# you're allowed to like what you like



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

You have to extend that same courtesy to others. 

So you're not allowed to insult the music that other people like, or insult them for liking what they like.

If someone wants to spend the rest of their life listening to Strauss waltzes, Chopin, Brahms and Dvorak because they like them, no one has the right to criticize them. 

If someone wants to spend the rest of their life listening to Stockhausen, Varese, Cage, and Xenakis because they like them, no one has the right to criticize them. 

If someone wants to spend the rest of their life listening to Adams and Glass and Reich because they like them, no one has the right to criticize them. 

If someone wants to spend the rest of their life listening to Beethoven, Bach, and Mozart because they like them, no one has the right to criticize them. 

The endless insulting each other is getting really annoying. People ought to start getting banned. That's up to the mods of course, but if we met in real life I think it would come to blows, and rightfully so. There are a few of you.... 

And then a lot of you want to complain that people don't like classical music. A lot of you make me want not to like classical music. I'd bet we could spend in an entire lifetime among rock fans without experiencing the amount of scorn and snobbery expressed toward classical music that we express to each other on boards like this in any given month.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

A lot of you make me want not to like classical music. I'd bet we could spend in an entire lifetime among rock fans without experiencing the amount of scorn and snobbery expressed toward classical music that we express to each other on boards like this in any given month.

But you surely know for certain that jazz fans, and blues fans, and heavy metal, hip-hop, and pop fans are just as argumentative and just as dismissive of that which they dislike as anybody here. Again it comes down to championing and defending that which we are passionate about... and unfortunately this often descends into the realm of the personal when the individual feels that you are mocking what he or she loves.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

science said:


> You have to extend that same courtesy to others.


But I don't get the same courtesy from others.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

This bickering doesn't exist in real life. At least not in my world. I enjoy attending festivals and concerts of all types of music, and nobody ever told me "your favorite artist/band/composer sucks". It just doesn't happen. Apparently there are too many internet addicts with no social life who need to stir up this crap.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

Ha, science. You obviously haven't been around the block with other genres forums... I think they are FAR FAR worse and even more fanatical, especially in pop (radio) music. Pop fans scare me... The snobbery in heavy metal is very high as well. There are "purist" movements in every genre that has been commercialized, as well.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> A lot of you make me want not to like classical music. I'd bet we could spend in an entire lifetime among rock fans without experiencing the amount of scorn and snobbery expressed toward classical music that we express to each other on boards like this in any given month.
> 
> But you surely know for certain that jazz fans, and blues fans, and heavy metal, hip-hop, and pop fans are just as argumentative and just as dismissive of that which they dislike as anybody here. Again it comes down to championing and defending that which we are passionate about... and unfortunately this often descends into the realm of the personal when the individual feels that you are mocking what he or she loves.


Just excuses.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

Also, I don't tend to dislike, let alone hate, any composer that I've heard. They all seem to have something interesting to listen to, although I like some more than others. I feel they are all competent at creating music and deserve at least that much respect. I dislike seeing them maligned and talked about as if they were complete rubbish and talentless hacks.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Too many fans with not much education are operating on a near complete visceral level in relationship to music. It is what they 'feel' about everything, not what they think, that is the platform. All that lower Chakra activity is inevitably Ego Based - i.e. I say I don't like / care for composer X, and The Visceral fan and Listener mistakes that as a direct call on their emotional reaction or attachment to that composer's music. 

That then gets transliterated into my having said your feelings are silly or invalid. Instead of a discussion on the merits or lacks of music, such perceptions and platforms inevitably descend into the lower Chakra egoistic primal argument - which becomes impossibly non-productive, and even more boring than that -- if possible.

What anyone with more education / training fully understands is that one cannot evaluate music or a composer on the basis of any ones personal emotional reaction or attachment, but only on the merits and strengths of the music itself, and then, perhaps, more messy and 'personal' but not necessarily emotional, the plane of aesthetics can come into the discussion as well.

I really cannot recall a truly educated listener or professional musician ever getting into such a mistaken muddle and resultant mud-slinging silliness over even extreme differences of opinion in the merit or value of a composer or piece. These people are passionate about music, but know speaking only of the passion or their emotional reaction has no valid presence, really, in the discussion of the merit of any kind of music.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

PetrB said:


> Too many fans with not much education are operating on a near complete visceral level in relationship to music. It is what they 'feel' about everything, not what they think, that is the platform. All that lower Chakra activity is inevitably Ego Based - i.e. I say I don't like / care for composer X, and The Visceral fan and Listener mistakes that as a direct call on their emotional reaction or attachment to that composer's music.
> 
> That then gets transliterated into my having said your feelings are silly or invalid. Instead of a discussion on the merits or lacks of music, such perceptions and platforms inevitably descend into the lower Chakra egoistic primal argument - which becomes impossibly non-productive, and even more boring than that -- if possible.
> 
> ...


If only we were all as smart as you. Fortunately, I can scorn your opinions about literature with equal facility.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

PetrB said:


> Too many fans with not much education are operating on a near complete visceral level in relationship to music. It is what they 'feel' about everything, not what they think, that is the platform. All that lower Chakra activity is inevitably Ego Based - i.e. I say I don't like / care for composer X, and The Visceral fan and Listener mistakes that as a direct call on their emotional reaction or attachment to that composer's music.
> 
> That then gets transliterated into my having said your feelings are silly or invalid. Instead of a discussion on the merits or lacks of music, such perceptions and platforms inevitably descend into the lower Chakra egoistic primal argument - which becomes impossibly non-productive, and even more boring than that -- if possible.
> 
> ...


Kindly direct me to your threads of stunning academic discourse so that I may be bewildered in my inability to comprehend your posts given my utter lack of education.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

_But you surely know for certain that jazz fans, and blues fans, and heavy metal, hip-hop, and pop fans are just as argumentative and just as dismissive of that which they dislike as anybody here. Again it comes down to championing and defending that which we are passionate about... and unfortunately this often descends into the realm of the personal when the individual feels that you are mocking what he or she loves._

Just excuses.

Not excuses, reality.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

The problem is that all discussion on this board is doomed to fail. Einstein showed that even _time and space_ are not objective but relative to an observer's perceptions... where does that leave _music_? We can create axioms about what is important in music, ie:
_
"*one cannot evaluate music or a composer on the basis of any ones personal emotional reaction or attachment, but only on the merits and strengths of the music itself*"

_But there is no foundation for such whatsoever, as is evident when PetrB serves up this steaming hot appeal to authority:

It's_ *"w**hat anyone with more education / training fully understands"*
_
And this leaves his position, ironically, as subjective as an emotional response to music.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

science said:


> ... A lot of you make me want not to like classical music. I'd bet we could spend in an entire lifetime among rock fans without experiencing the amount of scorn and snobbery expressed toward classical music that we express to each other on boards like this in any given month.
> ...


Strange comment, because my taste in classical music (i.e. HarpsichordConcerto's, to make that clear) remains undeterred; resolutely undeterred, by what online posters might think about music that I like. I strongly encourage each and everyone of you the same.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Strange comment, because my taste in classical music (i.e. HarpsichordConcerto's, to make that clear) remains undeterred; resolutely undeterred, by what online posters might think about music that I like. I strongly encourage each and everyone of you the same.


Liking what other's don't like is often a source of pride. I think that's what motivated COAG's post in the other thread.

I do enjoy people who don't like Wagner. But I love people who love Wagner.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Strange comment, because my taste in classical music (i.e. HarpsichordConcerto's, to make that clear) remains undeterred; resolutely undeterred, by what online posters might think about music that I like. I strongly encourage each and everyone of you the same.


Strange comment, because you constantly berate modern music and the people who enjoy it. You do little else, actually, though sometimes you do actually advocate the music you like. Obviously that is all primarily for your own enjoyment, but surely on some level of consciousness you're aware of a hope that your posts will influence others.


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

As the late Rodney King so eloquently put it, "*Can't we all just get along?" *Music--as any art--is, by its very nature, a highly *personal*--and, therefore, by definition--a very *subjective* experience for each of us. The phrase "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" might well be applicable to the ears of the listener as well.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

science said:


> Strange comment, because you constantly berate modern music and the people who enjoy it. You do little else, actually, though sometimes you do actually advocate the music you like. Obviously that is all primarily for your own enjoyment, but surely on some level of consciousness you're aware of a hope that your posts will influence others.


Well, if you adhere to my advice in my original post above, then my suspected motive will fail (part in blue font); leaving you a better off and more confident listener.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Couchie said:


> I do enjoy people who don't like Wagner. But I love people who love Wagner.


And my mother said that nobody would ever love me!


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Well, if you adhere to my advice in my original post above, then my suspected motive will fail (part in blue font); leaving you a better off and more confident listener.


It doesn't matter how confident I get. The point (as you know) is that you ought to be polite - you are wrong not to be.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

I am polite to those who were polite to me to begin with, as many in real life and here, would agree.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I am polite to those who were polite to me to begin with, as many in real life and here, would agree.


Fine, whatever, you're excused to insult people who don't enjoy the same music you do; and I'm excused to hope that something happens rendering you unable to do so.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

This thread opened as a request to be tolerant of others. I think we should return to those sentiments, rather than insulting each other wholesale.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

'Immanuel Kant, writing in 1790, observes of a man "If he says that canary wine is agreeable he is quite content if someone else corrects his terms and reminds him to say instead: It is agreeable to me," because "Everyone has his own (sense of) taste". The case of "beauty" is different from mere "agreeableness" because, "If he proclaims something to be beautiful, then he requires the same liking from others; he then judges not just for himself but for everyone, and speaks of beauty as if it were a property of things."'

