinsky is great but less than Beethoven or Wagner) and at level of mere craftsmanship (look at what happens practically every time somebody commissions a representational sculpture). But I think Romanticism's overt rebellion against existing standards probably isn't the direct cause. Instead I locate the original sin in the Decadent/Modernist _reaction_ against Romanticism, when the question of artistic quality (necessarily generalizing here) changes from a question of what art _is_ to a question of what art _isn't_ - i.e. a question of _avoiding bad taste_ (which attained what would be a reductio ad absurdum in minimalism except connoisseurs don't think it's absurd).


Hello, MM! (I don't know if you want your name to be known, so I'm using your moniker) For clarification, I'm Fernando, the same poster as Vox Victoriae. Considering I hardly participated here before, I'm changing to this account, since I find the language play in this username less corny (though it probably is corny anyway) and more personal, since I'm a flutist, but I cannot sing. [If any mods are reading this, I'm not keeping the two accounts simultaneously. With my current privileges, I don't even know what I can do about the other one, but any help would be welcome :tiphat:].

Anyway, I'm sorry for not contacting you before. I have been really eager to talk with you, but I'm currently overworked and under a lot of family pressure and, like probably transpired, I feel a great deal of social anxiety, and I'm not very good at making new friends. You know much more than me about music, and I'm hardly ever finding the time to play or listen to music these past months, so I was afraid I would not be able to contribute. I know you would probably mind less my lack of ideas than my lack of response, though, and I hope you will take my apologies. Are you in IMDB V.02? I posted there for some time, but, since you did not seem to be on their new CM forum, I decided to become inactive for now. My political posts there were probably fruitless anyway. I would probably have more to gain, politically as well, in talking with you than in arguing against neocons whom I'm unlikely to change.

Once I became aware that you had become active here, I have been trying to find some time to participate, and I have been thinking on how I could find a middle term, in order to neither become inactive for weeks or months nor affect my academic results. I am probably not going to be able to present new ideas about music frequently for now, and it may take some time for me to adequately process your thoughts, but, if you are still interested, I'm thinking of opening a personal thread to chat about new ideas on art and art history. I'm probably going to be able to talk more about Literature at the moment, since it's my main interest and I'm always thinking about it, while music is more of a pastime, even though a special one. This way, however, I would also be able to keep posting in a more unpretending manner on music as well, and I could give you shorter responses. When I'm less overworked, I could then add to them and give you more detailed thoughts and impressions. Would you be interested in participating? If so, would you prefer it to be here in the Community Forum or in IMDB V.02? Either way is fine by me, and I'm not sure there would be anyone else interested in either board. The only one I can think about in IMDB is Eva, but I'm probably going to write him later this week, and I could call him here if he's interested. Also, I believe I should mention that Manfried, Aulic and Alma Wynemiller posted in Moviechat. Manfried contacted me, and they want to know where the other members have decided to participate. Perhaps Manfried would be interested in literature as well, since he studied Classics at university. I don't know if he contacted you, but, if you are interested, I have his email. Either way, in terms of activity and general quality of content, I believe talkclassical is superior, but IMDB may have its advantages. Either way, let me know if you are interested 

Regarding my thoughts on Byron, I have summarized them, and all that is left is for me to write them down in English. Since there is a lot, I may feel more comfortable in posting them one at a time, rather than all at once, but, even if in this manner, I should be able to do so in the recent future. God, there were a lot of embarrassing annotations, but I think I have been able to select the most interesting points. You are probably going to like some links I traced or conjectured. There are others which would be closer to your interests, but the one which left me the most startled was his influence over a major piece by Leopardi, and I'm completely sure about it. Leopardi's chief poem, La ginestra, is modeled on Darkness! This should be better known. Many consider La ginestra the best Italian poem of the 19th century, very important for their national identity, and its depiction of nature went on to influence the worldviews of both Schopenhauer and Nietzsche. Leopardi gave the poem a very special flavor and rich allusive enrichments, linking it to Italian history and his personal philosophy in many different levels. He presented Italian civilization and, by extension, humanity, as small ants waiting to be crushed by the passive and unresponsive power of nature, represented by Mount Vesuvius. However, that view of nature was actually first presented, with exceptional originality and concise, ironical elegance, by Byron himself. As much as I hate to admit it, his version is probably superior, and certainly more original. Thanks to this discovery, Darkness is now my favorite short poem by Byron, and, to be honest, I'm starting to find the extent of his influence over European literature scary. Even on English poetry, however, I find him much more influent than he's usually credited to be. I'm going to post another day a comparison of both poems and some additional thoughts on them, once I create my Literature thread.

Thank you very much, as well, for showing interest in my writing before! I'm not good in English composition, but I would love to attempt translating some passages of that poem for you in the future, as well as some of my shorter poems. That is, if you are still interested. Even to my limited abilities, I will probably be unable to translate anything in the coming months, but once this phase of my life is over, I would love to try doing so. I don't know if my command of English is ever going to improve enough to permit me to produce adequate translations of my works and of our classics, but, given our underrepresentation in English, I'm willing to keep on practicing and try my best. I will probably be able to improve meaningly in the next ten years or so. While I'm unable to work on translations, however, we could keep chatting about literature and other topics =] And, of course, as far as short works are concerned, I could always provide literal rendings. I usually find their poetic effect unimpressive, but they are sometimes useful for providing a more accurate idea of the meaning, even though generally missing several tropes dependent on sound and structure and, in this, eventually misrepresenting the message as well.


----------



## NishmatHaChalil

Sorry for the length. I had been thinking on these themes for quite some time, but you don't need to respond to my thoughts here. After we move the discussion elsewhere, you can just present your general impressions which stood out the most to you once you have the time and want to approach the topic.



