# In defense of Bach and Mozart--article



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

I found this article quite interesting. I think you'll enjoy it: http://chambermusiciantoday.com/blog/posts/In-defense-of-Bach-and-Mozart/

Discuss. I personally enjoy Bach and Mozart very much, for various reasons.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

The notion that Bach and Mozart need defending is blogludicrous.


----------



## World Violist (May 31, 2007)

I liked this article. I still quite dislike Mozart, but I adore Bach and Haydn precisely because of the simplicity. Ironically, that's the reason I like so many modern composers, particularly Webern; they aren't out looking for great intimate godly universal truths about humanity through themselves, rather writing the music for its own sake and for themselves.


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

Bach, Mozart and Haydn are not simple, they're just less Romantic. Why people continue to make this mistake is beyond me.


----------



## scytheavatar (Aug 27, 2009)

Hilltroll72 said:


> The notion that Bach and Mozart need defending is blogludicrous.


This really. And "you can tell from the first bar that it's not going to be music, it's just going to be note-note-note-note-note" describes Beethoven's violin concerto more than it does any violin music from Mozart or Bach; or at least from the first bar the violin soloist starts playing.


----------



## World Violist (May 31, 2007)

Webernite said:


> Bach, Mozart and Haydn are not simple, they're just less Romantic. Why people continue to make this mistake is beyond me.


I don't mean to say "simple;" I was trying to find a better word and gave up. "Less romantic" is fine.


----------



## Guest (Dec 30, 2010)

Hilltroll72 said:


> The notion that Bach and Mozart need defending is blogludicrous.


My sediments, exactly!:tiphat:


----------



## Guest (Dec 30, 2010)

Webernite said:


> Bach, Mozart and Haydn are not simple, they're just less Romantic.


And, back in the day, Mozart and Haydn were the romantics (in contrast to the classicism of Bach, say).


----------



## zoziejemaar (Dec 15, 2010)

I think that Bach and Mozart have quite different reputations. I do not think that Bach needs defending for many classical music lovers, whereas Mozart is sometimes lightly despised by the connaisseurs. Many romantic and modern composers often turn to Bach, but less to Mozart, I would say. 

Apart from that, I don't think that the music Mozart wrote for the violin was his finest. He did not invested that much energy, imagination and interest in his violin concertos as in his piano concertos (apart perhaps from KV219, the "Turkish").


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

World Violist said:


> I liked this article. I still quite dislike Mozart, but I adore Bach and Haydn precisely because of the simplicity.


Now, 'simplicity' is not a word I would immediately attach to Bach's music! Perhaps I didn't read the article properly, but I didn't sense it was 'defending' anything. And as has already been stated, Bach and Mozart don't need ANYONE to defend their great art.

I found the Beethoven reference the most interesting. I have worked with more than one conductor who said they approached Beethoven with more respect than almost any other composer and held-off conducting him until they felt they were musically and emotionally 'ready'.

Sadly, there are a few whizz-kid fiddle players (one particularly not-physically-unattractive young American violinist springs to mind) in the 'note-note-note-note' category nowadays; technically brilliant but musically barren.


----------



## Norse (May 10, 2010)

I think his son shows some serious prejudice and lack of reflection. Saying that it's not music and it's just note-on-note doesn't make a whole lot of sense, and is just an elaborate way of saying "me no likey". Mozart, and to some degree Bach, can be very predictable, though. But those aren't so much "personal faults" as a direct and natural result of the musical culture and language they operated within. (The same complaint could be directed at their contemporaries, and in a lot of cases also to a greater degree, I'm sure.) Of course, musical predictability doesn't disappear once we reach romanticism, but there seems to be gradual diminishing (on the whole) of it the further down the line of "art music" we come..

His redefintion of "classical music" is a little interesting though, since it allows for basically all music to be classical. If someone listens to a Rihanna song today and it "reached them at a basic level" then it's classical music. It's not that I'm a "high cultural nazi-snob" defending my precious "classical music", but it is an expression that is vague enough already, isn't it?


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Norse said:


> Mozart, and to some degree Bach, can be very predictable, though. But those aren't so much "personal faults" as a direct and natural result of the musical culture and language they operated within.


And because we are all so familiar with their music. Mozart of course only lived for 35 years too and within that time he did help push the classical style further in its development.


----------



## TresPicos (Mar 21, 2009)

Interesting to see Bach and Mozart grouped together against Beethoven in matters regarding nauseating over-reverence, instead of Bach and Beethoven against Mozart. 

There is little risk involved in praising Bach or Beethoven. Everyone will respect your opinion. Do mention Beethoven's late string quartets and Bach's cello suites, and you'll even get an A+. 

Mozart's music, on the other hand, is so "simple" that even the riff-raff can understand it, so if you like Mozart, do it on the QT.


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

World Violist said:


> I don't mean to say "simple;" I was trying to find a better word and gave up. "Less romantic" is fine.


Yeah. I was referring to the article, not to your post.  Sorry for any misunderstanding.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

And Beethoven admired the simplicity of Handel's musical means. Complexity for the sake it is hardly admired by the best of composers anyway. Arguably the romantic period while it helped contribute to modernism also resulted in a backlash as well with some composers. Indeed many genres that have been so popular in modern music like the string quartet and the symphony actually started in the classical period.


----------



## Guest (Dec 30, 2010)

Simplicity, to me, need not be derogatory. For me, beauty is what I look for in music. Whether it is simple or complex, that is irrelevant. Sometimes the complex ones are fun to listen to and dissect, but for someone to create a captivating piece of music that is also simple is also a sign of talent, just as succinctness in oratory is also considered a virtue when compared to verbosity. Simple can often be elegant.

Mozart is a composer that I often come back to, then leave for a while. He was my first interest as I began my foray into classical, and I found his music very "simple" and approachable. Then I went on to "meatier" stuff. Then after my tastes had matured a bit, I found myself again returning to Mozart, and finding a new level I had not seen before. A friend of mine who was schooled in music, who helped steer my tastes in classical music early on told me of a professor that once told him that you start and end with Mozart. Sometimes Mozart is dismissed as being too simplistic, but over time, his genius becomes more evident. Perhaps it is related to the volume of work that he put out, as compared to later composers of the Romantic period and beyond. Beethoven had 9 symphonies, Mozart had over 40 (and Haydn had more than 100!). His combined contributions to the concerto genre is also quite large, as with other genres as well. Is he to be dismissed because not everyone is a masterpiece? And yet, while not all are masterpieces, there is a high percentage that rises to the level of good, if not great.

But then again, there really is no need for a defense of these two. The sheer volume of recordings of works of these two masters attests to the fact that they are in no danger of slipping into obscurity. The fact that you have your choice of collections for the entire cantata output of Bach tells me that we have nothing to fear from criticism of these composers.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

I never have the desire to listen to Bach or Mozart.

I very rarely feel the need to listen to any music composed before 1800. Too formulaic and constrained by form/structure.