Courtesy of Wikipedia


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

science said:


> Strange comment, because you constantly berate modern music and the people who enjoy it. You do little else, actually, though sometimes you do actually advocate the music you like. Obviously that is all primarily for your own enjoyment, but surely on some level of consciousness you're aware of a hope that your posts will influence others.


That last sentence seems highly significant to me. The hope is not _necessarily_ for 'pride in influence', of course; there may be altruism behind the hope. I read somewhere that many geezers become generally cranky because they have found no effective way to transfer their hard earned wisdom to the young. The young will therefor make the same avoidable mistakes the geezer did. Apparently this is quite frustrating.

Also 'of course', we geezers don't _necessarily_ agree on what wisdom is to be garnered from... just about anything. I'm willing to bet that there are geezers out there who scoff at the salubriousness of splitting firewood.


----------



## LordBlackudder (Nov 13, 2010)

its better for people to talk about their favourite music with maybe passion than not at all.


----------



## Taneyev (Jan 19, 2009)

Personaly, I know what I like and what I dislike, care a damn thing what others think or said about my tastes, and I'll not allow anybody to tell me what I should or shouldn' like.


----------



## Lenfer (Aug 15, 2011)

I agree with a lot of your original post *Science*. However I think there are snobs among all genres of everything not just classical music. I have to admit I am a snob about some things.

I don't want anyone banned and I don't want censorship. I do like critics of value I'd like to know that's a bad recordings or there is a better recording of said work etc. It can help people like me who strive to build a good library.

I am not sure if I am one of those you refer to in your post as I said before I am snotty about some things. I'd like to think I don't let it get in the way of other people's enjoyment of the forum, I'm sorry if this is not the case.

I enjoy your posts very much and know you have a wide variety of music which you enjoy. It would be a shame if you were to feel negatively about the forum and stop posting. I hope this current feeling the board passes and everyone can get back to important topics like what I had for lunch. :tiphat:

The last thing I would like to say as there are some members of the forum who lack the years of some of you here. I'd take these members with a pinch of salt if possible and try to guide them out of their over zealousness.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

All opinions are not created equal. Some people actually do have more experience and better tastes than others. The whole point of aesthetics is questioning. Nothing wrong with that. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. The problem is dismissing out of hand. People who do that miss out, no matter what it is that they're dismissing.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

starthrower said:


> This bickering doesn't exist in real life. At least not in my world. I enjoy attending festivals and concerts of all types of music, and nobody ever told me "your favorite artist/band/composer sucks". It just doesn't happen. Apparently there are too many internet addicts with no social life who need to stir up this crap.


Okay, do we need to be mean in our post about how stirring up fights is wrong?


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I think there's a generational thing at play here. I'm in my fifties and when I was growing up, I was challenged by teachers. Praise was based on performance. If you went to class with your brain turned off, you got called on the carpet for it. We had classes in basic logic and debate in both middle school and high school. When I attended college, there was no coddling. I got wrung through the wringer intellectually.

Today, it seems kids have been raised differently. They were raised on the Smurfs, where everyone was special, only different. Losers got awards too so they wouldn't feel bad- just like the special olympics. Everyone was encouraged to cooperate, not be rugged individualists. If you disagreed, you were supposed to apologize and let the other person know they were just as justified in believing whatever they believe- regardless of whether it's wrong or right... Because no opinion is objectively wrong.

When I come up against kids like this in internet forums, they think I'm mean. They get mad and start fighting back with ad hominem attacks. It's like they don't even know how to debate fairly or support their opinions. It's a different world.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

/\ Your schooling seems pretty unusual; was it in the US? A generation before you and in a small town, we were exposed to logic in junior high, in the form of plane geometry and beginner's algebra, but the 'debating team' was strictly voluntary - and unpopular.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant (Mar 11, 2010)

science said:


> You have to extend that same courtesy to others.





brianwalker said:


> But I don't get the same courtesy from others.


You cannot expect to receive from others anything you're not prepared to give freely first.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I'm going to guess that bigshot is speaking of the fact that Cultural Relativism and the notion that there is no "good" nor "bad", no "winners" or "losers" had yet to take hold. There was still a belief in certain absolutes. if you wanted to play on the baseball team you attended tryouts and if you couldn't hit or catch you didn't make the team. There was no crippling concern for a child's fragile sense of "self esteem" that has led to the current belief in entitlement as opposed to earning that which you desire.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I'm going to guess that bigshot is speaking of the fact that Cultural Relativism and the notion that there is no "good" nor "bad", no "winners" or "losers" had yet to take hold. There was still a belief in certain absolutes. if you wanted to play on the baseball team you attended tryouts and if you couldn't hit or catch you didn't make the team. There was no crippling concern for a child's fragile sense of "self esteem" that has led to the current belief in entitlement as opposed to earning that which you desire.


"Those were the days..." says the 18-year old (me).


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

The modern world is a golden age for lame asses.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> /\ Your schooling seems pretty unusual; was it in the US?.


Suburbs of Los Angeles. Debate and logic were electives, but if you planned on going to college you walked the walk. My broter is a decade older than me. He was in the Latin Club. Do schools till have Latin Clubs?

By the way, never play Dictinary with someone who used to be in Latin Club. You'll never win.


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

science said:


> So you're not allowed to insult the music that other people like


It would help if people didn't take anything-less-than-ecstatic commentary on their favorite composers as "insults" to the composer. (Insults to the commentators themselves is obviously another matter.) On the "Dinosaur" thread, someone took issue with the fact that Mozart was being "trashed," even though the only negative things that were said about Mozart were that _some_ of his works are boring. (And in every case, the people who said that also qualified their statements by saying there are other Mozart works that they absolutely love.) If that counts as "trashing," I'm not sure how it's possible to have a discussion that fits everyone's standards of civility, unless everything consists of effusive and formulaic praise.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I just got a one week ban from another forum. The moderator told me that by criticizing ideas I thought were foolish, I was insulting people who held those opinions... and personal attacks weren't allowed.

I'm refraining from commenting on what I think of his definition of personal attacks.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Eschbeg said:


> On the "Dinosaur" thread, someone took issue with the fact that Mozart was being "trashed," even though the only negative things that were said about Mozart were that _some_ of his works are boring.


Stating that something is boring is a subjective impression, not an objective criticism. It's like me saying I don't like the color blue... Well great, but what does that mean to anyone else? Nothing, really.


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

bigshot said:


> Losers got awards too so they wouldn't feel bad- just like the special olympics.


Going out on a limb here but i'd say you've probably never played a competitive sport in your entire life.


----------



## Lenfer (Aug 15, 2011)

bigshot said:


> Suburbs of Los Angeles. Debate and logic were electives, but if you planned on going to college you walked the walk. My broter is a decade older than me. He was in the Latin Club. Do schools till have Latin Clubs?
> 
> By the way, never play Dictinary with someone who used to be in Latin Club. You'll never win.


In my experience "clubs" are an American thing but yes some schools still teach *Latin*. None of this be it schools or society really has anything to do with the OP though.



mamascarlatti said:


> This thread opened as a request to be tolerant of others. I think we should return to those sentiments, rather than insulting each other wholesale.


Just in case you missed this...


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Philip said:


> Going out on a limb here but i'd say you've probably never played a competitive sport in your entire life.


We're on the internet! That's the safest bet ever made!


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

bigshot said:


> It's like me saying I don't like the color blue... Well great, but what does that mean to anyone else? Nothing, really.


Exactly so, which is why it baffles me that someone would get all riled up just because another person finds _some_ works by Mozart boring.



bigshot said:


> Stating that something is boring is a subjective impression, not an objective criticism.


What would be an example of an "objective criticism"? I'm having trouble coming up with one that isn't also a subjective impression.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

bigshot said:


> I just got a one week ban from another forum. The moderator told me that by criticizing ideas I thought were foolish, I was insulting people who held those opinions... and personal attacks weren't allowed.
> 
> I'm refraining from commenting on what I think of his definition of personal attacks.


There is often a way to challenge a person's ideas (as long as they aren't basic ones) without 'the appearance of insult'. Maybe using what _@couchie_ calls "gentle condescension" - his reference was pretty obscure, but maybe. I have noticed that you are apt to be just a wee bit, ah, blunt now and then. Anyway, there are ways to get a point across without stimulating a mod excessively. Most of them are aware that civility does not preclude criticism.

[Of course I may be summarily banned and this post eradicated, for revealing this dark secret.]


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Let's all be intolerant of intolerant people!

Anyone who thinks I'm blunt, feel free to add "in my humble opinion which may be wrong you might be right and if so I apologize" at the end of every sentence I type as you read it.

By the way, my problem with the mod had very little to do with civility. It had a lot more to do with the fact that I disagreed with one of his posts and raised issues he couldn't answer without admitting he was wrong. It was easier for him to delete my post and ban me until everyone had forgotten the thread.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

mamascarlatti said:


> This thread opened as a request to be tolerant of others. I think we should return to those sentiments, rather than insulting each other wholesale.


Really? Because the OP suggested certain members should be banned for not liking certain music and that it would be 'right' to come to blows with these members? That doesn't seem very tolerant to me...