Magnum Miserium said:


> I do think the quality of art has declined, both at the top (Stravinsky is great but less than Beethoven or Wagner) and at level of mere craftsmanship (look at what happens practically every time somebody commissions a representational sculpture). But I think Romanticism's overt rebellion against existing standards probably isn't the direct cause. Instead I locate the original sin in the Decadent/Modernist _reaction_ against Romanticism, when the question of artistic quality (necessarily generalizing here) changes from a question of what art _is_ to a question of what art _isn't_ - i.e. a question of _avoiding bad taste_ (which attained what would be a reductio ad absurdum in minimalism except connoisseurs don't think it's absurd).


This topic is of great importance to me as a writer. I find your views on it very interesting, and, in general, I tend to agree with them. In the colored text, you probably hit at a point I have been attempting to formulate for quite some time, but I was not able to. If any artistic movement was partially at fault for the gradual descent of Western art's quality, I too believe the fault would probably be with Decadence and its descendants rather than with Romanticism. I think the underlying social causes are more important, though, and I think your explanation is very likely. Collectively, artists in our society probably either do not think it's worth the effort to produce high art anymore, at least, they generally are not able to. I have been thinking for quite some time about what makes a society see high art as valuable and be able to produce it, and what tends to cause Golden ages in cultural production. I think one possible answer may be a rising literate class, supported by a lot of investment in new ideas and intellectual pursuit, the need for cultural justification and the space for this class to affirm itself and escape censure.

I think you are right that the possibility we are past our peak is probably one of the reasons why our art is in decline. I'm not sure that is directly related to the conscience that we are going to be conquered, but that may be so. I do think, however, that the need for cultural justification has declined, as well as the greatest movements of our civilizations towards the establishment of new social structures. Perhaps new movements are yet to come, though. Another moral variable which may still be influent over our cultural decline may be the fact that the belief in revolution may have been undermined during the decadent period. It's another reason I believe they may have been partially at fault for our present state. Another important factor is the fact that our current society gives very little value to art. In capitalist society, literature is underrepresented in curricula, while economical liberalism and neoliberalism are more representative of the values most expressed in education. Meanwhile, in previous socialist governments, free thought was harshly censured and purged. In both fronts, artists as a class found inhospitable conditions.

Coming back to we being past our peak, but now considering strictly our artistic peak, I liked your analogy to diminishing returns. It's easier for a great artist to emerge under the influence of another great artist. It's probably easier for a great artist to be surpassed in the next few generations as well. At the highest level, however, it's more likely for him not to be surpassed, and, the longest the time passed since his works have been published, the weakest tends to be their impact in the quality of new works. No one since early Romanticism has probably surpassed Beethoven (at least according to my personal views), and I don't know whether even Beethoven was as great as Mozart, though he probably has the strongest claim.



Magnum Miserium said:


> Thank you for the kind words. I'm basically footnoting Camille Paglia's theory of Decadent art: https://books.google.com/books?id=8Fx2yBkLIqoC&pg=PA389


You recommended some chapters of the book in the past year, and I have been growing quite fond of it. Thanks! I was initially put off by the excessive use of theoretical jargon in her writing and by her right-wing affiliations. She probably inherited both her conservative trends and her passion for Freud, Frye and hermetic sources from Bloom, but in a far greater intensity. Fortunately, I'm also coming to the realization that she also inherited his sensibility for the qualities of Romantic literature and its influences. Furthermore, since she has a more cultural and social focus, while Bloom generally emphasizes the individual struggle against influence, her work does not feel derivative to me, and she's usually at her best when treating authors relatively neglected by Bloom. Despite embarrassing decisions in style and awkward generalizations, some of her insights on Spenser, Coleridge, Byron are among the best I have read, and I also found many of her thoughts on Shelley, Keats and many others extremely interesting. Just one more reminder of how I should not always judge a book by its cover =] I should probably move on to the chapters on the decadents once I have the time.



Magnum Miserium said:


> There may be an analog in the transition from ancient to medieval Mediterraenean art - or perhaps simply the decline of ancient Mediterraenean art - conventionally dated from the arch of Constantine (315 CE), though we have slightly earlier examples of the style, for example the portrait of the four tetrarchs (c. 300 CE), which is to say the new style definitely _precedes_ the official toleration of Christianity.
> 
> The process by which the ancient Mediterraenean got there and the process by which we got here may have very little to do with each other, but I think a common thread may be that society, as a whole, ceased to feel that the high style was worth the effort.
> 
> Well, the Renaissance only took about a thousand years to get going, so if I'm right, we've got about a hundred down, only nine hundred to go.


You posted a similar view in IMDB before, and I have been thinking a lot since then about Roman literature developed, how it fell and how it relates to our time. Thinking about it, the Golden Age of Latin writing was not even a product of the empire, but rather of the Roman Republic. When power was being consolidated in the hands of Caesar and, later, of Octavius, the development of Latin literature was already well under its way. In this sense, Roman literature started to flourish during the Punic wars, when Rome was establishing itself as a world power, and its greatest moment was rather during the rise to the top rather than at the top itself. I think the same is true of Russia and of the US, both of which had their strongest literary period during the 19th century, before their conquest of Europe. Like Rome, both states were also large empires conquering a region of older nations to whom they were culturally indebted and who, in their own traditions, were often depicted both as more sophisticated and, at the same time, weaker and less effective in establishing rule. This similarity may be one of the reasons, but the fact that they rose during the Romantic age may also have been another important factor.

After the Golden Age, there was the Silver Age, which may or may not have been better than the age of Ennius, when Latin style was consolidated. Most Ancient commentary I have read tends to the view that it was, but when almost nothing has survived, it's difficult to tell. I don't think they have ever produced any writer of the caliber of Plautus, though, even though I love Martial and greatly enjoy many others. Some Historians believe the lack of state support and the harsh censure of new authors were important causes for this decline. Later Roman literature is generally considered less interesting than Latin Christian literature or late Roman Greek works, including Marcus Aurelius and Lucian. The most gifted Christian writer from the period was probably Augustine, who I think may bear comparison to Cicero and Caesar. His style is beautiful, and Confessions and City of God are among the greatest original productions of Latin tradition. The former is probably aesthetically superior, probably even better than Dante's Vita Nuova, which was heavily influenced by it; I don't think anyone was able to surpass him in the confessionary model except for Dante, who reimagined the genre in the Comedy. City of God, however, was probably the greatest reaction in surviving literature to the fall of Rome. It was essential for the development of the idea of an universal Christian culture that is unaffected by disunion and changes in state, which was to characterize the history of Medieval Europe. The Middle Ages had some high points, but I agree they tend to pale when compared to Dante and, although constituting a significant corpus when taken together, they struggle to compare to the variety of great works available from the Renaissance until the early 20th century.