I rarely listen to music written between 1800 and 1900, unless it's on the radio. Too many lush strings, too greater focus on climax and tension, and too many Beethoven wannabes. This is alright once in a while but they were all at it in the late 19thC.

I have listened to _all_ of Bach's organ works and while they were easily listenable, quite enjoyable and had some great moments, there is a lot of music I'd rather hear before listening to them again. This goes for Bach across the board except for his vocal music which I find boring. I've analysed his English and French Suites, Inventions and Sinfonias, Italian Concerto, Goldberg Variations, Brandenburgs 2,3 and 5, and a sampling of his organ works. I can appreciate the skill and competence to compose complex fugues using retrograde inversion and all that, but that doesn't mean **** to my ears. I just find that I greatly prefer the variety modern music has to offer over an 18th century wighead.

Mozart is worse though, he produced some operas, on top of prosaic string quartets and concertos.

THE APOTHEOSIS OF THESE MEN IS DETRIMENTAL TO MODERN MUSIC AND THE PERPETRATORS NEED TO WAKE UP.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Argus said:


> THE APOTHEOSIS OF THESE MEN IS DETRIMENTAL TO MODERN MUSIC AND THE PERPETRATORS NEED TO WAKE UP.


Who are these perpetrators?


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

Hm... Now the scientific part of my mind is wondering if there's any correlation between religiousness/spirituality and a liking of Bach and Mozart's music. To Bach and Mozart, music was a very spiritual form of expression, while music became more of a personal (and secular) form of expression during the Romantic era, eventually leading to the commercialization and industrialization of music. **wanders off in thought**

I personally dislike much modern music. Beethoven and Tchaikovsky are about the latest I consistently enjoy listening to, aside from good classic rock like Pink Floyd, Jethro Tull, Queen, Led Zeppelin... Every now and then, I enjoy a few works by Richard Strauss and Mahler every now and then, but that's about it.

Then again, I don't have a very wide collection of music to choose from anyway...


----------



## Guest (Dec 31, 2010)

Argus said:


> THE APOTHEOSIS OF THESE MEN IS DETRIMENTAL TO MODERN MUSIC AND THE PERPETRATORS NEED TO WAKE UP.


The only thing detrimental to modern music would potentially be its inability to produce music that people actually like. As long as they can produce music that someone else is willing to listen to, the works of long dead composers shouldn't matter.


----------



## Nix (Feb 20, 2010)

Not sure if I agree with Einsteins implication that Mozart and Bachs music don't have personality. And I'm so tired of everyone saying that classical music was so limiting that it's not worth listening to. The point is that composers like Mozart and Haydn were able to express themselves within limitations... and even still they were breaking boundaries all the time. Their innovations just have to be put into perspective, and in the end you'll find that their form of expression is every bit as raw and pure as someone like Mahler.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Mozart's music is often distinctly different to Haydn's. Mozart generally sounds more refined and Haydn more earthy.


----------



## Rasa (Apr 23, 2009)

starry said:


> Mozart's music is often distinctly different to Haydn's. Mozart generally sounds more refined and Haydn more earthy.


That seems like a bit of a generalisation. Haydns later works easily match up to Mozart's in every aspect, especially the symphonies.


----------



## hocket (Feb 21, 2010)

*some guy wrote:*



> And, back in the day, Mozart and Haydn were the romantics (in contrast to the classicism of Bach, say).


Really? I'm well aware that Haydn and Mozart were viewed as Romantics in the early 1800's by some people but I was certainly not under the impression that Bach (presuming you mean JS) or the music of his era was ever referred to as 'Classical'. Can you cite a source for this or were you just using the word 'classical' to equate with 'the olden days'?

*Argus wrote:*



> THE APOTHEOSIS OF THESE MEN IS DETRIMENTAL TO MODERN MUSIC AND THE PERPETRATORS NEED TO WAKE UP.


...er? Maybe you should take a deep breath. I know there are some ludicrously heated and unreasonable debates about old vs new music on these boards that might have provoked this. Obviously it's fine for you to like, and more pertinently dislike, whatever you want to but surely the diversity and the drive to break new ground in modern music shows that there is actually no detrimental effect on modern music. If it's not in creativity but in commerce that you feel the damage is being done then there is an obvious answer: considerable swathes of the pop market vastly outsell Mozart or Bach so their 'apotheosis' isn't cornering the music market at all.

Sure, past masters always tend to get mythologized, romanticized and held up as the ideal in all creative fields; that sort of thing is certainly well worth debunking. I just don't see that there is any real evidence that their 'apotheosis' is actually holding music back at all, and lacking that your statement just looks like a projection of personal resentment onto an idea. I normally enjoy your contributions (well, in truth I enjoyed this one too but usually you're being funny deliberately) but I think you've lost the plot with that one.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Rasa said:


> That seems like a bit of a generalisation. Haydns later works easily match up to Mozart's in every aspect, especially the symphonies.


I wasn't making a value judgement with that statement, though I suppose I prefer Mozart more in general. And yes I know it is a generalisation but one that does ring true for me quite often.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

hocket said:


> I'm well aware that Haydn and Mozart were viewed as Romantics in the early 1800's by some people but I was certainly not under the impression that Bach (presuming you mean JS) or the music of his era was ever referred to as 'Classical'. Can you cite a source for this or were you just using the word 'classical' to equate with 'the olden days'?


Yeh JS Bach was seen as quite old fashioned by many by the end of his life, rightly or wrongly. Mozart and Haydn though in the 1790s were not seen as old fashioned at all.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

If Mozart needs defending, then music itself needs defending. Likewise, Bach...


----------



## anshuman (Jul 6, 2010)

Well what Dr.Johnson said of Alexander Pope I'll say of Mozart, if Mozart be not a musician,where is music to be found!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## hocket (Feb 21, 2010)

*starry wrote:*



> Yeh JS Bach was seen as quite old fashioned by many by the end of his life, rightly or wrongly. Mozart and Haydn though in the 1790s were not seen as old fashioned at all.


I'm afraid that you don't appear to have understood the question. I am asking about the use of the word 'classical' to describe Bach, not about whether or not he was 'old fashioned' (in which case I'd suggest that he was considered to favour a dated style even when he was young). I am asking whether 'some guy' actually meant that Bach was described as 'classical' in the late 18th C or, as seems more likely, he actually just meant 'old fashioned'.


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

I think he did mean "old fashioned"...


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Who are these perpetrators?





DrMike said:


> The only thing detrimental to modern music would potentially be its inability to produce music that people actually like. As long as they can produce music that someone else is willing to listen to, the works of long dead composers shouldn't matter.





Kieran said:


> If Mozart needs defending, then music itself needs defending. Likewise, Bach...












PERPETRATORS! WAKE UP!





Kopachris said:


> Then again, I don't have a very wide collection of music to choose from anyway...


