# Controversial site: Musoc.org



## Guest

Here's the homepage of the abovementioned site. It has caused some controversy. I agree with the definition, however, and believe "art music" hugely preferable to the misleading "classical music" terminology.

http://musoc.org/index.html


----------



## Polednice

I think a brief glance is enough to recognise that the site is utterly pathetic, and it does not warrant a proper look or any rational discussion. It's written with a lot of snobbish bile, and it would be better to ignore them and have them think that their idiocy falls on deaf ears.


----------



## Guest

Such hatred coming from one so young (?) - intrinsically very sad.


----------



## Kopachris

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> Such hatred coming from one so young (?) - intrinsically very sad.


I think the hatred coming from the creators of that site is even sadder. "Vote anti-pop," as though people can't be allowed to choose what to listen to.


----------



## Kopachris

Whoops. The site is still giving me a little trouble.


----------



## Polednice

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> Such hatred coming from one so young (?) - intrinsically very sad.


I wasn't speaking out of hatred, I was speaking out of disappointment that people such as the creators of that website can be so intolerant and unaccepting of natural diversity. Given the tone of the website, I don't suppose you created it?


----------



## Taneyev

In general, hate is a prerogative of youth. Old guys like me don't hate anymore. It's too painful and enery consumer.


----------



## Polednice

Odnoposoff said:


> In general, hate is a prerogative of youth. Old guys like me don't hate anymore. It's too painful and enery consumer.


I'm starting to feel that already. I just really can't be bothered speaking to most people any more!


----------



## jhar26

Kopachris said:


> I think the hatred coming from the creators of that site is even sadder. "Vote anti-pop," as though people can't be allowed to choose what to listen to.


If you would hear classical music wherever you go they probably would say that classical music has sold out and/or that other composers (the ones that they claim to be into of course) are more deserving. The thing that these people love most of all is the idea that they know something more than the rest of us. They like to be part of a elite, even if that elite only exists in their own imagination.


----------



## Ukko

Polednice said:


> I'm starting to feel that already. I just really can't be bothered speaking to most people any more!


Regarding that attitude, a Combination Homily:

If you stew in your own juices, eventually your goose will be cooked.

Neat, eh?


----------



## Kopachris

jhar26 said:


> If you would hear classical music wherever you go they probably would say that classical music has sold out and/or that other composers (the ones that they claim to be into of course) are more deserving. The thing that these people love most of all is the idea that they know something more than the rest of us. They like to be part of a elite, even if that elite only exists in their own imagination.


In other words, they're hipsters.


----------



## mmsbls

Wow, that site is amazing. I only looked for 5 minutes or so, but I only saw negative remarks. I do prefer the term "art music", and while their attempt to define it is laudable, it seems as though the express purpose of the definition is to exclude what they believe to be "crap". I don't think I've ever seen a site seemingly exclusively devoted to denigrating others (although I'm sure there must be plenty). My mistake - I just looked again and did see a comment about a petition to have government fund opera houses more.


----------



## elgar's ghost

Polednice said:


> I think a brief glance is enough to recognise that the site is utterly pathetic, and it does not warrant a proper look or any rational discussion. It's written with a lot of snobbish bile, and it would be better to ignore them and have them think that their idiocy falls on deaf ears.


Strange when snobbish bile and pretentiousness from certain critics seems to be one of their bones of contention yet they also disappear up their own asses with their ridiculously overblown and joyless 8-point manifesto (I'm surprised there weren't sub-clauses in each one) - definitely a case of 'physician, heal thyself', I would say.


----------



## GoneBaroque

It is always refreshing to encounter a point of view which may differ from the norm. I do find the term "Art Music' interesting although perhaps a little pretentious but it is better than the meaningless "Classical" description. I do feel that many of the points in their seven criteria make some sense.


----------



## Ukko

The term 'Art Music' is an excellent example of elitist snobbery. Without the caps it loses a little of the scent of prunes. It is good that 'classical music' has no extraneous meaning. It is what it is.


----------



## mleghorn

I browsed through some of the site and found it to be thoroughly entertaining and amusing. I don't agree with much of what he says, but I can relate to his premise. I'll come out and admit it: I'm a snob . 

I was surprised by how critical he is of Alex Ross. I really enjoyed reading "The Rest is Noise", although it was a bit overly dramatic in parts.