I believe the Golden Age of American and Russian literature probably extends to the beginning of the 20th century, with the deaths of Henry James and Tolstoy, while the Silver Age probably extends to the 60's or 70's. The former was similar in length to Rome's, but, if I'm right in identifying postmodernism as post-Silver age, the later was shorter. I don't know why.



Magnum Miserium said:


> Or maybe I can be more precise than that. The 5 1/2 centuries between the end of the Roman republic and the establishment of the Codex Justinianus saw the patriarchal family structure of the Roman elite collapse into the nuclear family - a collective relaxing of discipline and thus somewhat similar to the political revolutions of the last two centuries. So maybe the common thread is a cultural elite that feels society is getting out of control and withdraws into itself.


Interesting! I had never taken into account the influence of the shift in the social structure of the Roman family over the quality of later Roman literature. I think it was quite possibly an important factor, and I like your analogy to our era. Perhaps the pace of our revolutions may also explain in part why our "Silver Age", if we can call it that, was that short. Though, of course, talking about Golden and Silver Ages regarding Modern Europe is problematic, considering its tradition actually started to peak in the Renaissance, while different nations had different peaks and different revivals. England, for instance, starting with Chaucer, had at least one literary revival per century until at least Byron. That model applies well to the US, to Russia, to Germany, perhaps to France and, interestingly, even to Brazil. England, however, is entirely different, just like Spain, Portugal and Italy. I wonder, however, if the breach between the cultural elite and the suppressive revolutionary classes may not also have influenced art's demoralization. We have discussed before how the failure of The Spring of the Peoples may have led to the apolitical aestheticism of Gautier and the decadents, and I believe the social changes in the USSR, in Fascist Europe and McCarthyist US during the 20th century may also have played a role in motivating Postmodernism to assume an even more cynical stance than Modernism and Decadence. The 20th century was a good age for purging artists, and, I think, this must probably have taken its toll in the history of our art. If I'm right, it would be a similar development to the governmental persecution of artists in the Roman Empire that contributed to the inhibition of the Silver Age and its eventual demise. Regarding feelings of social impotence in art, even now, after the US finally became hegemonic and persecution of most artists diminished in Western countries, the victory of neoliberalism also tends to enforce an image of status quo. I would be curious to know your views on it!

As a writer, I'm also interested in finding interesting ways of bringing us from postmodernism into something new. I actually like a lot of postmodern art, but I believe the movement is already too old, and I'm frustrated by the fact we can't get past it, not because we don't want to, but rather, like you wrote in a recent post here, because we are not able to. I'm also interested in how one could do that in music, the visual arts and film, but I'm much less likely to contribute to any of them directly. Sometimes thinkers and critics influence artists, though, and I believe the critical debate of art's future may eventually provide interesting ideas for creators. Goethe would probably be very different without Herder, after all, just as Whitman would be very different without Emerson. I'm not entirely sure on how we could start another era, but I have been developing some ideas during my late teens, and they are now starting to take shape. I could explain some of them, and, in the future, I could also try to translate some of the verses I have been writing in order to give an idea of what I have already been able to arrive at. Of course, though, since I'm still 21, my style is still probably raw, and it's likely to suffer significant changes during my twenties, and probably also later in life. I don't think I have already reached my first mature period, but, although my estimations may be wrong, I think I will be able to do so in the near future. I actually think I would have been able to do so already were I not so busy and under so much pressure, but such is life. Both Hugo and Goethe, who are among my greatest heroes, arrived at their first adequate pieces when they were about 20, but their style was greatly improved throughout their lives. I intend to model my writing career on theirs, and I would like to be able to explore new fields of expression as I age, rather than abandon literature or innovation after my youth. Of course, I may never be able to attain an adequate degree of success, much less the same degree of success that they attained, but I intend to try my best to be the better writer I can be. The only problem is that my busy routine and the pressure from my family are great obstacles, and it's hard to be ambitious in several fields at the same time while simultaneously responding to the expectations of others. I hope I don't suffer a stroke like Hugo did  ugh. Once I'm independent, though, perhaps I'm going to have an easier time in adapting my lifestyle to my aspirations. I'm probably going to try to manage my stress, identify its underlying causes in my style of organization and start optimizing my routine next semester.

Anyway, I can talk in further detail about my ideas later, but, at a basic level, I think your view in the first quote is right. I think that, if we are to go beyond Postmodernism, then we must abandon the idea that it's the end of art history, and take it as contextual and specific response to a very specific time. I believe we should start thinking more of what art should represent for our generation, like in Romanticism, in the Enlightenment and in the Renaissance, rather than on what it should not do. Of course, rejecting previous traits is unavoidable for new movements, but I think this should be secondary to the ideas embraced and employed. Now, what could be the ideas of our generation? I have a lot to talk about my thoughts on the matter and on how, based on them, I intend my writing to sound like, but I'm leaving it for another day. Since most references I'm using are literary, it's probably going to stray from the topic, but we could continue talking about it in the Community Forum, if you want to [I apologize to the mods, and I'm stopping here]. I may come the thread another time to give some personal impressions on how I think all of this relates to music as well, but I don't know if i'm going to have the time. If you would be interested in continuing the conversation, let me know, and I will start the other thread!


----------



## Magnum Miserium

NishmatHaChalil said:


> Since most references I'm using are literary, it's probably going to stray from the topic, but we could continue talking about it in the Community Forum, if you want to [I apologize to the mods, and I'm stopping here]. I may come the thread another time to give some personal impressions on how I think all of this relates to music as well, but I don't know if i'm going to have the time. If you would be interested in continuing the conversation, let me know, and I will start the other thread!