There is so much music available for free over the internet, listening to a wide selection of music is as possible as it ever has been in human history. I don't know what country you are residing in but is there no decent radio staions there?



hocket said:


> Sure, past masters always tend to get mythologized, romanticized and held up as the ideal in all creative fields; that sort of thing is certainly well worth debunking. I just don't see that there is any real evidence that their 'apotheosis' is actually holding music back at all, and lacking that your statement just looks like a projection of personal resentment onto an idea. I normally enjoy your contributions (well, in truth I enjoyed this one too but usually you're being funny deliberately) but I think you've lost the plot with that one.


It was the caps lock, wasn't it? Too far. Hyperbole seems to be fine as long as it isn't capitalised.

I have no problem with people liking and listening to anybody, but I just can't believe Mozart, Bach and the like can still dominate classical discussions over 2 centuries after their deaths. Everybody who really knows anything about music is familiar with these men and their work. Nothing much needs to be said about them. Recommendations for preferred recordings or favourite compilations are fair enough, but statements about the quality of these guys are just bound to be overly recyclical.

I feel the same way about most art. Vermeer, Michelangelo, Titian don't impress me. Calder, Pollock or Beauys is more my kind of thing. In regards to music, I especially don't like the interest in virtuosity or technical impressiveness. Although I understand the appreciation of technique and ability, I don't consider them at all when consuming art. When listening to Xenakis I don't enjoy it because it is stochastic and uses mathematics but because on the base level I enjoy the sounds. And this is one of the common arguments for the 'old school' against the 'moderns'. It takes a lot of effort and skill to complete the Musical Offering, whereas to produce Music of Changes only takes an idea and time, or Hard Time Killin' Floor Blues only needs a guitar and three chords. That doesn't matter to me but it certainly does to some.

I'm going off track here.

I wouldn't say it's holding music back but the exaltation of Mozart et al imposes the idea in young musicians brains that to emulate these men they have to be like them. Learning from past masters is something I approve of but stunting creativity can entail. Much like say The Beatles or Metallica are held up as being unsurpassable in their fields, clones and imitators are likely.*cough*Oasis*cough*. I'd rather no musician get any credit which will allow listeners and artists alike to listen and decide for themselves what they like. Scrapping critics and reviews sounds like a good idea.



DrMike said:


> The only thing detrimental to modern music would potentially be its inability to produce music that people actually like. As long as they can produce music that someone else is willing to listen to, the works of long dead composers shouldn't matter.


I'll readdress this point.(Kind of)

Why do some people not like modern music? Maybe because they are led to believe Mozart and co are the be all and end all of music, and anything far removed from this must be bad. Replace Mozart with just about any overly exposed/praised artist.

Plus, time spent talking about Mo and Bach could be spent learning about new music. So to make up for this post here's a piece not many of you will know.


----------



## hocket (Feb 21, 2010)

*Argus wrote:*



> It was the caps lock, wasn't it? Too far. Hyperbole seems to be fine as long as it isn't capitalised.


Well, it did leve me in the awkward position of trying to picture your icon wearing Vincent Price's hat and cloak from Witchfinder General...

I certainly agree that virtuosity, complexity and sophistication are not virtues in themselves (but in this istance isn't that actually the case being made in Mozart's defence?).



> I wouldn't say it's holding music back but the exaltation of Mozart et al imposes the idea in young musicians brains that to emulate these men they have to be like them. Learning from past masters is something I approve of but stunting creativity can entail. Much like say The Beatles or Metallica are held up as being unsurpassable in their fields, clones and imitators are likely.*cough*Oasis*cough*. I'd rather no musician get any credit which will allow listeners and artists alike to listen and decide for themselves what they like. Scrapping critics and reviews sounds like a good idea.


Sounds a bit extreme -not to mention unrealistic. I think both critics and a Canon do have a useful function -but the limits of their utility should always be borne in mind and individuals outgrow the need for them if they become sufficiently immersed in the subject anyway. Maybe you think people should go and bore themselves stupid reading Harold Bloom's 'The Anxiety of Influence'? It seems to me that sites like this are divided between completely non-musical plebs like me and trained musicians. Now a lot of trained musicians were/are inculcated in the culture of late Romanticism/modernism and are thus dismissive of things that don't conform to those values. Surely it is that group which the article in question is really addressing? I certainly don't see dismissing Mozart and Bach so that we can concentrate on Wagner and Stravinsky (or whoever) as a step in the right direction. A broader musical education is surely more desirable than a narrower one? In fact we're seeing the Canon expand in the other direction as 'Early Music' has become a serious concern as more is discovered and understood about it. A century ago the general concert going public might not even have heard of, let alone taken seriously, the likes of Monteverdi or Purcell (or even Vivaldi!). That surely is a healthy development and one that puts the achievements of the 'Holy Trinity' of Bach, Mozart and Beethoven in perspective, along with the various Romantic and Modernist prima donnas.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Argus said:


> [
> I have no problem with people liking and listening to anybody, but I just can't believe Mozart, Bach and the like can still dominate classical discussions over 2 centuries after their deaths. Everybody who really knows anything about music is familiar with these men and their work. Nothing much needs to be said about them. Recommendations for preferred recordings or favourite compilations are fair enough, but statements about the quality of these guys are just bound to be overly recyclical.
> 
> I feel the same way about most art. Vermeer, Michelangelo, Titian don't impress me. Calder, Pollock or Beauys is more my kind of thing. In regards to music, I especially don't like the interest in virtuosity or technical impressiveness. Although I understand the appreciation of technique and ability, I don't consider them at all when consuming art. When listening to Xenakis I don't enjoy it because it is stochastic and uses mathematics but because on the base level I enjoy the sounds.
> ...


Well I probably prefer post-impressionist painting over other periods, but it's just because I find that slightly more stimulating. It's just an individual thing and people are different.

Any composer if followed too closely could be stunting to an artist's growth. It's up to an individual composer to make sure that doesn't happen. Any artist must find their own way, with whatever combination of influences that suits them. All appreciation of art is a mix of technique and more intangible personal factors.

It's takes quite a while to be familiar with any composer, so to say everyone fully understands Mozart or JS Bach or is totally familiar with their work might be an overstatement. And if particular areas of music which are brought up are relevant to these composers then they are likely to be discussed. And just because they are discussed doesn't mean that people are likely to be ignorant of other people in other periods. It's just up to the individual to search and find what suits them, there is plenty of other music and information on that music out there. The onus is on them.

Maybe some of the giants of the past in some ways dominate their age more than some composers in other periods dominate their own. Over time in various arts it is like there is an expansion of art both geograpically and stylistically which can make the view more complex and less easily defined by just a few major artists.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Argus said:


> I have no problem with people liking and listening to anybody, but I just can't believe Mozart, Bach and the like can still dominate classical discussions over 2 centuries after their deaths. Everybody who really knows anything about music is familiar with these men and their work. Nothing much needs to be said about them. Recommendations for preferred recordings or favourite compilations are fair enough, but statements about the quality of these guys are just bound to be overly recyclical.
> 
> I feel the same way about most art. Vermeer, Michelangelo, Titian don't impress me. Calder, Pollock or Beauys is more my kind of thing. In regards to music, I especially don't like the interest in virtuosity or technical impressiveness. Although I understand the appreciation of technique and ability, I don't consider them at all when consuming art. When listening to Xenakis I don't enjoy it because it is stochastic and uses mathematics but because on the base level I enjoy the sounds. And this is one of the common arguments for the 'old school' against the 'moderns'. It takes a lot of effort and skill to complete the Musical Offering, whereas to produce Music of Changes only takes an idea and time, or Hard Time Killin' Floor Blues only needs a guitar and three chords. That doesn't matter to me but it certainly does to some.
> 
> ...