I'm turned off by how the music industry tries to dress up classical music to try to get past the prevailing prejudice. Just look at a classical section in any store (that still has a classical section). The CDs that are put on prominent display have pictures of people. We need to see a person's face (or better yet, cleavage) on the album cover, or we can't relate. Or, go to iTunes and search the classical genre, and look at the album covers. The prevailing style of the covers is an apology, i.e. "yeah I know it's classical, but it can still be cool -- look at how young and beautiful the cellist is".

Ok, go ahead -- tar and feather me!


----------



## Vaneyes

About: The webpage cannot be found


----------



## regressivetransphobe

Clicked it, saw derogatory use of words like "philistinism" and "lucre", laughed and clicked x.


----------



## Rasa

I love it. It's obviously satirical, yet expresses a view of someone who has no problem with dismissing certain music as intellectually inferior. A freedom which cultural relativists seek to cull.


----------



## violadude

I looked at the site and I didn't get what it was....It was rather confusing in terms of navigation...


----------



## Tapkaara

I don't think the website is a joke. It seems to be serious. Either that or it is really quite unfunny.

I have to admit: a very small part of me sees value in what they are trying to promote. I do feel that "art music" (or classical music) is the most superior incarnation of human musical expression. I understand the desire to promote it and I do believe that it is vastly better than (most) pop music.

However, although I feel art/classical music is the most superior, it does not mean it is the only kind of music worthy of attention, mine or otherwise. I do like classic punk rock, Celtic music, various folk musics from various countries, some techno and "ambient" musics, etc. I do not get the supreme spiritual satisfaction from a Misfits tune that I do from a Beethoven symphony, but I don't need or expect the same experience from Glen Danzig as I do from Ludwig Van. Beethoven IS better, but the Misfits aren't bad, either.

Anyone who seriously is trying to change the world or, at least, fight against popular music using this site as the weapon is really, really wasting their time. Pop music is here to stay. But that's OK. Just don't listen to what you don't like. I don't. And boy, do I lead a fulfilled life as a result!


----------



## regressivetransphobe

Tapkaara said:


> I don't think the website is a joke. It seems to be serious. Either that or it is really quite unfunny.
> 
> I have to admit: a very small part of me sees value in what they are trying to promote. I do feel that "art music" (or classical music) is the most superior incarnation of human musical expression. I understand the desire to promote it and I do believe that it is vastly better than (most) pop music.
> 
> However, although I feel art/classical music is the most superior, it does not mean it is the only kind of music worthy of attention, mine or otherwise. I do like classic punk rock, Celtic music, various folk musics from various countries, some techno and "ambient" musics, etc. I do not get the supreme spiritual satisfaction from a Misfits tune that I do from a Beethoven symphony, but I don't need or expect the same experience from Glen Danzig as I do from Ludwig Van. Beethoven IS better, but the Misfits aren't bad, either.
> 
> Anyone who seriously is trying to change the world or, at least, fight against popular music using this site as the weapon is really, really wasting their time. Pop music is here to stay. But that's OK. Just don't listen to what you don't like. I don't. And boy, do I lead a fulfilled life as a result!


The best way to change "popular" music is from within; I'd argue guys like Steven Stapleton, David Tibet and Merzow (avant-garde "noise" and ambient artists, to be quite general) have a lot more potential to help change music for the better than any modern classical artists. The reason I say this is because they make classically literate music (with a discernible awareness of musique concrete, and other developments by guys like Reich, John Cage, Xenakis, etc.) without pretending the last 50 years of pop/rock music never happened. The result is basically a continuation of the contemporary classical tradition, but without any academic pretenses, so your average hipster who hates "bourgeois old people music" doesn't shy away from it. Then they begin to figure out there's more to music than 4 chords, they begin learning about something called "development", etc. etc.

Basically, there doesn't have to be that strict segregation between art music and popular music. The blurrier it gets, the better off music will be.


----------



## Rasa

regressivetransphobe said:


> Basically, there doesn't have to be that strict segregation between art music and popular music. The blurrier it gets, the better off music will be.


No thanks. I prefer my Händel without interjected Chinese chants.


----------



## Polednice

Rasa said:


> I love it. It's obviously satirical, yet expresses a view of someone who has no problem with dismissing certain music as intellectually inferior. A freedom which cultural relativists seek to cull.


I don't have a problem with people promoting arguments about intellectual superiority in certain artforms, but attempting to do so by calling people idiots, traitors, and otherwise being mean is counter-productive and pathetic.

@mleghorn: perhaps you should just be silently smug at the thought that you don't care about the pictures of musicians on albums, and just go into a shop looking for good recordings, while also accepting that perhaps a bit of vanity is a good thing to suck in the larger audience that our kind of music often needs.