Moving this conversation to the Community Forum seems like a good idea, so I took the liberty of posting my reply to the above posts there, under the thread title "Classical music (art) is doomed, annex." That thread won't appear until the moderators approve it, though, so in the meantime I'll post my reply here too. Assuming my thread in the Community Forum gets posted fairly soon, I'll edit this post so that it contains only this preliminary note, and a link to the Community Forum thread.

Edit - and here we are: http://www.talkclassical.com/48888-classical-music-art-doomed.html


----------



## Razumovskymas

I think there should be some special reward for "longest post" on T.C.


----------



## Strange Magic

I think the two chief correspondents need a good dose of Ortega Y Gasset, _The Revolt of the Masses_, and my old pal Leonard Meyer's _Music, the Arts, and Ideas_, though we already know what MM thinks of Meyer. Add to that the YouTube/Spotify/Facebook revolutions and every other kind of instantaneous Internet and other sort of communication, and you get: Plenty to Talk and Argue About!


----------



## Magnum Miserium

[duplicate 15151515]


----------



## Magnum Miserium

Strange Magic said:


> I think the two chief correspondents need a good dose of Ortega Y Gasset, _The Revolt of the Masses_, and my old pal Leonard Meyer's _Music, the Arts, and Ideas_, though we already know what MM thinks of Meyer.


No you should read these

https://www.google.com/search?&hl=e...ved=0ahUKEwjQ-svWy9TTAhVjwYMKHR7YAukQmBYIIDAA

https://www.google.com/search?&hl=e...ved=0ahUKEwjLreSHzNTTAhUO0IMKHailAKIQmBYIIDAA



Strange Magic said:


> Add to that the YouTube/Spotify/Facebook revolutions


Those aren't revolutions


----------



## Petwhac

Magnum Miserium said:


> https://www.google.com/search?&hl=e...ved=0ahUKEwjQ-svWy9TTAhVjwYMKHR7YAukQmBYIIDAA
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?&hl=e...ved=0ahUKEwjLreSHzNTTAhUO0IMKHailAKIQmBYIIDAA


I clicked the first link and saw the words "return to morality and even the teachings of religion"

'Nuff said!


----------



## Magnum Miserium

Petwhac said:


> I clicked the first link and saw the words "return to morality and even the teachings of religion"
> 
> 'Nuff said!


Whoa dude, you mean you think religion is, like, not good? That's radical, man.

Also, that's not what the book is about. The alternate blurb under the third link is closer: "Argues that global mobility and a refusal to identify with one nation have caused America's professional and managerial elites to betray the ideal of democracy"


----------



## Petwhac

Magnum Miserium said:


> Whoa dude, you mean you think religion is, like, not good? That's radical, man.
> 
> Also, that's not what the book is about. The alternate blurb under the third link is closer: "Argues that global mobility and a refusal to identify with one nation have caused America's professional and managerial elites to betray the ideal of democracy"


Advocating a "return to morality" is just as worrisome a phrase.......dude!

Would you care to offer a date before which the democratic ideal hadn't been betrayed nor had 'morality' been departed from. The nearest decade will do.

Cheers

PS, which third link?


----------



## Magnum Miserium

Petwhac said:


> Advocating a "return to morality" is just as worrisome a phrase.......dude!
> 
> Would you care to offer a date before which the democratic ideal hadn't been betrayed [...]


October 1979

You're welcome



Petwhac said:


> nor had 'morality' been departed from.


It's not that the elite "departed" from morality, it's that the people weren't strong enough to make them behave any more


----------



## Magnum Miserium

Petwhac said:


> PS, which third link?


The third link (scrolling down) on the page you said you looked at


----------



## DeepR

Well, there's the expanding sphere of radio signals from earth... so even if mankind is doomed, classical music doesn't have to be.... 

I want to believe. 

(Sadly, I've been informed recently that those signals become too weak to be detected after a few light years, so it's kind of a myth)


----------



## Petwhac

Magnum Miserium said:


> October 1979
> 
> You're welcome
> 
> It's not that the elite "departed" from morality, it's that the people weren't strong enough to make them behave any more


What happened in October 1979 that was a betrayal of the democratic ideal?

On the morality issue. Is there a universally accepted moral code? Who misbehaved?


----------



## Petwhac

Magnum Miserium said:


> The third link (scrolling down) on the page you said you looked at


Was referring to the two links you posted in #419.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

Petwhac said:


> What happened in October 1979 that was a betrayal of the democratic ideal?


https://books.google.com/books?id=McEYDQAAQBAJ&pg=PT34



> On the morality issue. Is there a universally accepted moral code?


Yeah mine



> Who misbehaved?


Rich people


----------



## Dan Ante

Razumovskymas said:


> I think there should be some special reward for "longest post" on T.C.


Don't be too hard on them it is an addiction "Fontaholicism"


----------



## Petwhac

Magnum Miserium said:


> https://books.google.com/books?id=McEYDQAAQBAJ&pg=PT34
> 
> Yeah mine
> 
> Rich people


That's going to take some reading! Whether or not it is a fair analysis I wouldn't be able to judge.

Your morality? That figures. Join the club!

Rich people have always misbehaved.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

Petwhac said:


> Was referring to the two links you posted in #419.


Yes, which take you to search results on Google Books, the third of which, on the page that you reach via the first link, contains the blurb in question.

For goodness sake, if you just looked at the page you already opened for five seconds you'd already have seen it.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

Petwhac said:


> That's going to take some reading! Whether or not it is a fair analysis I wouldn't be able to judge.


I didn't read the analysis and probably don't agree with it. I linked you to that page because it gives a short summary (one paragraph) of what happened.



Petwhac said:


> Rich people have always misbehaved.