I like the fact that you see through Oasis :tiphat: but really, the higher-end stuff gets the heave just because it's, er, unimpeachably brilliant? Sure, we can listen to other stuff too, and certainly, the likes of Mozart, Shakespeare and Michealangelo can withstand honest re-appraisals and fierce criticism, but bear in mind that these guys were working artists, craftsmen. They weren't pampered egotists, living off the laurels of their reputations. They operated in the same field as your current favourites, and started with a blank sheet - and created work which is deservedly seen as the benchmark in their fields.

I understand, a little ennui can set in. I once saw the Mona Lisa and my reaction was to shrug. But it says more about me than it does about Leonardo, methinketh!


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I never have the desire to listen to Bach or Mozart.

I very rarely feel the need to listen to any music composed before 1800. Too formulaic and constrained by form/structure.

I rarely listen to music written between 1800 and 1900, unless it's on the radio. Too many lush strings, too greater focus on climax and tension, and too many Beethoven wannabes. This is alright once in a while but they were all at it in the late 19thC.

Mozart is worse though, he produced some operas, on top of prosaic string quartets and concertos.

THE APOTHEOSIS OF THESE MEN IS DETRIMENTAL TO MODERN MUSIC AND THE PERPETRATORS NEED TO WAKE UP.

Is anyone seriously listening to the man with the Black Sabbath avatar talk about formulaic music in Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart?:lol:


----------



## Nix (Feb 20, 2010)

Argus said:


> I have no problem with people liking and listening to anybody, but I just can't believe Mozart, Bach and the like can still dominate classical discussions over 2 centuries after their deaths.


They dominate discussions because they've somehow influenced just about every composer 2 centuries after their deaths.


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

Rasa said:


> That seems like a bit of a generalisation. Haydns later works easily match up to Mozart's in every aspect, especially the symphonies.


How? The quartets and sonatas are brilliant, and I prefer them over Mozart's; but Mozart's last 6 symphonies surpass Haydn's efforts by far, especially the Jupiter symphony.


----------



## TresPicos (Mar 21, 2009)

DrMike said:


> The only thing detrimental to modern music would potentially be its inability to produce music that people actually like. As long as they can produce music that someone else is willing to listen to, the works of long dead composers shouldn't matter.


I thought the whole point of modern-era classical music was to produce music that people don't like! 

This inability you are talking about reminds me of the inability of whisky producers to produce whisky that children like. Well, whisky is for grown-ups.

Compared to the immediately enjoyable nature of 18th and 19th century music, 20th century music is more of an acquired taste and it demands more of the listener. Just like Wynton Marsalis said about jazz: "[it] won't come to you. You have to seek it out and go to it".


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

I think the main problem in modern times is that there is so much music in many different styles that is avaiblable for people to listen to. But it's actually a good problem to have I think (certainly for the audience).


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I never have the desire to listen to Bach or Mozart.
> 
> I very rarely feel the need to listen to any music composed before 1800. Too formulaic and constrained by form/structure.
> 
> ...


There is more diversity in any one year of music of the post-war era than the whole Baroque and Classical periods combined.

Take the year 1970 as an example. Here's a short list of albums/works from that year.

Black Sabbath - Paranoid
Neil Young - After the Gold Rush
Miles Davis - Bitches Brew
Steve Reich - Drumming & Four Organs
Curtis Mayfield - Curtis
Fela Kuti - Fela's London Scene
Stockhausen - Mantra
Antonio Carlos Jobim - Stone Flower
Joni Mitchell - Ladies of the Canyon
The Beatles - Let It Be
Luc Ferrari - Tautologos 3
Bruce Haak - The Electric Lucifer
Captain Beefheart - Lick My Decals Off, Baby
Funkadelic - Funkadelic & FYM...AYAWF
Freddie Hubbard - Red Clay
Alice Coltrane - Ptah, the El Daoud
Exuma - Exuma
John Cage - Song Books
Amon Duul II - Yeti
Art Ensemble of Chicago - Les Stances a Sophie
Simon and Garfunkel - BOTW
Led Zeppelin III
Boulez - Cummings ist der Dichter
Gerard Grisey - Initiation
Pentangle - Cruel Sister
Wishbone Ash - Wishbone Ash
Candi Staton - I'm Just A Prisoner
Tomasz Stanko - Music for K
Ahmad Jamal - The Awakening
Pink Floyd - Atom Heart Mother
Frank Zappa - Weasels Ripped My Flesh
Stooges - Funhouse
Sun Ra - Nothing Is
Muddy Waters - They Call Me Muddy Waters
Kraftwerk - Kraftwerk
Morton Feldman - Rothko Chapel & The Viola In My Life

There's more variety in that one year than the Baroque and Classical periods combined. Even if you included all music throughout the world during those two eras you would struggle to match 1970. On top of that 2010 holds multiple times more variety than 1970.

If I listen to a Mozart string quartet or a Bach cantata, I pretty much know what to expect before the first soundwave leaves the string/mouth/speaker. What is that if not formulaic? And that holds across all composers of that era not just M, B and B. The technology and the knowledge of acoustics at that time restricted the sonic arsenal and led to formulaic forms.



Nix said:


> They dominate discussions because they've somehow influenced just about every composer 2 centuries after their deaths.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Come on, I love rock music too, but it's ludicrous to be comparing that MacDonald's burger mish-mash of inarticulate noise with Mozart and Bach. The semi-literate gurgling and gurning of these pretentious rock stars is fine in its place, but it's kinda like comparing Dan Brown with Shakespeare. Fine, if you prefer that, but slightly unfair to old Bill, don't ya think? :tiphat:


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Kieran said:


> Come on, I love rock music too, but it's ludicrous to be comparing that MacDonald's burger mish-mash of inarticulate noise with Mozart and Bach. The semi-literate gurgling and gurning of these pretentious rock stars is fine in its place, but it's kinda like comparing Dan Brown with Shakespeare. Fine, if you prefer that, but slightly unfair to old Bill, don't ya think? :tiphat:


Black Sabbath - Paranoid
Neil Young - After the Gold Rush
_Miles Davis - Bitches Brew_
*Steve Reich - Drumming & Four Organs*
_Curtis Mayfield - Curtis_
_Fela Kuti - Fela's London Scene_
*Stockhausen - Mantra
Antonio Carlos Jobim - Stone Flower*
_Joni Mitchell - Ladies of the Canyon_
The Beatles - Let It Be
*Luc Ferrari - Tautologos 3
Bruce Haak - The Electric Lucifer*
Captain Beefheart - Lick My Decals Off, Baby
_Funkadelic - Funkadelic & FYM...AYAWF_
*Freddie Hubbard - Red Clay
Alice Coltrane - Ptah, the El Daoud
Exuma - Exuma
John Cage - Song Books*
Amon Duul II - Yeti
*Art Ensemble of Chicago - Les Stances a Sophie*
_Simon and Garfunkel - BOTW_
Led Zeppelin III
*Boulez - Cummings ist der Dichter
Gerard Grisey - Initiation*
_Pentangle - Cruel Sister_
Wishbone Ash - Wishbone Ash
*Candi Staton - I'm Just A Prisoner
Tomasz Stanko - Music for K
Ahmad Jamal - The Awakening*
Pink Floyd - Atom Heart Mother
Frank Zappa - Weasels Ripped My Flesh
Stooges - Funhouse
*Sun Ra - Nothing Is
Muddy Waters - They Call Me Muddy Waters*
Kraftwerk - Kraftwerk
*Morton Feldman - Rothko Chapel & The Viola In My Life*

The bolded names are definitely not rock and the names in italics are borderline.

I'm not arguing about quality here, just the variety of the periods. Personally, I'd take most of those artists in the list over Mozart and Bach. That's just an individual preference. However, the difference between, say Bitches Brew, Rothko Chapel, Exuma and The Electric Lucifer is immediately recogniasble to anyone with working ears.

Actually, I've made a mistake, Rothko Chapel is from 1971, but that's close enough.


















Can someone please post some music from between 1700-1800 with that kind of diversity. That's 100 years to 1. Can't say fairer than that.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Argus said:


> If I listen to a Mozart string quartet or a Bach cantata, I pretty much know what to expect before the first soundwave leaves the string/mouth/speaker. What is that if not formulaic? And that holds across all composers of that era not just M, B and B. The technology and the knowledge of acoustics at that time restricted the sonic arsenal and led to formulaic forms.


Creativity isn't just about different styles, it's about being inventive within a style. JS Bach and Mozart were very creative within their styles and thus the amount of good music they composed. Creativity doesn't have to be vastly different or revolutionary all the time, sometimes it can be subtle and involve reusing ideas in different ways. Most composers of any type reuse ideas they have anyway and how well they creatively reuse them is a good measure of how good they are.

Looking across a period as a whole it could certainly be said that there is probably more variety of music around now than ever before. That is a great thing in some ways, particularly for the listener. But there was also an advantage in the past in that composers could concentrate more on one style and explore deeply within it and bring it to a high level of development, and listeners could follow this easier as well.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

> Can someone please post some music from between 1700-1800 with that kind of diversity. That's 100 years to 1. Can't say fairer than that.


See, here's the difficulty: records only show us whose music was preserved. But we all _know_ that folk music existed back in the 18th century, as did African music, Chinese music, Japanese music, many forms of traditional music and dance music, and all types of music within the so-called "Classical" and "Baroque" periods to easily make for as much diversity as you've shown occurred in 1970. Modern media has made it possible to get all these sounds in the one room, but it doesn't mean they didn't also exist back then also.

I like a lot of the stuff you quoted, but again, I'm glad you said it isn't about quality. It's absolutely unfair to hold their excellence against the composers of Don Giovanni and St Matthew's Passion. Familiarity has bred contempt, but to champion popular music against them, under the guise of some "diversity" which has been a common feature of music since day one, is a losing argument, I'm afraid. :tiphat:


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Kieran said:


> See, here's the difficulty: records only show us whose music was preserved. But we all _know_ that folk music existed back in the 18th century, as did African music, Chinese music, Japanese music, many forms of traditional music and dance music, and all types of music within the so-called "Classical" and "Baroque" periods to easily make for as much diversity as you've shown occurred in 1970. Modern media has made it possible to get all these sounds in the one room, but it doesn't mean they didn't also exist back then also.
> 
> I like a lot of the stuff you quoted, but again, I'm glad you said it isn't about quality. It's absolutely unfair to hold their excellence against the composers of Don Giovanni and St Matthew's Passion. Familiarity has bred contempt, but to champion popular music against them, under the guise of some "diversity" which has been a common feature of music since day one, is a losing argument, I'm afraid. :tiphat:


Chinese, Indian, Japanese, Indonesian and all the other musical cultures of the world did exist back then but they exist now too. I only listed original and fresh works from 1970 otherwise I could have named a Ravi Shankar album that contains ragas based on ideas conceived before both Mozart or Bach were born. Also, many of these regional musics are improvisatory by nature or are learnt through oral tradition, making their origins are unclear. Most of these started long before 1700 and their development so gradual it's hard pinpoint exact periods of change (until quite recently that is).

So in 1970 or 2010 we have many of these folk and classical traditions existing and being performing on top of new musical styles. The further forward in time the more diverse music will get, and for me this corresponds to a greater musical period. Music can only get better over the course of time.

Take the guqin. It has existed for at least 3,000 years. Its capabalities and techniques have been figured out a long time ago. This doesn't make music played today for it any less relevant or beautiful, but it does make music for it formulaic and somewhat lacking in variety.

If anything I'm saying that the likes of Mozart and Bach should be scrutinised and criticised,_ if _the listener doesn't like what he hears when listening to their music. But also, that this criticism (or praise) is worthless no matter whether it comes from an 'expert' or a casual listener. Liking art because of its supposed greatness is as bad as hating it because it's out of fashion or uncool to like it.


----------



## Ernie (Jun 6, 2010)

I tried to listen to the first two videos posted by Argus - pure torture. When I was in college a professor made us read "The Agony of Modern Music." His answer to our rebellion was "in 50 years you'll think quite differently." Well, 50 years have passed and I'm still waiting. I've learned one thing: life is too short to waste on the bleeps and groans of "composers" who think they have something meaningful to say and on the people who are convinced they get the message. Some things are an acquired taste - others don't warrant tasting in the first place.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Chinese, Indian, Japanese, Indonesian and all the other musical cultures of the world did exist back then but they exist now too. I only listed original and fresh works from 1970 otherwise I could have named a Ravi Shankar album that contains ragas based on ideas conceived before both Mozart or Bach were born.

Argus, don't play dumb. A 3-year old could tear your argument to shreds. You know perfectly well that mass communications and the speed of trade and travel have drastically changed the face of the arts. A painter of composer living in Florence in the 1500s would have been lucky to have ever seen any art from outside a 50 or 100 mile ratio. Few composers living in the 1700s would have known what was happening outside of their home-city and a few major European musical capitals (Paris, Venice, etc...). Only the music of the elite... the composers educated enough to read and write music (as well as their native language) had any chance of being heard on a larger basis or being preserved for future generations. There was undoubtedly a huge variety of music only looking across Europe if we consider the folk musics of the various cultures. Even within classical music there is a huge variety between a sonata for solo instrument, an opera, a madrigal, and a ballet.