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

@ science, can you give me some examples of posts you feel are so out of line here, that you feel would 'lead to blows' etc.? Because I don't feel that way. I agree that people are allowed to like what they like, and also to dislike what they dislike. Sure maybe its often best to keep our dislikes to ourselves, but is it really realistic to expect people to always follow this perfect ideal of posting etiquette on such a forum? I think its only natural you will encounter individuals with differing musical tastes and ideas on music on a music forum. From my perspective it seems all threads like this do is stir up unnecessary drama.


----------



## Lenfer (Aug 15, 2011)

bigshot said:


> Let's all be intolerant of intolerant people!


That's slightly self defeating no?


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Eschbeg said:


> What would be an example of an "objective criticism"? I'm having trouble coming up with one that isn't also a subjective impression.


Something that could be supported with examples... Mozart doesn't employ as sophisticated harmonies as Wagner. Mozart's fugues are not nearly as well constructed as Bach's. Etc...

Now before you start arguing thse points, know that I'm not arguing them. I'm showing how an observation could lead to objective discussion based on supporting facts. I'm not saying that all objective arguments are correct. It's how the facts are presented that determines that.

But saying "Mozart bores me." doesn't lead to any discussion. It's just a subjective impression. It's undeniably true, but it doesn't have any relevance to anyone but the person making the statement. Does that explain it?


----------



## Lenfer (Aug 15, 2011)

tdc said:


> Really? Because the OP suggested certain members should be banned for not liking certain music and that it would be 'right' to come to blows with these members? That doesn't seem very tolerant to me...


No he didn't at least I read it as him saying those who insult and demean others because they happen to differ in opinion on music should be banned.


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

bigshot said:


> Something that could be supported with examples... Mozart doesn't employ as sophisticated harmonies as Wagner. Mozart's fugues are not nearly as well constructed as Bach's. Etc...
> 
> Now before you start arguing thse points, know that I'm not arguing them. I'm showing how an observation could lead to objective discussion based on supporting facts. I'm not saying that all objective arguments are correct. It's how the facts are presented that determines that.
> 
> But saying "Mozart bores me." doesn't lead to any discussion. It's just a subjective impression. It's undeniably true, but it doesn't have any relevance to anyone but the person making the statement. Does that explain it?


That does explain it, sort of, but then the issue isn't really about objectivity versus subjectivity anymore, it's just about citing examples. It's not like the presence of examples makes the statement "Mozart's fugues are not nearly as well constructed as Bach's" any less subjective.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

The problem is, too many people take criticism of their opinions as a personal attack.

As far as I'm concerned, there's a world of difference between "Mozart's music sucks" and "You suck". One may be blunt, but it might lead to some interesting arguments. The other is just a personal attack.

I find that even if someone diametrically opposes my own position on an issue, they can still teach me something if they argue on point. We all have different criteria for judging, and that criteria can lead to different results. Looking at an issue with someone else's criteria can reveal other aspects that one's own criteria might not reveal.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Eschbeg said:


> That does explain it, sort of, but then the issue isn't really about objectivity versus subjectivity anymore, it's just about citing examples. It's not like the presence of examples makes the statement "Mozart's fugues are not nearly as well constructed as Bach's" any less subjective.


Ahem. If you read _your_ statement again, _@Eschbeg_, you may see that it defies logic. The supporting data 'objectivises' the assertion.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Eschbeg said:


> That does explain it, sort of, but then the issue isn't really about objectivity versus subjectivity anymore, it's just about citing examples. It's not like the presence of examples makes the statement "Mozart's fugues are not nearly as well constructed as Bach's" any less subjective.


OK. The problem here is the process... The way debate works is you establish a criteria for judging, then you come up with a hypothesis, then you apply the hypothesis to the criteria and come up with objective examples that support the hypothesis. Someone else can have their own criteria and objective examples and come up with the opposite result from the same hypothesis. When all is said and done, hopefully one side or the other does a better job of supporting their opinion and the matter is settled.

If you are going to use the strictest definition of subjective, nothing humans do will hold up. We are subjective creatures. But fair debate and logic are an attempt to minimize pure subjectivity and push in the direction of objectivity.


----------



## Lenfer (Aug 15, 2011)

bigshot said:


> The problem is, too many people take criticism of their opinions as a personal attack.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, there's a world of difference between "Mozart's music sucks" and "You suck". One may be blunt, but it might lead to some interesting arguments. The other is just a personal attack.
> 
> I find that even if someone diametrically opposes my own position on an issue, they can still teach me something if they argue on point. We all have different criteria for judging, and that criteria can lead to different results. Looking at an issue with someone else's criteria can reveal other aspects that one's own criteria might not reveal.


I think the point that was being made was people are going along the lines of "*YOU* suck because you like *Mozart* and *Mozart* sucks" it might not be personal per say but it's not criticism of the music either just ranting.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Lenfer said:


> I think the point that was being made was people are going along the lines of "*YOU* suck because you like *Mozart* and *Mozart* sucks" it might not be personal per say but it's not criticism of the music either just ranting.


I wasn't insinuating that, I promise, and I really don't think anybody else was either on that other thread. Nobody said Mozart sucks, and I don't think anybody purposely insulted others' taste for liking it. It was mostly a criticism of the conservative listeners who only listen to old music, and actually do insult modern composers and their work.

Another reason for the thread was the frustration at this double standard where if you criticize old masters you're trashing them and you're insulting the listeners if you call their taste into question, but if you do much worse to contemporary works and call their listener's taste into question, thats just your opinion, thats fine.


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

Hilltroll72 said:


> The supporting data 'objectivises' the assertion.


No, it doesn't. The data itself may be objective, but I defy you to come up with an objective definition of "well constructed." So long as that is the content of the assertion, it's not objective (nor, as *bigshot* noted, should it be).


----------



## Lenfer (Aug 15, 2011)

BurningDesire said:


> I wasn't insinuating that, I promise, and I really don't think anybody else was either on that other thread. Nobody said Mozart sucks, and I don't think anybody purposely insulted others' taste for liking it. It was mostly a criticism of the conservative listeners who only listen to old music, and actually do insult modern composers and their work.
> 
> Another reason for the thread was the frustration at this double standard where if you criticize old masters you're trashing them and you're insulting the listeners if you call their taste into question, but if you do much worse to contemporary works and call their listener's taste into question, thats just your opinion, thats fine.


I wasn't referring to you *BD* just to what I thought the OP was getting at.


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

We could probably devise a test to see whether the presence of examples would make criticisms of Mozart less offensive to those who are predisposed to take offense at it. We could go back to the "Dinosaur" thread, reassert that some works of Mozart are boring, and then cite specific examples in meticulous, objective detail. We can see of this would make the offense-takers any less sensitive to this perceived slight on their favorite composer. I'm guessing it would not, and if I'm right about that, it suggests that the problem is not merely with those who criticize music; _some_ fault also lies with those who perceive criticisms of music as criticisms of themselves.


----------



## Lenfer (Aug 15, 2011)

Eschbeg said:


> We could probably devise a test to see whether the presence of examples would make criticisms of Mozart less offensive to those who are predisposed to take offense at it. We could go back to the "Dinosaur" thread, reassert that some works of Mozart are boring, and then cite specific examples in meticulous, objective detail. We can see of this would make the offense-takers any less sensitive to this perceived slight on their favorite composer. I'm guessing it would not, and if I'm right about that, it suggests that the problem is not merely with those who criticize music; _some_ fault also lies with those who perceive criticisms of music as criticisms of themselves.


It's not about any of that it's about taking one's taste in classical music and making total off hand remakes about the person because that person's taste is different from yours. I may have the wrong idea about what this thread was originally about. But I really don't see the need for a test when all that is asked is to be civil.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Eschbeg said:


> No, it doesn't. The data itself may be objective, but I defy you to come up with an objective definition of "well constructed." So long as that is the content of the assertion, it's not objective (nor, as *bigshot* noted, should it be).


It objectivises it for me, and I believe that result is way more useful than your recalcitrance. I am not a philosopher.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

science said:


> Fine, whatever, you're excused to insult people who don't enjoy the same music you do; and I'm excused to hope that something happens rendering you unable to do so.


Do you remember that bit that said : " The endless insulting each other is getting really annoying "?


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

bigshot said:


> I just got a one week ban from another forum. The moderator told me that by criticizing ideas I thought were foolish, I was insulting people who held those opinions... and personal attacks weren't allowed.
> 
> I'm refraining from commenting on what I think of his definition of personal attacks.


It happens all the time !


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Lenfer said:


> No he didn't at least I read it as him saying those who insult and demean others because they happen to differ in opinion on music should be banned.


I think you should go back and read it again.


----------



## TresPicos (Mar 21, 2009)

Eschbeg said:


> No, it doesn't. The data itself may be objective, but I defy you to come up with an objective definition of "well constructed." So long as that is the content of the assertion, it's not objective (nor, as *bigshot* noted, should it be).


Also, even if it was possible to state some technical, objective definition of "well constructed", there is no guarantee that this automatically means "more enjoyable". A simple construction might be more enjoyable than a very elaborate one which could perhaps become an impenetrable wall of sounds. So, maybe the composer with "less well constructed" fugues would still be a "better" composer after all, because the other one got lost in technicalities.


----------



## Lenfer (Aug 15, 2011)

moody said:


> I think you should go back and read it again.





science said:


> The endless insulting each other is getting really annoying. People ought to start getting banned.


Is he not saying the people who endlessly insult each other should be banned?


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Lenfer said:


> Is he not saying the people who endlessly insult each other should be banned?