We already did this:



Magnum Miserium said:


> It's not that the elite "departed" from morality, it's that the people weren't strong enough to make them behave any more


----------



## Petwhac

MM: The article you say you probably disagree with is supposed to support your claim that Oct '79 was a turning point or watershed moment since which the democratic ideal has been betrayed. 
So if we returned to the financial or fiscal arrangements of pre- 79 democracy and morals will return?

How does any of this relate to art, music or civilisation?


----------



## Strange Magic

Nutshells. During a long thread on Leonard Meyer and his thesis that we are embedded within the New Stasis, I produced an "in a nutshell" synopsis of Meyer's notion. Don't ask me to find it again, not quickly anyway. Similarly, during the endless thread on Herbert Paul's doctoral dissertation about the disconnect between music history texts and what people were listening to, I likewise prepared a nutshell précis. It would be appreciated if MM, if he has a thesis or a point or an argument that he wants to make, gave us a brief summary of said thesis. Up to him.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

Petwhac said:


> MM: The article you say you probably disagree with is supposed to support your claim that Oct '79 was a turning point or watershed moment since which the democratic ideal has been betrayed.
> So if we returned to the financial or fiscal arrangements of pre- 79 democracy and morals will return?
> 
> How does any of this relate to art, music or civilisation?


Read the book, Petwhac


----------



## Chronochromie

Strange Magic said:


> Similarly, during the endless thread on Herbert Paul's doctoral dissertation about the disconnect between music history texts and what people were listening to, I likewise prepared a nutshell précis.


Strange, I don't remember that.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

Strange Magic said:


> Nutshells. During a long thread on Leonard Meyer and his thesis that we are embedded within the New Stasis, I produced an "in a nutshell" synopsis of Meyer's notion. Don't ask me to find it again, not quickly anyway. Similarly, during the endless thread on Herbert Paul's doctoral dissertation about the disconnect between music history texts and what people were listening to, I likewise prepared a nutshell précis. It would be appreciated if MM, if he has a thesis or a point or an argument that he wants to make, gave us a brief summary of said thesis. Up to him.


I don't entirely agree with Lasch's thesis (but since you're into Ortega, here are passages that should be of particular interest to you: https://books.google.com/books?id=RKuYjUeiCWgC&pg=PA27; https://books.google.com/books?id=8xOvkh5PwU0C&pg=PA41).

I don't agree at all with the thesis of my other recommendation (of course even most people who do agree with him don't admit they do).

_My _thesis, for the purposes of _this_ conversation, is that you should read more books.


----------



## Petwhac

"Read the book" is not an answer. It is a way of avoiding taking ownership of your own view. If you have your own view.
If you believe Western civilisation in general and classical music in particular is doomed, you haven't given a clear explanation why. 

Even if it was doomed, which it isn't, what steps do you believe could or should be taken to preserve it?


----------



## Magnum Miserium

Petwhac said:


> "Read the book" is not an answer. It is a way of avoiding taking ownership of your own view. If you have your own view.


My own view is if you're going to ask loaded questions about a book's thesis, read the book.



Petwhac said:


> If you believe Western civilisation in general and classical music in particular is doomed [...]


I never said that. (I did say that only China and India have come back from a major collapse - more precisely, China around Chang'an, India around Patna. In the "west," the blessing of the gods keeps moving around: Egypt to Assyria, to Persia, to Greece, to Rome, to Arabia, to just about everywhere in western & central Europe except Rome - yeah, Renaissance Italy had culture and money, but not power - with England eventually coming out on top, to America, and America's looking kind of shabby these days. Who knows, maybe Brazil or Mexico is next. Or maybe there won't be any more next.)



Petwhac said:


> Even if it was doomed, which it isn't


You don't know that. ("You don't know it is." Never said I did.)



Petwhac said:


> what steps do you believe could or should be taken to preserve it?


If something is doomed, then by definition there's nothing you can do to preserve it. Read "Oedipus."


----------



## Petwhac

Oedipus is fiction! 
Superciliousness is not an endearing quality.
You prefer to sidestep than to answer plainly and simply. Excuse me but I have some drying paint to watch.


----------



## Strange Magic

Chronochromie said:


> Strange, I don't remember that.


If you visit April 27, 2016 in this Classical Music Discussion area, you will find the 27-page thread, now closed, that discussed in exhausting detail the Paul dissertation. I submitted a nutshell in the first post in the thread, and offered one or maybe two other very brief summaries deeper into the thread. The thread is titled _An Interesting and Useful Treatise on Twentieth Century Music._


----------



## Strange Magic

Magnum Miserium said:


> I don't entirely agree with Lasch's thesis (but since you're into Ortega, here are passages that should be of particular interest to you: https://books.google.com/books?id=RKuYjUeiCWgC&pg=PA27; https://books.google.com/books?id=8xOvkh5PwU0C&pg=PA41).
> 
> I don't agree at all with the thesis of my other recommendation (of course even most people who do agree with him don't admit they do).
> 
> _My _thesis, for the purposes of _this_ conversation, is that you should read more books.





Petwhac said:


> "Read the book" is not an answer. It is a way of avoiding taking ownership of your own view. If you have your own view.
> If you believe Western civilisation in general and classical music in particular is doomed, you haven't given a clear explanation why.
> 
> Even if it was doomed, which it isn't, what steps do you believe could or should be taken to preserve it?


I think it's pretty clear that MM has no thesis of substance that he wishes to share with the general membership here, and so we should respect that and leave him to his own devices.


----------



## Chronochromie

Strange Magic said:


> If you visit April 27, 2016 in this Classical Music Discussion area, you will find the 27-page thread, now closed, that discussed in exhausting detail the Paul dissertation. I submitted a nutshell in the first post in the thread, and offered one or maybe two other very brief summaries deeper into the thread. The thread is titled _An Interesting and Useful Treatise on Twentieth Century Music._


The nutshell apparently was just enough for people to start discussing but ultimately everyone who asked a question or criticized something would be shut down by you for not reading a 400ish-page thesis when a clarification could have been made (or maybe not! After all I didn't read the thesis, like most everyone who was on that trainwreck of a thread).