The composers of the 20th century, in contrast, have the advantage of having nearly unlimited access to the musics of cultures from around the world. None of the jazz or funk or rock you posted would have been possible without the influx of African music... and without the ability to preserve and disseminate this music through the use of recording and transmitting technologies. This has led to a greater availability of a variety of music... but not necessarily to a greater quality of music nor to music that is less formulaic. You suggest that one might have a good idea of what to expect from a new Bach or Mozart piece after having heard a few of their works... but do you honestly mean to suggest this is not even more true of Black Sabbath or Freddie Hubbard or Led Zeppelin?

The further forward in time the more diverse music will get, and for me this corresponds to a greater musical period. Music can only get better over the course of time.

Yes... music... art as a whole grows more diverse, but most composers/artists work within a narrow range for the simple reason that there is something to the saying "Jack of all trades, master of none." One need only listen to Paul McCartney's attempts at classical music to recognize why the vast majority of composers stick to what they know best.

The idea that the increase in diversity equals an increase in quality is simply absurd. The diversity in painting is far greater today than it was in 16th century Florence, Rome, and Venice, but there isn't a single painter alive today who can rival Michelangelo, Raphael, or Titian... let alone surpass them. The diversity of options available in literature today is surely incredible in comparison with the past... and the literacy of the population and the access to an audience through the internet... as well as formal publication... far outstrips what was available to writers at any time in history... and yet we have no living writers that currently rival dante or Shakespeare.

This is not to say that the past is unsurpassable. Picasso surely rivaled the greatest artists of all time, while Proust does not pale in contrast to Tolstoy or Virgil. But the idea that art is some linear progression that continually improves... like science... ignores reality. Of course when one actually thinks that Black Sabbath is brilliant music this reality may be difficult to accept. I know that I too might have thought in a similar manner... when I was 13.


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

How is modern music less formulaic when the majority of their chord progressions are simply I-V? (Okay, maybe a slight exaggeration. They use a lot of I-IV-V, too.) Take the first song on your list, Paranoid, by Black Sabbath: four chords, E, D, G, C. Let it Be, by the Beatles, uses only G, D, E minor, and C. After the Gold Rush, by Neil Young, relies heavily on that I-V progression I was talking about, though it does end up using A, C, and B minor chords in addition to G and D.

Seriously....

I enjoy listening to _that_ type of music every now and then, but to say that it's any less formulaic than classical music is absurd.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Ernie said:


> I tried to listen to the first two videos posted by Argus - pure torture. When I was in college a professor made us read "The Agony of Modern Music." His answer to our rebellion was "in 50 years you'll think quite differently." Well, 50 years have passed and I'm still waiting. I've learned one thing: life is too short to waste on the bleeps and groans of "composers" who think they have something meaningful to say and on the people who are convinced they get the message. Some things are an acquired taste - others don't warrant tasting in the first place.


Wrong and irrelevant. If you don't like Feldman and Davis then that's fine, but saying some music doesn't warrant listening is close minded in the extreme. It's like saying you don't like the taste of grouse and then stating it would be better to have avoided trying it in the first place. You have to let your own tastes decide. I agree about not listening to something because you are told it is good, but this applies to Mozart and Bach too.

'Life's too short to listen to music you don't like' would be a better motto.



Kopachris said:


> How is modern music less formulaic when the majority of their chord progressions are simply I-V? (Okay, maybe a slight exaggeration. They use a lot of I-IV-V, too.) Take the first song on your list, Paranoid, by Black Sabbath: four chords, E, D, G, C. Let it Be, by the Beatles, uses only G, D, E minor, and C. After the Gold Rush, by Neil Young, relies heavily on that I-V progression I was talking about, though it does end up using A, C, and B minor chords in addition to G and D.
> 
> Seriously....
> 
> I enjoy listening to that type of music every now and then, but to say that it's any less formulaic than classical music is absurd.


1. I was listing albums not songs.

2. Harmony is only one aspect of a piece of music. Skip James, Big Bill Broonzy, Sonny Boy Williamson and Buddy Guy all play the blues which is basically variations on 12 or 16 bars of I-IV-V-I in 4/4, 6/8 or 12/8, maybe with a swing feel, yet they sound very different. Similarly, a Strauss waltz or polka may use mostly those same chords and sound completely different.

3. I was referring to the period as a whole. Sabbath may be formulaic along with other hard rock bands within that genre, but the Taj Mahal Travellers or Soft Machine's Third (from 1970 also) use a very different formula. But all were using new ideas in some respects, be it electric instruments, modal improvisation or riff based compositions.

4. Do Mozart and Bach not heavily use the dominant-tonic cadence also? What about the use of motives and rigid diatonic harmony? (Except for the odd exceptional use of chromaticism).The prevalence of sonata and rondo form in the Baroque and Classical periods is much greater than the verse-chorus form people think all non-classical music is based on. The classical and jazz musicians in that list I posted each have very unique styles, and although may be formulaic taken as seperate, when combined with all music from that period, no structural correlation is visible.



Stlukes said:


> Argus, don't play dumb. A 3-year old could tear your argument to shreds. You know perfectly well that mass communications and the speed of trade and travel have drastically changed the face of the arts. A painter of composer living in Florence in the 1500s would have been lucky to have ever seen any art from outside a 50 or 100 mile ratio. Few composers living in the 1700s would have known what was happening outside of their home-city and a few major European musical capitals (Paris, Venice, etc...). Only the music of the elite... the composers educated enough to read and write music (as well as their native language) had any chance of being heard on a larger basis or being preserved for future generations. There was undoubtedly a huge variety of music only looking across Europe if we consider the folk musics of the various cultures.


What does it matter the availability of the music to European composers or audiences? I'm only arguing about its existence during that period. Like I said there _was_ variety at that time, but how much of it derived from that time. Most European folk musics had been around centuries before with the bards and troubadours of the middle ages. Most Asian folk music was steeped in traditions and rules about its form before Bach was born. I'm pretty sure even the gamelans had progressed from the bemboo jegog to the modern metallophones by then.



> Even within classical music there is a huge variety between a sonata for solo instrument, an opera, a madrigal, and a ballet


Madrigals and ballets had been around since the Renaissance, so too opera but I'll allow you that if you consider it's reform in the 18th century. So the solo sonata is the only form you listed that really developed and became fashionable during that time. The symphony and the string quartet did too but even then, they had restrictive rules about how many movements to contain and the forms and tempos of the individual movements.

The only music in my list that could have been written more than 15-20 years before 1970 is probably Muddy Waters. Not because of technology but because of stylistic evolution.



> You suggest that one might have a good idea of what to expect from a new Bach or Mozart piece after having heard a few of their works... but do you honestly mean to suggest this is not even more true of Black Sabbath or Freddie Hubbard or Led Zeppelin?


Again, taken individually it's a tough decision but the era's taken as a whole provides a non-contest.



> The diversity in painting is far greater today than it was in 16th century Florence, Rome, and Venice, but there isn't a single painter alive today who can rival Michelangelo, Raphael, or Titian... let alone surpass them.