Near as I can tell they are, with regularity. Yeah, that ain't the point; maybe it's a question of where disagreement and/or criticism becomes insult.

I could say that some post 'insults my intelligence' - but that may (and perhaps should) raise the question 'What intelligence?' And is that an insult if the question is legitimate?

[Ponder on that 'philosophical' thingy, whippersnappers.]


----------



## TresPicos (Mar 21, 2009)

science said:


> You have to extend that same courtesy to others.


Agree.



> So you're not allowed to insult the music that other people like, ...


Disagree.



> ...or insult them for liking what they like.


Agree.

I like atonal music. But I would probably leave this forum if people who don't like it weren't allowed to say that they think it's crap. It's on opinion on music. And if that opinion is then followed by an earnest "please explain what's so great about it, because I just don't get it" rather than "you are all idiots for liking it", I would be happy to help out.

Certainly there must be a code of conduct, but I would hate to see this forum becoming a more pleasant place if the cost is further limitations of the freedom of expression. If someone says atonal music is crap, then I have the choice to be mature enough to see it as an opinion instead of an attack on me via the music I like.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

BurningDesire said:


> Another reason for the thread was the frustration at this double standard where if you criticize old masters you're trashing them and you're insulting the listeners if you call their taste into question, but if you do much worse to contemporary works and call their listener's taste into question, thats just your opinion, thats fine.


There is absolutely nothing wrong with criticizing any composer or work, everyone's tastes are honed on the anvil of challenges. The real trick is how you respond to the challenge... By supporting your opinions with solid arguments, or taking the chicken way and getting all butthurt about it.

A challenge to your tastes is an opportnity to learn.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Eschbeg said:


> it suggests that the problem is not merely with those who criticize music; _some_ fault also lies with those who perceive criticisms of music as criticisms of themselves.


That's a bingo.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> It objectivises it for me, and I believe that result is way more useful than your recalcitrance. I am not a philosopher.


Objectivity is a process, not a destination. One does not utter "objective sentences"... One utters sentences objectively. The rule of the game is that if someone can support their side much better than you can support yours, you cede the point. I've done that many times, including in matters of taste. A friend of mine was talking about how wonderful country music was, and I started arguing with him. He laid out a history of folk music, showed how it expressed American culture and provided examples of key styles. He made a case for it being the deepest root in American music and one of the key sources of rock n roll. When he was done, I admitted he was right and asked for a list of CDs as a starting point. Now country music is one of my favorite styles.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Lenfer said:


> It's not about any of that it's about taking one's taste in classical music and making total off hand remakes about the person because that person's taste is different from yours.


I do think that people's tastes reflect their age and level of experience, but that isn't an insult. We're all young once.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

moody said:


> I think you should go back and read it again.


The OP wrote:



> The endless insulting each other is getting really annoying. People ought to start getting banned.


Explain to me how this is suggesting posters be banned for differing in opinion.

Here are the Terms of service:



> Be polite to your fellow members. If you disagree with them, please state your opinion in a »civil« and respectful manner. This applies to all communication taking place on talkclassical.com, whether by means of posts, private messages, visitor messages, blogs and social groups.
> Do not post comments about other members person or »posting style« on the forum (unless said comments are unmistakably positive). Argue opinions all you like but do not get personal and never resort to »ad homs«.


This means that you are welcome to disagree, but not welcome to insult other members.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

TalkClassical has a reputation for hosting only civil and polite disagreements... (stifled laughter)

The bottom line is it's just letters typed on an internet forum. If you aren't having fun, do something else.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

bigshot said:


> Objectivity is a process, not a destination. One does not utter "objective sentences"... One utters sentences objectively. The rule of the game is that if someone can support their side much better than you can support yours, you cede the point. I've done that many times, including in matters of taste. A friend of mine was talking about how wonderful country music was, and I started arguing with him. He laid out a history of folk music, showed how it expressed American culture and provided examples of key styles. He made a case for it being the deepest root in American music and one of the key sources of rock n roll. When he was done, I admitted he was right and asked for a list of CDs as a starting point. Now country music is one of my favorite styles.


"Country" music and folk music are different beasties.

"Objectivity is a process" sure, but it ain't limited to your conception of it. Us uneducated hillbillies can mostly recognize damn foolishness.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

science said:


> You have to extend that same courtesy to others.
> 
> So you're not allowed to insult the music that other people like, or insult them for liking what they like...


I agree with that statement, musical taste is a personal thing, so discussing it has to aim at some sort of respect. I like robust discussion but not something that turns ugly. I think using what someone says as ammunition against them is primitive, so too is things like presenting false dichotomies which (as some have pointed out) in the 'real world' are few and far between (well, politicians do it all the time, but I hope they're not our role models, or not the worst pollies at least - Neanderthals could probably behave better if they tried).

I don't know what went on the other (CoAg's) thread. I'm tired of this stuff now. Seen it all before on this forum. When I joined three years ago, it was not very good, now I think its better.

I think that now I try to cut the crapola ideology, and just talk about the music. Whether its the things I personally get from a piece, its history, or just how I feel about it at a given time.

This is like a diary for me where I talk about music. Its okay to not form a dogmatic opinion fixed in concrete. Its okay to sit on the fence. Because basically I see no fence in sight, its in the minds of people who need fences, and neat 'boxes' to put other listeners into. With different but equally valid tastes.

I was reading an interview with one of our finest composers, Richard Meale (now passed away). He said in that interview decades ago, he had had enough of the b*tching, backstabbing, and frankly bullsh*t in the classical music industry. He actually said "bullsh*t" in the interview, like many Australians, this man did not mince words. Like Penderecki, he was accused by some as betraying some holy cause (eg. serialism or avant-garde or whatever) by changing from that to other things, incorporating other styles, a bit like Stravinsky did. Meale was a very adaptable composer but he never lost his artistic integrity or vision. Towards the end of his life he came back to elements of tradition and composed some great work, equal to his earlier experimental works.

What I'm saying is what Meale was saying. Cut the bullsh*t, that's my aim. Knowledge/intelligence is one things, attitude can be another.

I didn't read this whole thread, only the first page. I have not time and esp. not much time for negativity. I commend science though in talking of this openly. We've got to keep talkclassical a 'friendly' forum. With an open culture of respect and tolerance. Big words but we all have the basic intelligence to do it guys, so please let's try do it, move on, keep it positive.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

I agree with Mama Scarlatti's having to remind us of the code but there are maybe one or two people who can override this by possessing the necessary intellectual acumen in order to get their digs in while simultaneously sugaring their posts with deceptively polite content. Just a thought...


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Ha! Those are the Alpha males of the group.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> "Country" music and folk music are different beasties.


They're related. My friend told me some interesting facts about the history of recorded "old time" music- Carter Family, etc. he said that in the early days of records, it was all known as "hillbilly" music. Later on, Roy Acuff petitioned the record labels to divide it into "country" (old time folk) and "western" (singing cowboys and western swing). "Bluegrass" spun out, then "honky tonk", "citybilly" "nashville sound", "bakersfield sound", "rockabilly"... There's an awful lot of variety.



Hilltroll72 said:


> "Objectivity is a process" sure, but it ain't limited to your conception of it. Us uneducated hillbillies can mostly recognize damn foolishness.


I have an easier time recognizing foolishness than I do resisting participating in it. Liquor and pretty girls have sunk bigger ships than me!


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I don't think it's a generational thing. If anyone doubts that I personally can get down and dirty, revisit the old politics and religion threads. (I love nothing more than when would-be conservative tough guys whine about how I have offended them. And it happens all the time. Bunch of ******s, conservatives are. But that is NOT for here!) 

Anyway, I've also heard that in the old days you were taught to be polite, whereas today we're all rude. So I guess when you want to say that people younger than you aren't as good as you, you'll find one reason or another. 

It's also not about whether some opinions are more valid than others. We've been over that before, and I've argued very clearly that better-informed opinions are better. But that gives the better-informed the right to ignore - not insult - the less-informed. And to be frank with you, it is unlikely that I would value many of your opinions on literature. But it is unnecessary and WRONG for me go into the "What are you reading now" thread and start insulting people who like literature that I consider unintelligent.

I have not noticed any negative correlation between being well-informed and being polite, and I can't imagine any valid argument that to be one rules out being the other. 

Instead, it's about music and talkclassical.com. If this is a site where you have to think defensively every time you post, anticipating what snobby critical thing might be said and how you might respond to that, then a lot of people won't post. ("Will it be ok to like Chopin here? Or is that too cliché here? Maybe I'd better not.")

Sites like this have in part an evangelical mission, to help people curious about and new to classical music. Some of us like arguments and snobbery, but some don't, and this site is for both. There are unmoderated boards around where you can be as snobby and confrontational as you want.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I'm afraid my tastes in literature run to M. R. James, Cornell Woolrich, H. P. Lovecraft and James Cain. But I'm sure you would find lots of interesting things to discuss with me about art. I might even make you mad, which isn't necessarily a bad thing!

I judge the person based on each and every post they make. I'm not judging by politeness, though. Usually it's spelling.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

science said:


> Sites like this have in part an evangelical mission, to help people curious about and new to classical music. Some of us like arguments and snobbery, but some don't, and this site is for both. There are unmoderated boards around where you can be as snobby and confrontational as you want.


Yay! I'm happy to see someone besides me use the word "evangelical" about sharing music. 