----------



## Strange Magic

Chronochromie said:


> The nutshell apparently was just enough for people to start discussing but ultimately everyone who asked a question or criticized something would be shut down by you for not reading a 400ish-page thesis when a clarification could have been made (or maybe not! After all I didn't read the thesis, like most everyone who was on that trainwreck of a thread).


The situation in that thread was totally different from the one here. The Paul dissertation was literally there for all to read, yet those who chose not to instead made a meal of their disinterest in reading it; made a banner of their refusal; a moral point of it. My nutshell(s) were intended to give the merest flavor of his thesis, but many if not most of the non-reading naysayers went on about how they didn't need to read it--some in part; some in whole--they knew exactly what it was all about already. I have encountered this same defiance (as have we all) at other times, with other books and theses--eager to denounce, and such eagerness accelerated by claimed foreknowledge of what people think they're going to find. I myself try to practice the self-discipline to avoid involving myself in such discussions if I haven't read the book. I am grateful, though, for a nutshell explication of somebody's central point--it will help me decide whether I want to read the whole work. Here, though, MM has chosen a different path.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> The situation in that thread was totally different from the one here. The Paul dissertation was literally there for all to read, yet those who chose not to instead made a meal of their disinterest in reading it; made a banner of their refusal; a moral point of it. My nutshell(s) were intended to give the merest flavor of his thesis, but many if not most of the non-reading naysayers went on about how they didn't need to read it--some in part; some in whole--they knew exactly what it was all about already. I have encountered this same defiance (as have we all) at other times, with other books and theses--eager to denounce, and such eagerness accelerated by claimed foreknowledge of what people think they're going to find.


This is exactly my memory of that thread's reception. The time spent expressing skepticism and scorn might have been better spent reading the study.


----------



## Chronochromie

Strange Magic said:


> The situation in that thread was totally different from the one here. The Paul dissertation was literally there for all to read, yet those who chose not to instead made a meal of their disinterest in reading it; made a banner of their refusal; a moral point of it. My nutshell(s) were intended to give the merest flavor of his thesis, but many if not most of the non-reading naysayers went on about how they didn't need to read it--some in part; some in whole--they knew exactly what it was all about already. I have encountered this same defiance (as have we all) at other times, with other books and theses--eager to denounce, and such eagerness accelerated by claimed foreknowledge of what people think they're going to find. I myself try to practice the self-discipline to avoid involving myself in such discussions if I haven't read the book. I am grateful, though, for a nutshell explication of somebody's central point--it will help me decide whether I want to read the whole work. Here, though, MM has chosen a different path.


I wasn't comparing situations, just commenting on that specific thread. I don't want to derail this thread so I'll stop talking about it here with this post and just pointing out that, having just re-read some of that thread, you have a peculiar memory if you think that was what went on there, it wasn't that clear-cut at all. Self-discipline is good, self-criticism is good too. But I've said enough about that, if you want us to talk more about it let's make a thread...wait, no, maybe not.


----------



## Bettina

I think this thread is doomed...


----------



## AfterHours

Bettina said:


> I think this thread is doomed...


Yes, unfortunately with discussions/arguments like this (which I've been a part of before myself), everyone is "right" and everyone is "wrong" and there can't possibly be any in-between! It's easier to say when one isn't him/herself a part of it though...


----------



## hpowders

Looking at the Big Picture, we are ALL doomed!


----------



## amfortas

Bettina said:


> I think this thread is doomed...


To me, "doomed" carries the poignant connotation of the impending, inevitable loss of something worth preserving.

I'm not sure that applies here.


----------



## Barbebleu

Bettina said:


> I think this thread is doomed...


Oh, if only!!:tiphat:bbbbbbbbbbbbbbb

Aye, we're doomed, doomed!(said in a very broad Scottish accent, portentously.)


----------



## Larkenfield

The world may be ultimately doomed, but classical music will survive because its essential nature is immaterial. On the positive side, CDs are likely to survive their self-destruction better than vinyl.


----------



## zelenka

this thread is less doomed than my future


----------



## Logos

AfterHours said:


> I'll start with posting an explanation of my criteria that is a bit more complete than the concise little tidbit I used for this thread. The following "article" seems to be pretty well understood by most I've known to have read it. It is not an attempt to explain every detail of every thought I have about every work of art I assimilate (obviously), but should give a good overall idea of how I draw my conclusions, what I mean by "depth" and "ingenuity" and so forth. It also includes an "explanation of ratings" section at the bottom, which probably won't mean much, unless one pays attention to such things, which I've posted very little of on this site. Realize, I originally wrote it in response to many questions about how I drew my conclusions so it is being delivered from that point-of-view.
> 
> Also, I'm copying and pasting from an old word doc, but I'm pretty sure it's still the most updated version. Still, if obvious errors or confusions, or just want more clarification, feel free to ask. As follows:
> 
> *My Criteria For Art*
> 
> Perhaps you've looked at my lists or some of my selections and wondered: what is my criteria for art?
> 
> I've isolated the major factors I look for as follows:
> 
> (1) Expressed Emotional Conviction and/or Conceptual Significance
> (2) Ingenuity
> 
> One will find that all art shares these key elements as primary common denominators, to greater or lesser degree.
> 
> *1. Expressed Emotional Conviction and/or Conceptual Significance*
> 
> By "emotional" I am referring to any emotion or confluence of emotions being expressed, whether happy or depressed, angry or cheerful, grief-stricken or hostile, apathy or ecstacy, nostalgia or bored, etc. It is not so much which emotion is being expressed, but how and to what degree? How strong or compelling is its expression?
> 
> By "conceptual" I am referring to any concept or confluence of concepts being evoked by the artist, whether earthly or metaphysical, whether a dangerous or mysterious circumstance, a relationship torn apart or coming together, an existential crises or spiritual revelation, etc. Again, it is not so much which concept is being expressed, but how and to what degree? How strong or compelling is its expression?
> 
> These two points are interchangeable. One will find that you can't have an expression of emotional conviction without the artist simultaneously relaying a concept along with it, and vice versa: a concept cannot be expressed without some degree of emotion being relayed. So I do not particularly favor one over the other. Some artists are more conceptually oriented while others are more emotionally oriented, but each produce both effects.
> 
> Some extraordinary examples of "Expressed Emotional Conviction":
> 
> *Classical Music:*
> Symphony No. 9 in D Minor "Choral" - Beethoven (1824)
> Symphony No. 5 in C Minor - Beethoven (1808)
> Piano Sonata No. 23 in F minor "Appassionata" - Beethoven (1807)
> 
> *Rock Music:*
> In the Aeroplane Over The Sea - Neutral Milk Hotel (1998)
> The Doors - The Doors (1967)
> Astral Weeks - Van Morrison (1968)
> 
> *Jazz Music: *
> The Black Saint & The Sinner Lady - Charles Mingus (1963)
> A Love Supreme - John Coltrane (1964)
> Bitches Brew - Miles Davis (1969)
> 
> *Film: *
> Metropolis - Fritz Lang (1927)
> The Passion of Joan of Arc - Carl Theodor Dreyer (1927)
> The Godfather - Francis Ford Coppola (1972)
> 
> *Visual Art/Paintings:*
> Sistine Chapel (Ceiling & The Last Judgement) - Michelangelo Buonarroti (1541)
> Guernica - Pablo Picasso (1937)
> Fall of the Damned - Peter Paul Rubens (1620)
> 
> Anyone could say these are either good or bad works of art but who could truly argue against these displaying a high degree of "expressed emotional conviction" from their respective artists?
> 
> Some extraordinary examples of "Expressed Conceptual Significance":
> 
> *Classical Music: *
> Symphony No. 9 in D Major - Gustav Mahler (1909)
> Mass in B Minor - Johann Sebastian Bach (1749)
> Symphony No. 15 in A Major - Dmitri Shostakovich (1971)
> 
> *Rock Music:*
> Trout Mask Replica - Captain Beefheart & His Magic Band (1969)
> The Velvet Underground & Nico - The Velvet Underground (1967)
> Blonde On Blonde - Bob Dylan (1966)
> 
> *Jazz Music: *
> Escalator Over The Hill - Carla Bley (1971)
> Improvisie - Paul Bley (1971)
> Afternoon of a Georgia Faun - Marion Brown (1970)
> 
> *Film:*
> Citizen Kane - Orson Welles (1941)
> Persona - Ingmar Bergman (1966)
> Mirror - Andrei Tarkovsky (1974)
> 
> *Visual Art/Paintings:*
> Garden of Earthly Delights - Hieronymus Bosch (circa 1490-1510)
> Metamorphosis of Narcissus - Salvador Dali (1937)
> The Last Supper - Leonardo Da Vinci (1498)
> 
> Anyone could say these are either good or bad works of art but who could truly argue against these displaying a high degree of "expressed conceptual significance" from their respective artists?
> 
> *2.	Ingenuity*
> 
> By ingenuity I mean, ideally, "an expression that took singular intelligence and creativity to conceive". There are reasons why there isn't another Beethoven, or Orson Welles, or John Coltrane, or Michelangelo, or Captain Beefheart. These are each artists that truly embodied singular visions and are virtually inimitable. I also want to acknowledge that, to greater or lesser degree, each and every artist could be considered "singular", as there are no two that are exactly alike. However, there are degrees of ingenuity and I am most impressed by the most extraordinary and the most singular examples.
> 
> Also, and this is key: ingenuity is important largely in proportion to its contribution to the emotional or conceptual expression of the work. Therefore, ingenuity without such a purpose is proportionally less significant to me, and also points to why I stress "singular intelligence and creativity to conceive". There is creativity and a singular perspective or intellect involved. A miscellaneous, less creative or purposeful application can be impressive in ways, but can only go so far. It can even get a very good rating from me, but only so high before it appears lacking requisite significance and depth for the highest ratings, which demand purpose, creativity and conviction from the artist.
> 
> Some extraordinary examples of "Ingenuity":
> 
> *Classical Music:*
> Symphony No. 9 in D Minor "Choral" - Beethoven (1824)
> Symphonie Fantastique - Hector Berlioz (1830)
> Rite of Spring - Igor Stravinsky (1913)
> 
> *Rock Music:*
> Trout Mask Replica - Captain Beefheart & His Magic Band (1969)
> Faust - Faust (1971)
> The Velvet Underground & Nico - The Velvet Underground (1967)
> 
> *Jazz Music:*
> Escalator Over The Hill - Carla Bley (1971)
> Bitches Brew - Miles Davis (1969)
> Free Jazz - Ornette Coleman (1960)
> 
> *Film:*
> Citizen Kane - Orson Welles (1941)
> Persona - Ingmar Bergman (1966)
> Mirror - Andrei Tarkovsky (1974)
> 
> *Visual Art/Paintings:*
> Sistine Chapel (Ceiling & The Last Judgement) - Michelangelo Buonarroti (1541)
> Garden of Earthly Delights - Hieronymus Bosch (circa 1490-1510)
> The Beethoven Frieze - Gustav Klimt (1902)
> 
> Anyone could say these are either good or bad works of art but who could truly argue against these displaying a high degree of "ingenuity" from their respective artists?
> 
> Combined, what do "Expressed Emotional Conviction" and/or "Expressed Conceptual Significance", plus "Ingenuity", equal? In a word, _DEPTH_.
> 