----------



## jhar26

I think a site like that does classical music no service. If anything, it confirms the prejudices non-fans already might have had about the genre.


----------



## NightHawk

Over at BRIGHTCECILIA.COM this was a recent poll (see below) - *they also discuss the MUSIC.ORG site presently under discussion here.*

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BRIGHTCECILIA.COM - 
Sorry, live link will not display for unknown reason. Just enter the site name into your browser or google it. 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Talk Classical Forum SUCKS

View Poll Results: Should Herzeleide & Krummhorn kiss & make up?
Never! Never! Never! Things have gone too far for that 3	23.08%
Yes! Herzeleide - the Mahatma Gandhi of Brightcecilia - must return to his adoring fans 3	23.08%
Abstain - these internet fights are too important for vulgar democracy 7	53.85%
Voters: 13. This poll is closed

*DISCLAIMER:
THIS IS NOT A PLUG FOR BRIGHT CECILIA DOT COM - I HAVEN'T HAD TIME TO CHECK IT OUT - I RAN ACROSS IT SOME DAYS AGO WHEN 'TALK CLASSICAL SUCKS' WAS A HEADLINER - I JOINED UP TODAY SO I COULD USE THEIR SEARCH ENGINE AND FIND IT. I KNOW NOTHING OF THEIR 'ATTITUDES' AT BRIGHTCECILIA.COM. *


----------



## Itullian

i looked at other sites. nothing going on there.


----------



## NightHawk

I have always had a problem with the designation 'Art Music'. Good, bad, sublime or otherwise, all music fits this definition of art: "the organization of materials" - (perhaps you don't accept the definition - it's Will Durant's, btw.)

I think Radiohead is art music _and_ Dillinger Escape Plan and other popular groups, but I don't listen to them much. I'm just a 'long hair' 'classical' 'BB&B' type of guy. I wish there were another way to make the distinction without it sounding pejorative.


----------



## superhorn

I've been corresponding with musoc.org for some time by e mail, and they've printed my e mail letters to them. One recent controversy with me there was when I recommended the director of London's New Queen's Hall orchestra for their hall of shame.
This orchestra is a period instrument group ! for late 19th and early 20th century music.
Their artistic director John Boyden makes ludicrous claims on its website and elsewhere that we desperately need such an orchestra for the music of such composers as Wagner,Elgar, Brahms, Vaughan Williams, Holst, etc, because the instruments our mainstream orchestras ,such as the New York Phil. London sym, Berlin Phil, etc are "inappropriate " for this music, and we need to use the old instruments of the early 20th century for them. In particular, he claims that modern brass instruments are too loud for this music and drown out the rest of the orchestra.
Furthermore, he makes the specious claim , which others have also , that all orchestra today sound alike, which is a myth. 
The NQHO has made period instrument ! recordings of the music of Vaughan Williams and even an "authentic" Holst's Planets ! Sheesh ! This is carrying HIP to ludicrous lengths .
Boyden sent an angry response condemning me for my supposed "bigotry" against his orchestra. I responded that I'm not opposed tot he orchestra per se , but just find his comments about 20th century HIP ludicrous and offensive . 
I think musoc.org has admirable goals in wanting to promote and preserve classical music, but its elitism is extremely counterproductive.
I think classical music is a perfectly valid term, one which most people recognize as the music of Beethoven and Mozart etc. But "art music" is problematical, because it sounds too much like th eloaded term "arty", which misleads people who are not familiar with this kind of music into thinking it's pretentious .


----------



## NightHawk

Yea and verily.



superhorn said:


> I've been corresponding with musoc.org for some time by e mail, and they've printed my e mail letters to them. One recent controversy with me there was when I recommended the director of London's New Queen's Hall orchestra for their hall of shame.
> This orchestra is a period instrument group ! for late 19th and early 20th century music.
> Their artistic director John Boyden makes ludicrous claims on its website and elsewhere that we desperately need such an orchestra for the music of such composers as Wagner,Elgar, Brahms, Vaughan Williams, Holst, etc, because the instruments our mainstream orchestras ,such as the New York Phil. London sym, Berlin Phil, etc are "inappropriate " for this music, and we need to use the old instruments of the early 20th century for them. In particular, he claims that modern brass instruments are too loud for this music and drown out the rest of the orchestra.
> Furthermore, he makes the specious claim , which others have also , that all orchestra today sound alike, which is a myth.
> The NQHO has made period instrument ! recordings of the music of Vaughan Williams and even an "authentic" Holst's Planets ! Sheesh ! This is carrying HIP to ludicrous lengths .
> Boyden sent an angry response condemning me for my supposed "bigotry" against his orchestra. I responded that I'm not opposed tot he orchestra per se , but just find his comments about 20th century HIP ludicrous and offensive .
> I think musoc.org has admirable goals in wanting to promote and preserve classical music, but its elitism is extremely counterproductive.
> I think classical music is a perfectly valid term, one which most people recognize as the music of Beethoven and Mozart etc. But "art music" is problematical, because it sounds too much like th eloaded term "arty", which misleads people who are not familiar with this kind of music into thinking it's pretentious .