I like this discussion so far, though I doubt it would change us much. It may change a few people though, and I guess that's what matters.

It's all about loving people, I guess.  There's no need to be mean about music, and although I promote have strong emotions/opinions about stuff, there's always respectful and thoughtful ways of expressing it.

From personal experience, I've seen what Science decries. On another forum, I read a horrible thread about my honored Russian Composer Emeritus, and I was really offended. However, thinking later, I realized I can't tie my identity too closely to any composer, because one should realize criticism of music/composer shouldn't become criticism of yourself. People have the right to criticize. What _did _happen in that thread however was _ungrounded _criticism, and it ticked off some people who knew what real criticism is to be like, reasonable and respectful.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> It's all about loving people, I guess.


Wow, that's a beautiful thought. I should think about that.


----------



## Guest (Jul 29, 2012)

Couchie said:


> We can create axioms about what is important in music, ie:
> _
> "*one cannot evaluate music or a composer on the basis of any ones personal emotional reaction or attachment, but only on the merits and strengths of the music itself*"
> 
> _But there is no foundation for such whatsoever





TresPicos said:


> Also, even if it was possible to state some technical, objective definition of "well constructed", there is no guarantee that this automatically means "more enjoyable". A simple construction might be more enjoyable than a very elaborate one which could perhaps become an impenetrable wall of sounds. So, maybe the composer with "less well constructed" fugues would still be a "better" composer after all, because the other one got lost in technicalities.


I hope as a new arrival, I've not had time to insult anyone yet (though I know from past experience how easy it can be to upset someone inadvertently). Setting aside the OP (does that constitute deliberate thread drift?) I find the idea raised by these two posts as much more interesting. Is it possible to establish some 'objective statements' about the merits of a composer's music that go beyond mere 'facts'? Or are all such statements, no matter how well supported by 'evidence', always based on a subjective point of view?

Consider this proposition: "X's music has merits which establish her, objectively, as one of the greatest exponents of the traditional symphony." To give it validity, I'd first have to define my terms - symphony, traditional, merits - and then offer examples from her music that met the terms of my definition. Then, as TresPicos says, I'd have to establish that the particular merit I was arguing had some intrinsic value that all, or mostly all, could agree; that what I meant, ultimately, was not,

"As a result of the consideration of the evidence, I can assert that X is the greatest exponent..."

but

"As a result of the consideration of the evidence, we can objectively agree that X is the greatest exponent..."

The trouble is that, so far as I can tell, the reputation of composers has never been _established _merely on the merits of the music alone, but also on a range of other factors - the impact of the advocacy by individuals of power and influence - patrons, for example; the prevailing tastes; the appeal of the personality of the composer...and so on. Nor is it easy to say that the reputation of composers has been _sustained _on the merits of the music alone. Well, it's easy to say, and possibly easy to argue, but the power of orthodoxy rather than mere longevity is underrated.

Where I think I'm going with this is to agree with couchie. Reduce all the evidence-sifting and term-defining, and you can only establish that you find X's music rewarding to listen to because of the appeal to those things in you that provoke a positive response - emotional, spiritual, intellectual, aesthetic etc. The fact that a mere 3 or a magnificent 300 million people agree with you is of no value, unless you attach greater value to the approval of others of your musical taste than to the reward of the music itself.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

brianwalker said:


> But I don't get the same courtesy from others.


Not everyone is courteous. As to courtesy: if you hold to the higher ground, you won't have to live with knowing you've compromised your integrity -- and to lose your integrity, especially when it is over a trivial matter of a mere difference of opinion -- is disproportionately costly.

Sometimes the discourteous, "What you listen to sucks." is really a preliminary challenge from those who are looking for a raging argument as their favored sport. It has never been my sport: if I sense the challenge is 'one of those,' I've sometimes put on an expression as if I was actually thinking / considering what they said, and then said, "You may be right." That effectively implodes their entire bunker filled with ammunition, leaving them high and dry, and depriving them of their thrill. Great buzz kill for that particular sort of thrill seeker


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

science said:


> If this is a site where you have to think defensively every time you post, anticipating what snobby critical thing might be said and how you might respond to that, then a lot of people won't post. ("Will it be ok to like Chopin here? Or is that too cliché here? Maybe I'd better not.")


Bravo, Science!

There have been a few thoughtful posts since this one, and I don't want to ignore them. But, I have to go back to this earlier post for a minute, because a few thoughtful posts still do not negate the truth of this statement.

(Don't fail to notice, by the way, that Science did not say "what critical thing", but rather "what *snobby* critical thing". There is a difference.)

I wouldn't want this site to be all bland and politically correct, either. It wouldn't be very entertaining.

But, you are closing your eyes to reality when you think that someone shouldn't take it personally when your response to their enthusiasm is an immediate put-down. Most people would take that personally, and no number of "You've got to Man-UP!" posts is going to change that.

If people can't/don't want to/or don't know how to be _polite_, they can at least try for a little _empathy_ sometimes.


----------



## TrazomGangflow (Sep 9, 2011)

I never argue about classical music with people outside of this forum because If I am lucky enough to find someone who shares my interest of classical music I'll be as accommodating as possible to their tastes. (even if they don't share my tastes) The beauty of this site however is that people can discuss and if necessary, argue over their tastes. I wouldn't want a mod to be deleting my argument with someone else.


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

Sid James said:


> Cut the bullsh*t, that's my aim.


Sounds like good advice.


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

science said:


> If this is a site where you have to think defensively every time you post, anticipating what snobby critical thing might be said and how you might respond to that, then a lot of people won't post. ("Will it be ok to like Chopin here? Or is that too cliché here? Maybe I'd better not.")


I'm not sure but possibly COAG, and some of those who agree with his viewpoint, are mainly concerned about the proliferation of threads on the same old topics relating to works by Mozart and Beethoven, rather than the fact that many people like these works in preference to those of lesser known composers who they like and reckon get unfair short shrift compared with Mozart et al.

If that's what COAG is saying, I would agree with him that the proliferation of new threads on the same old topics, especially which don't add anything to existing knowledge, can be tedious.

On that theme, it wouldn't do any harm if some people made a bit more effort to find a suitable existing thread in which to place their comments rather than create a new one each time they get an urge to splurge something usually quite trivial about a famous work or composer.

If no other thread exists, or can be found after a reasonable search, that's a different matter, but I would guess that there is a very high probability that a relevant previous thread does exist if only they looked harder. I know that the TC search engine is next to useless but Google searches can often be helpful in finding older threads of relevance.

Latching onto previous threads wherever possible would be a better and more educational procedure than starting a new thread each time. This is because the people who are best placed to answer such queries may not always feel inclined to repeat what they have already said on a previous occasion, or those members may have disappeared from the forum for one reason or another.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

science said:


> Wow, that's a beautiful thought. I should think about that.


Well, I hope it was interpreted correctly (I was referring it to loving people on a forum, i.e. your cyber neighbors). Just because we're not in real life doesn't mean we should not use real-life principles here.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Well, I hope it was interpreted correctly (I was referring it to loving people on a forum, i.e. your cyber neighbors). Just because we're not in real life doesn't mean we should not use real-life principles here.


You're right of course, and I hadn't been thinking of it that way. I'm out of practice!


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

Hilltroll72 said:


> It objectivises it for me, and I believe that result is way more useful than your recalcitrance.


Out of curiosity, what do you think I'm being recalcitrant about?


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Eschbeg said:


> Out of curiosity, what do you think I'm being recalcitrant about?


Hah. You are _stubbornly_ insisting on compliance with 'the letter of the law'. You and _@bigshot_ must both suffer the hardship of being educated.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

People don't need to hear generalized statements about what music I don't like. I have nothing against "subjectivity" in itself, but it is not healthy social behavior to share "hates." It creates conflict.

People are naturally drawn to what they like, and they react negatively to what they don't like, but this negative reaction is an isolating perception which does not promote social interaction. In this sense, "subjectivity" is a negative thing, because it is a passively-triggered reaction. "Reactions" are manipulations, similar to negative ad-campaigns and talk-radio propaganda; the manipulator does not really care about you, but only seeks a reaction in order to gratify themselves. In this sense, negative statements are selfish, in that they do not seek interaction or sharing, but a self-serving reaction; also, they do not inform, because we generally do not learn all the details of, or dwell in-depth on those things we dislike. Dislike is more of a visceral reaction which does not involve deep analysis.

For these reasons, I don't feel a need to generalize about music I don't like, but to share my more in-depth, thought-out impressions, to invite dialog, not to promote an agenda against any music. 

If my impressions happen to be negative or critical, they will at least be specific and thought-out, to show that I invite dialog or positive response.

Every quality has its opposite:

Too simple=refreshingly uncomplicated
Over-intellectualized=fascinating, idea-based
Too difficult=challenging
Boring=refreshingly unobtrusive
Dissonant noise=spicy sounds
Too repetitive=hypnotic, riveting
Pure crap=a rich compost

So we can see that subjective qualities tell us more about the listener than the music. If we go more in-depth and start talking about specific criteria which is necessary for us to "like" something, we begin to see that these criteria simply define the qualities of things, and are not inherently "good" or "bad," as the chart above demonstrates.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> a rich compost


As far as I can tell, I agree with everything you wrote and you wrote it well.

Also, you have added a very useful term to my vocabulary. I will now describe certain ideas as "a rich compost."