> Each factor seems to be dependent upon one another to reach the highest states of art. For me, a work of art can only be so emotionally or conceptually significant without a certain degree of ingenuity involved. Similarly, a work of art can only have so much ingenuity before an extraordinary emotional or conceptual investment and conviction starts becoming evident from the artist. How much awe and wonder and other strong emotional reactions do the most singular works of art across history still inspire years, decades, or hundreds of years later?
> 
> All the choices on my lists are a representation of is my opinion of #1 (Expressed Emotional Conviction/Conceptual Significance) and #2 (Ingenuity) in greater and greater collaboration. The higher the rating/ranking, the greater the collaboration of these factors. The greater this collaboration, the more depth the work will possess.
> 
> An ideal statement of depth could be described as follows:
> 
> Exhibiting emotional or conceptual content with extraordinary conviction and a singular creative intelligence so as to permanently distinguish itself.
> 
> A reliable formula for my ratings and rankings is as follows:
> 
> ACCUMULATION OF THE DEGREE AND CONSISTENCY OF ITS EMOTIONAL CONTENT, CONCEPTUAL SIGNIFICANCE, AND ITS INGENUITY, WITHIN THE TIME FRAME OR SPACE OF THE WORK OF ART.
> 
> With "time frame", I am referring to art such as cinema and music that are produced and assimilated within finite running times. With "space", I am referring to visual arts such as paintings that are produced and assimilated within finite spatial parameters.
> 
> The differences in rating and ranking are determined by a precise attempt at measuring the degree of amazement or awe inspired from the experience of the whole work while it is being assimilated. Both its peaks and consistency are carefully considered into the overall rating. During the process of assimilation, I observe and consider in real-time the various emotions and concepts expressed, to what degree and consistency they are being expressed, how creative and singular these expressions are, and their impression upon me. This is compared to other works and ratings, taking into account as much from the history of art as needed, to help isolate and determine an exact rating. In such a determination, the overall significance of the experience (its qualitative peaks and consistency and sum impact) is what is being compared to other works, not necessarily a direct comparison in content, especially if the content is dissimilar. Experiences do tend to differentiate -- even if slightly -- from one to the next, so a resulting evaluation marks an attempt to determine as precisely as possible the highest rating that the work consistently sustains. Therefore, I will tend to assimilate a work several times (particularly in the higher ratings) before I really settle in to a more "permanent" rating and ranking for it. Of course, even then, these are subject to change, but usually I can sooner or later come to terms with a very close estimation of its sustained value within my criteria and in relation to other works of art. After that, there are still variances with that work, from one experience to the next, but in most cases they are so minute that the rating usually doesn't change much, if at all.
> 
> *My Ratings Scale:*
> 
> *0 - 4.9 - BELOW AVERAGE, IRRELEVANT
> 
> 5.0 - AVERAGE/MEDIOCRE
> 
> 5.5 - ABOVE AVERAGE
> 
> 6.0 - GOOD
> 
> 6.5 - EXCELLENT
> 
> 7.0 - SUPERB/EXTRAORDINARY* … At 6.8+ the experience will be superb and bordering on extraordinary. However, with enough evaluation or scrutiny, these will prove short on depth in relation to a 7.3+ rated work. Still, in relation to lower rated works, it will be an outstanding experience, and will often strike a qualitative balance between the extraordinary and the well-executed, but perhaps overly derivative. These are often the most recommendable and dependable works for those wanting great experiences but are just starting off or are relatively unfamiliar with a genre or type of art.
> 
> Note: Due to time and efficiency considerations, I generally only devote a lot of time anymore to works rated 7.3+. However, works in this range are quite worthy of attention and I wholeheartedly recommend them.
> 
> *7.5 - HISTORICALLY EXTRAORDINARY/AMAZING* ... At 7.3+ the experience will begin to really stand out historically as emotionally/conceptually extraordinary or amazing.
> 
> Definitions of extraordinary being applied: "Highly exceptional; remarkable" and "Beyond what is usual, ordinary, regular, or established." --Dictionary.com / The Free Dictionary.com
> 
> Definition of amazing being applied: "To affect with great wonder; astonish." --The Free Dictionary.com
> 
> *8.0 - AWE-INSPIRING* ... At 7.8+, the work will start becoming a truly awe-inspiring experience. These works are often masterpieces by most (less strict) definitions of the word, and will usually be cornerstones of their genre or confluence of genres.
> 
> Definition of awe-inspiring being applied: "an overwhelming feeling of reverence, admiration, fear, etc., produced by that which is grand, sublime, extremely powerful, or the like." --Dictionary.com
> 
> *8.5 - NEAR MASTERPIECE* … At 8.3+, the experience will transcend nearly all works of art of its genre or confluence of genres. It will be awe-inspiring like an 8/10 but a bit more consistent and/or reach higher peaks. At this level, the work will usually have taken on most of the main characteristics of an all-time masterpiece (9/10) but just not to as great a degree/extent and/or not as consistently.
> 
> *9.0 - ALL TIME MASTERPIECE* ... At 8.8+, the experience will be quite astonishing and will increasingly represent a towering masterpiece and historical achievement that may never be replicated or surpassed. These works will tend to be the most historically singular, powerful and compelling expressions of their particular genre or confluence of genres.
> 
> *9.5 - SUPREME MASTERPIECE* ... At 9.3+, the experience seems like an impossible achievement. An achievement so astonishing that, regardless of the type of emotional and conceptual content, it inspires awe comparable to a life-changing religious experience, and does so in a manner so singular and exceptional that it will tend to completely revolutionize one's concept of what an artist and work of art are capable of expressing.
> 
> *10 - EPITOME OF ART* … At 9.8+, the experience is so beyond the generally perceived heights of human artistic capability that it is virtually impossible to adequately describe. It is a work that would be overwhelmingly miraculous, and would tend to leave one awestruck and speechless throughout the entirety of the experience towards its seemingly inexhaustible ingenuity, staggering emotional depth and conceptual significance. As we reach 10/10, the work will also have fully achieved a particular quality where even as it can be thoroughly understood and experienced when a knowledgeable, in-depth effort is made, such will also prove so inspiring and its emotional/conceptual weight so transcendent, dynamic, incredible and complete, that perceiving it only seems to extend the possible interpretations into what seems like an infinite, ultimately indefinable greatness that isn't quite within grasp yet always beckoning through the sheer force of will and gift of the artist's display. In short, no matter the scrutiny, it will seem above criticism and evaluation, as if artistically "priceless".


I calculate this post as a 9.7573 in wasted intellectual energy.


----------