----------



## Sequentia

I think musoc.org is getting a lot of unfair criticism here. While I strongly disagree with their attitude towards popular music (there is definitely good music to be found there) and their "anti-atonal/electronic music arguments", it seems to me that musoc.org is mainly pointing out that classical music is being sharply attacked by the media and the "cultural establishment". How many of you would contend that the following is not venom deliberately created to insult classical music?

_For in their own, unpretentious way, Rodgers and Hammerstein have done more to engender a love of music than anything written by Mahler or Beethoven._

_Any 22nd-century composer who will consciously write "classical music", unthinkingly adding to the pile of orchestral and chamber music that already exists [...] will truly deserve to be mocked. Now music's cutting edge has been handed to creative musicians operating outside the confines of conventionally configured classical music. The rest is dross._

Saying that these statements will "break down the barriers" is ludicrous. Most people already believe classical music is inferior to popular music.


----------



## jhar26

Sequentia said:


> I think musoc.org is getting a lot of unfair criticism here. While I strongly disagree with their attitude towards popular music (there is definitely good music to be found there) and their "anti-atonal/electronic music arguments", it seems to me that musoc.org is mainly pointing out that classical music is being sharply attacked by the media and the "cultural establishment". How many of you would contend that the following is not venom deliberately created to insult classical music?
> 
> _For in their own, unpretentious way, Rodgers and Hammerstein have done more to engender a love of music than anything written by Mahler or Beethoven._
> 
> _Any 22nd-century composer who will consciously write "classical music", unthinkingly adding to the pile of orchestral and chamber music that already exists [...] will truly deserve to be mocked. Now music's cutting edge has been handed to creative musicians operating outside the confines of conventionally configured classical music. The rest is dross._
> 
> Saying that these statements will "break down the barriers" is ludicrous. Most people already believe classical music is inferior to popular music.


There are plenty of stupid comments coming from both camps, I'm sure.


----------



## classicalmusiclover

youth today is so out of touch of what is truly beautiful


----------



## Polednice

Sequentia said:


> I think musoc.org is getting a lot of unfair criticism here. While I strongly disagree with their attitude towards popular music (there is definitely good music to be found there) and their "anti-atonal/electronic music arguments", it seems to me that musoc.org is mainly pointing out that classical music is being sharply attacked by the media and the "cultural establishment". How many of you would contend that the following is not venom deliberately created to insult classical music?


Fighting bile with bile gets no one anywhere.


----------



## superhorn

The argument between me and John Boyden has been heating up at musoc.org.
Now Boyden's son Matthew, a former musicologist and critic turned barrister(English equivalent of an attorney) jumped to his father's defense and has been making all kinds of nasty ad hominem attacks on me, accusing me of "stupidity", ignorance", and even of being "anti-intellectual!" 
I'm really amused by his over the top attacks on me. I never used such insulting language 
when criticizing the senior Boyden, but merely pointed out how ludicrous and offensive I found his scathing dismissal of mainstream orchestras is. 
I informed musoc.org about the new punning term for the arrogant rhetoric of period instrument musicians, and the musicologists and critics who support it blindly and sneer at the use of the :"wrong" instruments and playing styles.
I call this "Christopher Hogwash ". Not surprisingly, Matthew Boyden was not amused ! 
No offense meant to Christopher Hogwood; it's just my term for the nonsense perpetrated by HIP musicians. Another temr for it might be HIPocrisy.