I've already said I'd take pretty much any modern art over those guys. All art will inevitably get better over time, basically because there is more of it being produced every year. I let my senses dictate what I like, nothing else.

BTW, are these formulaic?


----------



## Ernie (Jun 6, 2010)

Argus said:


> Wrong and irrelevant. If you don't like Feldman and Davis then that's fine, but saying some music doesn't warrant listening is close minded in the extreme. It's like saying you don't like the taste of grouse and then stating it would be better to have avoided trying it in the first place. You have to let your own tastes decide. I agree about not listening to something because you are told it is good, but this applies to Mozart and Bach too.
> 
> 'Life's too short to listen to music you don't like' would be a better motto.


Actually, this is anything but irrelevant. It may be wrong - for you! If you look at 50 paintings in a particular style and hate all 50 what are the chances you'll like the 51st? This is not to say the 51st might not be wonderful. I just don't have the time to sift through the rubble to find that one gem. You're saying I must listen to everything ever written before making a judgment? I say some things are not worth the effort - not to mention the pounding my ears may endure in the process. If you have the time, patience, and stomach - go for it. After living the first 66 years of my life, I've heard enough to understand what I like and don't like. You agree "about not listening to something because you are told it is good". Why then, is it wrong to not listen to something you are told is bad?


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Ernie said:


> Actually, this is anything but irrelevant. It may be wrong - for you! If you look at 50 paintings in a particular style and hate all 50 what are the chances you'll like the 51st? This is not to say the 51st might not be wonderful. I just don't have the time to sift through the rubble to find that one gem. You're saying I must listen to everything ever written before making a judgment? I say some things are not worth the effort - not to mention the pounding my ears may endure in the process. If you have the time, patience, and stomach - go for it. After living the first 66 years of my life, I've heard enough to understand what I like and don't like. You agree "about not listening to something because you are told it is good". Why then, is it wrong to not listen to something you are told is bad?


I'm not saying that at all.

Here is your quote:



> Some things are an acquired taste - others don't warrant tasting in the first place.


I don't like opera. I've listened to a few and got nothing out of them whatsoever. So now Idon't listen to opera. However, if someone said to me what do you think of Tosca, I'd say I don't know but chances are I won't like it. Should I not have listened to those operas to find out they are crap?

I'm saying they do warrant tasting. Waht if your only experience of eating chicken was at KFC and you didn't like it, should you not try the chicken tandoori at an authentic Indian restaurant based on that experience?

I'm saying I do not regard others opinions of music at all. If someone I know who has similar tastes to me recommends an album, chances are I will like it but I should listen to it to find out.

For example, that Miles Davis piece is from an album that is considered seminal to jazz. Should you listen to it because of that? No. Should you like it because of that? Certainly not. But you must listen to it before you can decide upon this.

I know I'm stating very simple, child-like points, but all these people who think because they don't like Mozart or Bach and everyone else raves about them the fault must be with them. There is no fault.

And it is irrelevant because I don't want to go down that debate road about taste again. It's a dead end. A conversational cul-de-sac. I want to focus on more tangible aspects, like variety and formulaicism(?).


----------



## zoziejemaar (Dec 15, 2010)

Argus said:


> And it is irrelevant because I don't want to go down that debate road about taste again. It's a dead end. A conversational cul-de-sac. I want to focus on more tangible aspects, like variety and formulaicism(?).


Well, frankly said, in contemporary rock and indie music I may hear some variety, but I hear nothing new compared to 1970. That much for progression. In pop music, I hear nothing but formular structures and chord progressions, not to mention always the same producing tricks. Dance music is (apart from exciting, of course) as formulaic and monotonous as you can get. I love (some pieces of) all these genres, but I would not want to compare them to the inventiveness of someone like Bach, who (really) combined and used myriads of styles. When you are willing to enter the world of older music, a Magnificat may sound completely different from, say, an Orchestral suite. But maybe you do not care to put any 'working ears' (your words) to action.

The dogma that anything that is old, is better, is a faulty one (in music as well as in painting). But your dogma "I only let my tastes decide" is quite dangerous, for indeed, then you end up in a conversational cul-de-sac, and you don't want to put effort to come out of a world of music you are entirely engulfed in. Bach and Mozart sometimes need defending, because, in contrast to say 50 years ago, there is now a cultural elite dictating tastes which is adverse to (or ignorant of) classical music.


----------



## Ernie (Jun 6, 2010)

Argus said:


> I'm not saying that at all.
> 
> Here is your quote:
> 
> ...


Your statement is filled with contradictions. You don't like opera so you don't listen to it. You've listened to a few and decided it wasn't for you. You say opera warrants tasting - but you don't taste it! Then you call me "closed minded" for doing the same thing. If I don't like the chicken at KFC I should try it at an authentic Indian restaurant. What if I still don't like it - do I have to taste it in every restaurant in the world before solidifying my conclusion?

All I'm saying is that our time on the earth is limited. We don't have the luxury of having an eternity to discover our true likes and dislikes. If we miss a few gems along the way - so be it. There is too much beautiful music to be listened to to spend what time we have trying to find a diamond in a pile of coal. It may well be easier to focus on tangible aspects, like variety and formulaicism(?) but that doesn't make my argument irrelevant - only inconvenient.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Ernie said:


> Actually, this is anything but irrelevant. It may be wrong - for you! If you look at 50 paintings in a particular style and hate all 50 what are the chances you'll like the 51st? This is not to say the 51st might not be wonderful. I just don't have the time to sift through the rubble to find that one gem. You're saying I must listen to everything ever written before making a judgment? I say some things are not worth the effort - not to mention the pounding my ears may endure in the process. If you have the time, patience, and stomach - go for it.





Ernie said:


> All I'm saying is that our time on the earth is limited. We don't have the luxury of having an eternity to discover our true likes and dislikes. If we miss a few gems along the way - so be it. There is too much beautiful music to be listened to to spend what time we have trying to find a diamond in a pile of coal.


I've done alot of this searching for diamonds among the coal in some areas of music. Certainly much patience can be needed at times. One way round is not to listen to a piece in full, it isn't always necessary, particularly in simpler music. While that might mean I miss out on a few things here and there I get through much more music because of it. As you say you can't listen to everything, and you only have so much time on this planet (and nobody knows how much either). So just enjoy what you can while you can.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Ernie said:


> Your statement is filled with contradictions. You don't like opera so you don't listen to it. You've listened to a few and decided it wasn't for you. You say opera warrants tasting - but you don't taste it! Then you call me "closed minded" for doing the same thing. If I don't like the chicken at KFC I should try it at an authentic Indian restaurant. What if I still don't like it - do I have to taste it in every restaurant in the world before solidifying my conclusion?
> 
> All I'm saying is that our time on the earth is limited. We don't have the luxury of having an eternity to discover our true likes and dislikes. If we miss a few gems along the way - so be it. There is too much beautiful music to be listened to to spend what time we have trying to find a diamond in a pile of coal. It may well be easier to focus on tangible aspects, like variety and formulaicism(?) but that doesn't make my argument irrelevant - only inconvenient.