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

VSM- I'm not sure but possibly COAG, and some of those who agree with his viewpoint, are mainly concerned about the proliferation of threads on the same old topics relating to works by Mozart and Beethoven, rather than the fact that many people like these works in preference to those of lesser known composers who they like and reckon get unfair short shrift compared with Mozart et al.

If that's what COAG is saying, I would agree with him that the proliferation of new threads on the same old topics, especially which don't add anything to existing knowledge, can be tedious.

Of course you have to consider that there will always be members who are new to classical music who have only just discovered Beethoven's 9th Symphony or Mozart's Don Giovanni or Ravel's Bolero and who are in full flush of this new discovery.

Neither would I wish for this site to be limited solely to the obscure and esoteric... with members so jaded that they cannot appreciate Beethoven's 9th or Mozart's Don or Ravel's Bolero simply because they are too popular (as if that was a fault or a measure... positive of negative...of the work).


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> VSM- I'm not sure but possibly COAG, and some of those who agree with his viewpoint, are mainly concerned about the proliferation of threads on the same old topics relating to works by Mozart and Beethoven, rather than the fact that many people like these works in preference to those of lesser known composers who they like and reckon get unfair short shrift compared with Mozart et al.
> 
> If that's what COAG is saying, I would agree with him that the proliferation of new threads on the same old topics, especially which don't add anything to existing knowledge, can be tedious.
> 
> ...


May I suggest that you read the rest of my post which went on to propose that if people could be bothered to seek out any relevant previous threads this may reduce the proliferation of trivial threads like those I mentioned.

If someone simply wishes to express their new-found admiration for something like Beethoven's 9th, there are very easy-to-find threads of this nature in the Composer Guestbook section where this kind of thing would be very suitable. Why would you appear to condone the creation of a new thread on something as trivial as this?

When I first started on classical music forums many years ago the norm was to try to find an existing thread in which to post any comments. One forum, DDD, did not allow any new threads to be created by members. At this place the practice of creating new threads willy-nilly has grown out of all proportion, so much so that it's virtually impossible to find anything more than a few weeks old.

This problem is self-reinforcing. Most if not all of the new threads don't add one iota of useful knowledge to what's already been said, and are often a lot less useful than the older ones.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Very Senior Member said:


> May I suggest that you read the rest of my post which went on....


Having (in my judgment at least) had my words taken out of context by SLGO on numerous occasions, I really wish he wouldn't snip the quotes like that. Removing the links and the username and snipping the quotes strikes me as a rich-composty way of treating other people's posts.



Very Senior Member said:


> When I first started on classical music forums many years ago the norm was to try to find an existing thread in which to post any comments. One forum, DDD, did not allow any new threads to be created by members. At this place the practice of creating new threads willy-nilly has grown out of all proportion, so much so that it's virtually impossible to find anything more than a few weeks old.
> 
> This problem is self-reinforcing. Most if not all of the new threads don't add one iota of useful knowledge to what's already been said, and are often a lot less useful than the older ones.


I feel you. I tried to organize the "composer guestbook" thing and a lot of threads need to be merged. Once they are merged, the results are sometimes serendipitous. On the other hand, if the discussion has just been repeated, there's no need for clutter.

I'm not sure you know about the search function. If not, scroll up to the top of the page, look on the right side just under the main graphic. The baton is pointing at it. Once you get used to it, it's handy.

It's hard to find a balance between allowing people to start new threads, because we're a largely different set of participants than whoever had the discussion before, and discouraging the proliferation of threads. It seems there are different values involved - the message board as a place of record, the message board as a chat room. At any rate, from your description it sounds to me like DDD went pretty far to one extreme. When I first got here, I was yelled at several times for starting threads, and it seems to me that it's good that we've relaxed a bit about that. I hadn't noticed, but perhaps we've gone too far in the other direction now.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

It may be that_@VSM_ has some exposed nerve ends, but the posts that irritate him _could_ stand collating.

Is there a way for the admins to provide limited editing rights to a volunteer collator/gatherer? (Mind you, I am not volunteering.)


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

science said:


> As far as I can tell, I agree with everything you wrote and you wrote it well.
> 
> Also, you have added a very useful term to my vocabulary. I will now describe certain ideas as "a rich compost."


Whoops! My "rich compost detector" just went off!


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

_Very Senior Member- May I suggest that you read the rest of my post which went on...._

Science- Having (in my judgment at least) had my words taken out of context by SLGO on numerous occasions, I really wish he wouldn't snip the quotes like that. Removing the links and the username and snipping the quotes strikes me as a rich-composty way of treating other people's posts. 

You mean the manner in which you just snipped the above quote out of context? I didn't know that you were in charge of the rules regarding the manner of posting and/or debate.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Very Senior Member said:


> If someone simply wishes to express their new-found admiration for something like Beethoven's 9th, there are very easy-to-find threads of this nature in the Composer Guestbook section where this kind of thing would be very suitable. Why would you appear to condone the creation of a new thread on something as trivial as this?


uh... Creating threads and discussing is the whole point of a discussion forum. And people aren't required to only discuss things that haven't been discussed before. I'm afraid it's your job as a reader to scan the topics and choose the ones you want to read. It really isn't difficult.

I'm of the opinion that newbies should be encouraged and cultivated, not sat down and forced to read posting guidelines faqs.


----------



## Toddlertoddy (Sep 17, 2011)

bigshot said:


> uh... Creating threads and discussing is the whole point of a discussion forum. And people aren't required to only discuss things that haven't been discussed before. I'm afraid it's your job as a reader to scan the topics and choose the ones you want to read. It really isn't difficult.
> 
> I'm of the opinion that newbies should be encouraged and cultivated, not sat down and forced to read posting guidelines faqs.


Which is how a stereotype forms that classical music fans are elitist, pretentious snobs that dismiss the unknowledgeable and other genres.


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

bigshot said:


> uh... Creating threads and discussing is the whole point of a discussion forum. And people aren't required to only discuss things that haven't been discussed before. I'm afraid it's your job as a reader to scan the topics and choose the ones you want to read. It really isn't difficult.
> 
> I'm of the opinion that newbies should be encouraged and cultivated, not sat down and forced to read posting guidelines faqs.


Don't try to twist or read too much into what I suggested. It was only that there may be perfectly satisfactory existing threads on various well-worn topics where people can add their opinion or seek advice, and if so why not use them rather than create an ever-increasing stock of new threads? For example, the "I-Luv-Beethoven" type of threads seem pointless to me and the content could simply be dropped into a suitable Composer Guestbook thread under LvB.

This is not to ignore the interests of newbies. On the contrary, I mentioned that this may be advantageous to them because a better stock of information may already exist on previous threads. A new poster would probably stand to learn more from those than from a new thread which may have been exhausted to death.

For example, if someone suggested that Mozart is rubbish why not point them towards the "Mozart - God or Garbage" thread. Just about every conceivable angle on the subject was looked at on that long-running thread, and they would probably learn far more from reading through all that than the kind of more limited response they may find these days, since the subject is so stale and passe.

If someone asked about new headphones wouldn't it make sense to go to one of the existing threads on the subject? Or if someone asked about the relative quality of the different lossy sound formats, wouldn't you suggest that they might check out an existing thread on the subject, where mostly, a good deal of the relevant wisdom appears to have been stated before.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I think a forum is a real time thing, not an archive of past thought. If there isn't a "I Love Beethoven" thread going on at any given time, we're doing something wrong. That's exactly the sort of thing that *should* be going on. It's greatly preferrable to threads full of bald, discussion halting comments like "I hate Beethoven's 9th. So there."

I participate in the GMG forum too, and I really like their beginners forum. It doesn't get used enough. There is such a vast ocean of core repetoire, I haven't been able to fully explore it in my three decades of listening. I find it hard to believe that the twenty year olds here who proclaim they're "tired of the same old things" have had the time to become bored with all of it. I suspect they have just skipped over it with a cursory glance because it isn't "obscure enough". Too bad for them. Maybe some folks actually have maxed out on the popular classics. I feel sorry for people who think there isn't anything left to say about Mendelssohn's symphonies or Mozart Piano Concertos. What an oversaturated and drained existence they must lead.


----------



## Guest (Jul 29, 2012)

Very Senior Member said:


> It was only that there may be perfectly satisfactory existing threads on various well-worn topics where people can add their opinion or seek advice, and if so why not use them rather than create an ever-increasing stock of new threads? [...] I mentioned that this may be advantageous to them because a better stock of information may already exist on previous threads. A new poster would probably stand to learn more from those than from a new thread which may have been exhausted to death.
> 
> For example, if someone suggested that Mozart is rubbish why not point them towards the "Mozart - God or Garbage" thread. [...] If someone asked about new headphones wouldn't it make sense to go to one of the existing threads on the subject? Or if someone asked about the relative quality of the different lossy sound formats, wouldn't you suggest that they might check out an existing thread on the subject, where mostly, a good deal of the relevant wisdom appears to have been stated before.


And yet when I asked whether someone could point me in the direction of a suitable thread on what I thought was a big and obvious topic (definition of classical music) so I could stop thread drift, your answer was...