----------



## Scarpia

superhorn said:


> The argument between me and John Boyden has been heating up at musoc.org.
> Now Boyden's son Matthew, a former musicologist and critic turned barrister(English equivalent of an attorney) jumped to his father's defense and has been making all kinds of nasty ad hominem attacks on me, accusing me of "stupidity", ignorance", and even of being "anti-intellectual!"
> I'm really amused by his over the top attacks on me. I never used such insulting language
> when criticizing the senior Boyden, but merely pointed out how ludicrous and offensive I found his scathing dismissal of mainstream orchestras is.
> I informed musoc.org about the new punning term for the arrogant rhetoric of period instrument musicians, and the musicologists and critics who support it blindly and sneer at the use of the :"wrong" instruments and playing styles.
> I call this "Christopher Hogwash ". Not surprisingly, Matthew Boyden was not amused !
> No offense meant to Christopher Hogwood; it's just my term for the nonsense perpetrated by HIP musicians. Another temr for it might be HIPocrisy.


I have to say, I find your point of view very hard to understand.

Any person who finds in himself the motivation to master an instrument at a professional level, or organize a performance by an orchestra must be passionate about what they are doing. Whether it is Trevor Pinnock or Herbert von Karajan, Richter or Leonhardt, I expect a great performer to feel that his or her interpretation is the musical truth, and to believe that it should not be played any other way. For every HIPster dismissing modern practice as inauthentic, you can find a mainstream musician dismissing HIP practice as unmusical and pedantic. That is as it should be.

So, I would say that if you don't like HIP performance, don't listen to it. It is beyond me why you find it necessary to become infuriated over the fact that HIP performers passionately believe in what they are doing. Why else would they dedicate their lives to it?

As a listener, rather than a performer, I can afford to be circumspect. I enjoy a variety of music styles. I think HIP performance is very important because I am certain we can gain insight into what the composers intended by hearing the music as they expected to hear it. They may very well have wished for better orchestras, and it is possible that the sound of modern instruments would have been preferable to them. But in the end they crafted their works to sound good on the orchestra that was available to them. On the other hand, I won't dispute that a performance on a modern instrument informed by the performer's musical sense may convey something that is hard to bring off in the authentic performance. It's wonderful to have both to choose from.


----------



## superhorn

The New Queen's Hall orchestra certainly has every right to exist and perform. 
My beef is with the unbelievably arrogant and presumptuous claims about the group of Boyden and his son. They arrogantly claim that their orchestra, and their orchestra alone, perform the music as it should be, and they snootily dismiss and belittle our great mainstream orchestras.


----------



## Ukko

superhorn said:


> The New Queen's Hall orchestra certainly has every right to exist and perform.
> My beef is with the unbelievably arrogant and presumptuous claims about the group of Boyden and his son. They arrogantly claim that their orchestra, and their orchestra alone, perform the music as it should be, and they snootily dismiss and belittle our great mainstream orchestras.


'The proof is in the pudding.' In this instance the 'proof' is in the 'taste' of the performance. If it works it has validity. Unfortunately for the egos of the Boydens, performances by 'modern' orchestras often work.

In the words of the great Elmer Fudd: "Thould, thmould."


----------



## Scarpia

superhorn said:


> The New Queen's Hall orchestra certainly has every right to exist and perform.
> My beef is with the unbelievably arrogant and presumptuous claims about the group of Boyden and his son. They arrogantly claim that their orchestra, and their orchestra alone, perform the music as it should be, and they snootily dismiss and belittle our great mainstream orchestras.


I looked at their web site and see more enthusiasm than arrogance in their publicity materials. Whether they sound better or worse, it seems clear they sound different. The value in that outweighs the hyperbole on their web site.

In any case, I was thrilled to see they sell their own recordings, but then crestfallen to see you can't get them except by mailing them a printed form or phoning. Apparently they believe HIP sales techniques complement the HIP performance. I half expect them to send me a wax cylinder.


----------



## Aksel

classicalmusiclover said:


> youth today is so out of touch of what is truly beautiful


Oh please. So are old people.


----------



## Ukko

Aksel said:


> Oh please. So are old people.




Well jeez; I hope you folks in the middle have a good notion, or there's no point in 'beautiful', eh?


----------



## Ukko

Scarpia said:


> I looked at their web site and see more enthusiasm than arrogance in their publicity materials. Whether they sound better or worse, it seems clear they sound different. The value in that outweighs the hyperbole on their web site.
> 
> In any case, I was thrilled to see they sell their own recordings, but then crestfallen to see you can't get them except by mailing them a printed form or phoning. Apparently they believe HIP sales techniques complement the HIP performance. I half expect them to send me a wax cylinder.


I see you point, and it's a good one. But for the youngsters a cassette tape would serve; it is for them an ancient format.


----------