Yes. You have eat all the chickens.:tiphat:

It is inconvenient, in that it's a waste of everyones time discussing. It's a purely subjective argument. Some people are more adventurous listeners and desire new sounds, whilst others stick to what they know and like.



> Some things are an acquired taste - *others don't warrant tasting in the first place*.


How is this not close minded?

Music isn't like food in the way that eating just grass will kill you. In music everything is edible. Unless, there is some music that makes you into a maniac or something like that, but I haven't heard of anything like that yet.(Apart from PMRC propaganda)



zoziejemaar said:


> Well, frankly said, in contemporary rock and indie music I may hear some variety, but I hear nothing new compared to 1970. That much for progression. In pop music, I hear nothing but formular structures and chord progressions, not to mention always the same producing tricks. Dance music is (apart from exciting, of course) as formulaic and monotonous as you can get. I love (some pieces of) all these genres, but I would not want to compare them to the inventiveness of someone like Bach, who (really) combined and used myriads of styles. When you are willing to enter the world of older music, a Magnificat may sound completely different from, say, an Orchestral suite. But maybe you do not care to put any 'working ears' (your words) to action.
> 
> The dogma that anything that is old, is better, is a faulty one (in music as well as in painting). But your dogma "I only let my tastes decide" is quite dangerous, for indeed, then you end up in a conversational cul-de-sac, and you don't want to put effort to come out of a world of music you are entirely engulfed in. Bach and Mozart sometimes need defending, because, in contrast to say 50 years ago, there is now a cultural elite dictating tastes which is adverse to (or ignorant of) classical music.


I'm pretty sure I'm not engulfed my own world of music. This might be the problem here, however.(At least HarpsichordConcerto listens to the music before calling it elecronic farty junk) I have a totally different perspective and reference points as to what sounds similar or formulaic and what doesn't. I know some people here only listen to classical and some only from certain eras. For these people Haydn and Mozart will sound lightyears apart, but for me they sound very similar.

I'm not talking about pop or rock music, I'm talking about global collective music at different points in time. I too find most modern rock and indie to be rubbish because it idolises bands like Led Zep, The Sex Pistols and Nirvana, and instead of progressing is content with emulating the past.

A Magnificat and an orchestral suite do sound different, but greater so than a Roxy Music track and a Henry Brant piece or a Cromagnon album and a Gil Scott-Heron jam.

How else do I decide besides my tastes?

Am I a member of the cultural elite?

And another thing, BBC Radio 3 is playing _nothing_ but Mozart for the next 2 weeks. So far, so *****. Will someone here listen to all that and tell me it doesn't sound the same?


----------



## Ernie (Jun 6, 2010)

Argus said:


> Yes. You have eat all the chickens.:tiphat:
> 
> It is inconvenient, in that it's a waste of everyones time discussing. It's a purely subjective argument. Some people are more adventurous listeners and desire new sounds, whilst others stick to what they know and like.


So, the only discussion (argument?) worth having is one based on objectivity? This is music, not computers. We all react to music subjectively but, since it's a difficult subject to discuss, we should ignore our subjective feelings and talk of only that which we can show data for? Perhaps we should judge a piece based on the number of measures it contains - we can all agree on that!



Argus said:


> How is this not close minded?
> 
> Music isn't like food in the way that eating just grass will kill you. In music everything is edible. Unless, there is some music that makes you into a maniac or something like that, but I haven't heard of anything like that yet.(Apart from PMRC propaganda)


I didn't say it wasn't close minded, I said I choose to close my mind to things that have no importance or relevance to me. How is not listening to opera, because the few that you've experienced did not thrill you, not close-minded? We all close our minds in certain areas - some of us after intelligent thought, and some after no thought. Everything in music may be edible but there's no guarantee you won't puke.



Argus said:


> And another thing, BBC Radio 3 is playing _nothing_ but Mozart for the next 2 weeks. So far, so *****. Will someone here listen to all that and tell me it doesn't sound the same?


Okay - it doesn't sound all the same.


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

To Argus:


> Some things are an acquired taste - others don't warrant tasting in the first place.


You disagree with the above statement. Does that mean that _everything_ is worth experiencing, just for the sake of the experience? Let's apply this to a medium other than music: if it's the case that everything is worth experiencing, would you say that you were glad to have seen, say, Happy Tree Friends, or 2 Girls 1 Cup, or goatse.cx after having done so, merely for the experience? Nearly everyone agrees that those three things in particular should never be seen by anyone, except as a prank. To me, most popular music is roughly equivalent to any of those three things. Maybe not to you, though, and that's your entitled opinion. It is also my entitled opinion that there are certain styles of music that I _never_ want to listen to.

I mean, do you really think that "Never gonna give you up" by Rick Astley warrants listening to?


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Kopachris said:


> Does that mean that _everything_ is worth experiencing, just for the sake of the experience? Let's apply this to a medium other than music: if it's the case that everything is worth experiencing, would you say that you were glad to have seen, say, Happy Tree Friends, or 2 Girls 1 Cup, or goatse.cx after having done so, merely for the experience? Nearly everyone agrees that those three things in particular should never be seen by anyone, except as a prank. To me, most popular music is roughly equivalent to any of those three things. Maybe not to you, though, and that's your entitled opinion. It is also my entitled opinion that there are certain styles of music that I _never_ want to listen to.
> 
> I mean, do you really think that "Never gonna give you up" by Rick Astley warrants listening to?


Every STYLE is worth hearing, because there can good creativity within any style potentially.

I'll answer your question about 'Never gonna give you up'. Yes I think it is worth listening to and very many other people would agree with me.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I've already said I'd take pretty much any modern art over those guys. 

And most 13-year-olds would probably choose Lady Gaga over Mozart. Some will eventually grow up... and demand a bit more of art... and some (obviously) won't.

All art will inevitably get better over time...

That is simply one of the dumbest statements I have ever read here. Art is not a linear progression where one era improves upon the previous. While artists of each era certainly draw upon the previous era, they inevitably create their own artistic language which may embrace some elements of past art and reject others. Its not a cumulative development. The writers or Rome did not surpass the writers of Greece. The painters of the 18th century Europe can in no way rival the artists of the Renaissance.

I let my senses dictate what I like, nothing else.

That's fine. No one can tell you what to like. But don't confuse you personal tastes "I like this" with a value judgment "this is the better than that".


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

The funny thing about this topic is how just how wrong it is to suggest that there's no diversity in Mozart, or that he's simply "formulaic." Yesterday I listened to Cosi Fan Tutte - as I do most days lately - and it's obviously stupendous, but I also listened to his E-minor violin sonata, which is a completely different art form.

I wanted to listen to some of his string quintet K515, but got so caught up in the opera. There's so much you can choose from, it's ridiculous, and the range is from the intimate to the full-blown, choral and instrumental, operatic and symphonic, church and chamber.

I don't have much time to listen to anything else, but although diversity for its own sake isn't important, when there's quality within diversity, that makes a difference...


----------