> Mostly, previous discussions, even on the hottest topics, become buried very quickly. There was a time when existing members, or perhaps one of moderators, might flag up a previious thread if it seemed to be of relevance, but that rarely happens any more. This is partly because it was found to be a waste of time in practice since the previous threads that were referred to seldom got picked up any further. People generally couldn't be bothered to read them, especially the longer ones, but instead focused attention exclusively on whatever new thread was opened.
> 
> On any of the more contentious topics hardly any consensus emerged. Even if iit did, who cares as it's not going to prevent new member from raising the same old topics and expresing viewpoints of their own, regardless of what others may have said in previous threads of the same topic.


http://www.talkclassical.com/19687-tcs-50-greatest-composers-100.html#post331833

I'm sure that it's no member's specific responsibility to help newbies find their way around a new forum, but you seemed to suggest that even if it were, it would not be either possible of worthwhile. You seem to have had a change of heart.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

bigshot said:


> [...]
> I feel sorry for people who think there isn't anything left to say about Mendelssohn's symphonies or Mozart Piano Concertos. What an oversaturated and drained existence they must lead.


"Over-saturated and drained"?


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> And yet when I asked whether someone could point me in the direction of a suitable thread on what I thought was a big and obvious topic (definition of classical music) so I could stop thread drift..


i'm happy to drift the thread a little. I'm working my way through a set of DVDs by a Professor Greenberg of Berkeley on music appreciation. Interesting series of 48 lectures charting the history of Western music... Your library might have them... Anyway, he says that "Classical Music" is a misnomer. Classical refers to either music of the classical period (Haydn, Mozart) or ancient Greek music. The term he uses is "Concert Music" because it is composed to be performed in concerts. He says not to get hung up on the dividing line between popular music and concert music, because things that we now consider concert music were considered popular music in their day. However, to generalize, concert music is usually more dense with information than popular music.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> "Over-saturated and drained"?


Over exposed to great music to the point of having no appreciation left for it. Is that clearer?


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

bigshot said:


> Over exposed to great music to the point of having no appreciation left for it. Is that clearer?


Oh not at all :3 I have endless appreciation for the masterpieces of Zappa, Stravisnky, Ives, Schnittke, Cage, Kajiura, and Hendrix ^^


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I'm talking about popular classics (Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Tchaikovsky...) not avant garde, conceptual and rock music. The young people who claim to be over exposed to the popular classics almost invariably like the kind of music you mention.

I just think it's a shame if someone can't appreciate music if it was made more than fifty years ago. If that was me, I'd slit my wrists. Perhaps not knowing makes it easier to live with.


----------



## Lenfer (Aug 15, 2011)

I still think the original post was more about the behavior of some members in regards to how they treat other members, who may not like the same music or at least to a different degree. So I find all this discussion on what should be allowed pointless.

All topics provided they comply with the rules are (and should be) allowed and most likely have an appropriate section in which they can be posted.

Not everyone who likes classical music or any type of music/art etc is going to be coming at it from the same level or for the same things. I think *this* is where the problem lies here. For those who think they are on a higher level of appreciation compared to the rest of the users they get annoyed that other people are as they see it "content" with *Beethoven* et al.

It's not the content of the forum it's self but how people react and some do not like the same threads appearing again and again. That does not give them the right to behave brutishly because they are not getting their way.

My thoughts...


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

bigshot said:


> I'm talking about popular classics (Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Tchaikovsky...) not avant garde, conceptual and rock music. The young people who claim to be over exposed to the popular classics almost invariably like the kind of music you mention.
> 
> I just think it's a shame if someone can't appreciate music if it was made more than fifty years ago. If that was me, I'd slit my wrists. Perhaps not knowing makes it easier to live with.


pft, did I ever say I don't like that music? Beethoven is one of my personal heroes as a composer, Tchaikovsky is one of my favorites, an idol to me, and I consider myself a romantic. I also love Bach, and there are Mozart works I like quite alot too. :3 Its possible to be absolutely infatuated with the music of Bach, Tchaikovsky, Cage, Zappa and Dr. Dre.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I think Lenfer is right, it's the way we treat each other that matters. At present, I'm suffering through a horrible, dehumanizing job, and CM is my solace, my balm, my truth. So why shouldn't we treat other music-lovers and the music they like with respect, or at least indifferent silence if we can't agree? I get enough hate dumped on me every day at work.


----------



## Klavierspieler (Jul 16, 2011)

I have not read the previous discussion, and this may already have been brought up, but:

I hate you all.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

At present, I'm suffering through a horrible, dehumanizing job...

Who isn't?

Love the George Tooker painting, by the way.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> At present, I'm suffering through a horrible, dehumanizing job...
> 
> Who isn't?
> 
> Love the George Tooker painting, by the way.


I'm not  I'm a student~


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> I think Lenfer is right, it's the way we treat each other that matters. At present, I'm suffering through a horrible, dehumanizing job, and CM is my solace, my balm, my truth. So why shouldn't we treat other music-lovers and the music they like with respect, or at least indifferent silence if we can't agree? I get enough hate dumped on me every day at work.
> 
> View attachment 6574


*hug* I hope things get better for ya.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I know I'm not the only one being dehumanized. That's why we all like this great music, isn't it? We remember what it is to be human when we hear it!

I know that some people think this is too "politically correct" and squelches their freedom of speech, but I see that as being more of a thing for a sports arena, political rallies, or town hall meetings. This is CM, we are aesthetes, let's be civil, it's a social thing, not the Constitution.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

millionrainbows- At present, I'm suffering through a horrible, dehumanizing job...

SLG- Who isn't?

Love the George Tooker painting, by the way.

BurningDesire-I'm not I'm a student~

Of course you are. And I'm a teacher... And together these statements go a great deal toward explaining just why I admitted to working in a horrible dehumanizing job!


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

millionrainbows said:


> I think Lenfer is right, it's the way we treat each other that matters. At present, I'm suffering through a horrible, dehumanizing job, and CM is my solace, my balm, my truth. So why shouldn't we treat other music-lovers and the music they like with respect, or at least indifferent silence if we can't agree? I get enough hate dumped on me every day at work.
> 
> View attachment 6574


I like what you say about the 'solace' part. You know, its like going to a concert with a friend, and you can both have different opinions on the same piece of music. It may well be the opposite opinion. But it doesn't mean you have to be rude to eachother. Is your friendship worth risking for that? Or is it better to communicate in a more respectful (read: BETTER) way?

I think the latter.

I think that painting says a lot about modern society. Often I think 'is this really "progress" or is it a lot of bullsh*t?' & that's even when I'm not pessimistic, just analysing as usual.

Music is about freedom, art is about that too. Well for me it is. So too is sharing our thoughts on it. If we can't be free in an atmosphere of respect, we may as well be like those people, stuck in boxes/cages. & that's what I was saying earlier, I don't want to be put in a 'box' pertaining to my tastes. & I try not to put others in a box, just let them give their honest opinion. I'd rather that than gobbledigook or jargon. It's got to be real.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> millionrainbows- At present, I'm suffering through a horrible, dehumanizing job...
> 
> SLG- Who isn't?
> 
> ...


What kinda teacher?


----------



## peeyaj (Nov 17, 2010)

I am allowed to like this kind of music.






Baroque, Classical and Romantic.. yeah


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

BurningDesire said:


> What kinda teacher?


A horrible dehumanizing one, like he said.

(Joking!)


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

peeyaj said:


> I am allowed to like this kind of music.
> 
> ...
> Baroque, Classical and Romantic.. yeah


Well, peeyaj, you like more kinds of music than I do.

I like BOTH kinds of music, Country AND Western...corny, I know, but someone has to pile up the corn around here :lol:...or is that (the band) Korn? ...dunno I'm very confused...can I like Korn? (or corn?)...


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

MacLeod said:


> And yet when I asked whether someone could point me in the direction of a suitable thread on what I thought was a big and obvious topic (definition of classical music) so I could stop thread drift, your answer was...
> 
> I'm sure that it's no member's specific responsibility to help newbies find their way around a new forum, but you seemed to suggest that even if it were, it would not be either possible of worthwhile. You seem to have had a change of heart.


I'm sorry you have trouble reconciling what I wrote in the other thread with what I have written in this thread.

In the previous thread, _"TC's 50 Greatest Composers List"_, you asked whether someone could point you to a suitable previous thread where you might find a definition of classical music, in the context of your suggestion that some film music composers should be admitted to the list classical music composers. You were facing some opposition to this suggestion, based on your proposal to include Max Steiner.

I answered this by saying that relevant old threads on some topics can be often difficult to find, that they don't always reach clear conclusions, and that even if they did it's not likely to bind people now from possibly taking a different view now. In the specific case of whether or not film music can be considered to be "classical music", I suggested that there was very little likeliihood of finding a previous thread in which any clear cut view emerged. In fact, there was a previous thread which I recalled but I didn't mention it. It took place several years ago, and quickly developed into quite a slanging match. Two members were banned permanently as a result of it.

What I'm saying now in this thread is a different kettle of fish, or at least I intended it to be. In this thread I'm talking about the proliferation of threads on the same old topics such as those relating to famous works by Mozart and Beethoven, to the virtual exclusion of works by more modern composers. This issue was first raised by COAG in another parallel thrread. I am suggesting now that often these threads contain nothing of substance, and the comment could easily be dropped into one of any number of existing threads, which are generally much easier to find if only people took a bit of trouble, and which often do contain useful information, representing the opinions of several previous members.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Lenfer said:


> Is he not saying the people who endlessly insult each other should be banned?


But he wrote ".....but if we met in real life I think it would come to blows, and rightfully so."


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

mamascarlatti said:


> The OP wrote:
> 
> Explain to me how this is suggesting posters be banned for differing in opinion.
> 
> ...


I suppose I must be dense but i don't understand , to what from me are you referring ?


----------



## Genoveva (Nov 9, 2010)

science said:


> The endless insulting each other is getting really annoying. People ought to start getting banned. That's up to the mods of course, but if we met in real life I think it would come to blows, and rightfully so. There are a few of you....


You think there are current members who should be banned because of making endless insults?

Care to mention any names, and what exactly are you referring to as "insults"?

You think you would come to blows with these members if you met them in real life, and you think this would be appropriate? Care to elaborate on "come to blows"?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Genoveva said:


> You think there are current members who should be banned because of making endless insults?
> 
> Care to mention any names, and what exactly are you referring to as "insults"?
> 
> You think you would come to blows with these members if you met them in real life, and you think this would be appropriate? Care to elaborate on "come to blows"?


No, what I meant was clear. I grew up *******, fundamentalist, conservative, and that all means I believe in the efficacy of violence in the creation of decent manners.

However, Lenfer was right to bring up love. What I wrote wasn't loving, it was angry and vindictive, and I shouldn't have written it. I probably ought to be more saintly - no matter how I am treated, I ought to turn the other cheek, etc... Even if I fight back, I ought to do it in a loving way. My attitude was wrong.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Genoveva- You think there are current members who should be banned because of making endless insults?

Care to mention any names, and what exactly are you referring to as "insults"?

Well... it would seem he must be referring who would post a personal insult such as this:

Stlukesguild (quote)- And I'm a teacher...

BurningDesire (quote)- What kind of teacher?

Science- A horrible dehumanizing one...

But then that can't be right... because then he would have to ban himself.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Genoveva- You think there are current members who should be banned because of making endless insults?
> 
> Care to mention any names, and what exactly are you referring to as "insults"?
> 
> ...


See, when you intentionally cut out the link and the word "joking," you make it look as if I didn't say I was joking, and attempt to prevent others from finding out that I said so. It was obviously good-natured ribbing, but you took it seriously as part of your crusade, intentionally pulled it out of context. Chill out a bit, man.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

SLGO - And I'm a teacher... horrible dehumanizing 

Like that.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

Some of us are students, some of us are teachers, the best of us are both.

Apropos of nothing.


----------



## peeyaj (Nov 17, 2010)

@stlukes, science

Every argument here in TC should end on a boxing match. Let's see who will win.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Sid James said:


> Well, peeyaj, you like more kinds of music than I do.
> 
> I like BOTH kinds of music, Country AND Western...corny, I know, but someone has to pile up the corn around here :lol:...or is that (the band) Korn? ...dunno I'm very confused...can I like Korn? (or corn?)...


I like corn and Korn and I like country too :3 My favorite country would be Johnny Cash and the band The Meatpuppets (one of the biggest influences on Kurt Cobain's writing, they combine punk and country in a glorious way).


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I've never boxed! I'd better forfeit preemptively. If we could arrange a wrestling match, that'd play more to my strengths....


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

BurningDesire said:


> The Meatpuppets (one of the biggest influences on Kurt Cobain's writing, they combine punk and country in a glorious way).


Did not know that. I'll have to check them out.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

science said:


> Did not know that. I'll have to check them out.


I recommend the record Meat Puppets II, and especially the songs "Climbing", "Lost", "Split Myself in Two", and "Oh, Me" and the instrumental piece "Magic Toy Missing". Great stuff


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

BurningDesire said:


> I recommend the record Meat Puppets II, and especially the songs "Climbing", "Lost", "Split Myself in Two", and "Oh, Me" and the instrumental piece "Magic Toy Missing". Great stuff


Thank you!

I'll return the favor. It's more than a little weird, but for "country" music that is just not what people expect, try Bonny Prince Billy. Johnny Cash got the song "I See a Darkness" from him, and if you're a Cobain fan you might just be able to appreciate BPB. Maybe not, but hey, it's fun to see what is out there.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

science said:


> Thank you!
> 
> I'll return the favor. It's more than a little weird, but for "country" music that is just not what people expect, try Bonny Prince Billy. Johnny Cash got the song "I See a Darkness" from him, and if you're a Cobain fan you might just be able to appreciate BPB. Maybe not, but hey, it's fun to see what is out there.


Definitely :3 There's always a great new adventure out there in music.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

BurningDesire said:


> Definitely :3 There's always a great new adventure out there in music.


If you ever get around to BPB, let me know what you think. I don't need you to like him or anything, I'm ambivalent myself, but I'm curious how others feel.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

science said:


> If you ever get around to BPB, let me know what you think. I don't need you to like him or anything, I'm ambivalent myself, but I'm curious how others feel.


Well I'm liking "Cursed Sleep" :3

Its kinda like bluesier Neil Young.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

quack said:


> Some of us are students, some of us are teachers, the best of us are both.
> 
> Apropos of nothing.


Well I'm the best and I am neither.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

I can see that.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Can one be a teacher if the whi... students are unwilling to learn?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I'm not asking anyone to be neutral and have no dislikes. However, it is better if these are _specific_ dislikes, about specific pieces. The problems always begin with sweeping generalizations and off-the-wall statements, such as "I'm sick of tonal music" or "Serialism is noise." These kinds of stereotypes are useless & tell us very little.

If you're going to dislike any music, and you want to be credible, then dislike it the 'old-fashioned' way: by actually listening to it, work by work.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

millionrainbows said:


> I'm not asking anyone to be neutral and have no dislikes. However, it is better if these are _specific_ dislikes, about specific pieces. The problems always begin with sweeping generalizations and off-the-wall statements, such as "I'm sick of tonal music" or "Serialism is noise." These kinds of stereotypes are useless & tell us very little.
> 
> If you're going to dislike any music, and you want to be credible, then dislike it the 'old-fashioned' way: by actually listening to it, work by work.


Yeah well true, and if the person criticising in a whimsical way, do it in a way to expose what you actually think, not belittle others.

Eg. Rossini's comment on Wagner, paraphrased as 'Mr. Wagner has beautiful moments but bad quarters of an hour' does tell us about Rossini (eg. that he does not like what he sees as long-winded operas with only a few 'good numbers' to keep them afloat).

But even though I don't like Wagner, a quote that I found by anti-Wagner obsessive Eduard Hanslick (the critic) smacks of pure ideology, or other words, bullsh*t and pseudo intellectual drivel. Hanslick wrote that "Wagner's art recognises only superlatives, and a superlative has no future. It is an end, and not a beginning."

So Rossini is funny and kind of says something true to many people. But Hanslick can't say things straight, or as he just naturally sees them, he has to talk jargon.

So this is what I'm saying all the time here. Cut the crapola, give us the real low-down of what you think, whether its good, bad or ugly. Don't hide behind ideology and weasel words.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Sid James said:


> [...]
> So this is what I'm saying all the time here. Cut the crapola, give us the real low-down of what you think, whether its good, bad or ugly. Don't hide behind ideology and weasel words.


That's a fine sentiment, _Sid_, but it can easily be re-worded as 'tell it like it is'. Some folks' way of 'telling it like it is' tends to get them banned. Some of the posts by COAG and his coterie seem to invite that sort of response (deliberately or otherwise, doesn't really matter).

Do you suppose there is a SPFTCD (Secret Plot For Talk Classical Domination)?


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

I think it all has to do with the reasons why we post on a forum like this. 

We like to say that we're here to share our love for classical music, but with few and notable exceptions (the greatest of whom hasn't posted here in several months), most of us post, at least partially, to be noticed. Good-natured or informational posts usually don't accomplish that goal as well as saying something hilariously funny or shockingly biased will.

So, when the forum is kind of like a stand-up comedian's stage, or a FOX news pulpit, rather than a lounge for members to share thoughts, it's only to be expected that the dialogue becomes what it has become.

I'm convinced the best way to deal with it all is to ignore the controversy and stubbornly stick to being friendly.

Now, if I could only think of something to say......


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

> Vesteralen;334918 or a FOX news pulpit,


Sshh, you uttered the name of "they who shall not be named."


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

Imagine if I'd put "news" in quotes... You'd probably never hear from me again.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Hilltroll72 said:


> That's a fine sentiment, _Sid_, but it can easily be re-worded as 'tell it like it is'. Some folks' way of 'telling it like it is' tends to get them banned. Some of the posts by COAG and his coterie seem to invite that sort of response (deliberately or otherwise, doesn't really matter)...


Yeah I know what you mean. But I think its not to hard to both say what you want directly and also say it in a way that is balanced. Eg. not too emtional or rude. Toning it down a bit. Taking the edge of your 'gut reaction.'

Its an imaginary line, it seems sometimes. A line drawn in the sand as well. & I try not to respond to things that are winding me up. Not straight away at least. When I did that once, it lead to me stepping over the line of the rules. I want to avoid that.



> ...
> Do you suppose there is a SPFTCD (Secret Plot For Talk Classical Domination)?


Now its getting to the stage of conspiracy theories. Yikes. Is it that bad now?



Vesteralen said:


> ...most of us post, at least partially, to be noticed. Good-natured or informational posts usually don't accomplish that goal as well as saying something hilariously funny or shockingly biased will.
> 
> So, when the forum is kind of like a stand-up comedian's stage, or a FOX news pulpit, rather than a lounge for members to share thoughts, it's only to be expected that the dialogue becomes what it has become...


Yeah I agree, sometimes I can't resist in kind of throwing in a grenade, but I try not to do a total bombshell or a wipeout. There's limits to comedy or proseletysing. I try to do it with good nature, not malicious. That's the thing. Not getting too emotional.


----------

