# Pretentiousness in the classical community



## pianoedvard_b93 (4 mo ago)

"Film music is lesser music."
"If a piece is under half an hour long and not filled to the brim with complicated compositional intricacy it is not "advanced" enough for my SUPERIOR musical mind!"
"Myeeees... "simple" music is for the simple minded." _takes a sip of tea_
"I enjoy wearing my monocle and sipping tea while listening to Beithauven, Bach and Mauzaart, and if anyone has the audacity to put on such peasant music like Grieg, Vivaldi, or god forbid John Williams or one of those other _shivers_ film music composers i will leave the room immediately while huffing, holding my head back so that my mustache is the highest point on my body."

I do encounter similarly misguided and overly pretentious views a lot in the classical community. If this applies to you, stop it, your mind is not musically superior, you just have a severely skewed view on what makes music good.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

pianoedvard_b93 said:


> *I do encounter similarly misguided and overly pretentious views a lot in the classical community*. If this applies to you, stop it, your mind is not musically superior, you just have a severely skewed view on what makes music good.


Gee, your community sounds like it sucks — full of dumb stereotypes and people with inferiority complexes. Welcome to TC!


----------



## pianoedvard_b93 (4 mo ago)

EdwardBast said:


> Gee, your community sounds like it sucks — full of dumb stereotypes and people with inferiority complexes. Welcome to TC!


Thanks!
But i'm wondering though, you never encountered one of those pretentious, wannabe-high-class, sometimes condescending classical music "experts" before?


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Stick a pin in the members list on TC and you’re bound to hear one of the ‘pretentious snobs’ squeal. There’s a lot of us about🤓


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Btw PianoEdvard - Grieg or Munch? Silly me of course it’s Grieg. There’s a clue in the name!!😂


----------



## pianoedvard_b93 (4 mo ago)

Barbebleu said:


> Btw Edvard - Grieg or Munch?


Haha, both were incredible artists but, Grieg obviously! His piano concerto is in my mind one of the greatest pieces of music to have ever been written.


----------



## pianoedvard_b93 (4 mo ago)

Barbebleu said:


> Btw PianoEdvard - Grieg or Munch? Silly me of course it’s Grieg. There’s a clue in the name!!😂


I love Grieg more passionately than any other classical composer maybe except for Rachmaninov, but i am aware i might be biased. I share his name, i share his country, i share a lot of his philosophical views, and i grew up playing mostly his stuff on the piano. So there is surely some bias, even though i want to claim that i would feel the same way regardless!


----------



## Monsalvat (11 mo ago)

pianoedvard_b93 said:


> "Film music is lesser music."
> "If a piece is under half an hour long and not filled to the brim with complicated compositional intricacy it is not "advanced" enough for my SUPERIOR musical mind!"
> "Myeeees... "simple" music is for the simple minded." _takes a sip of tea_
> "I enjoy wearing my monocle and sipping tea while listening to Beithauven, Bach and Mauzaart, and if anyone has the audacity to put on such peasant music like Grieg, Vivaldi, or god forbid John Williams or one of those other _shivers_ film music composers i will leave the room immediately while huffing, holding my head back so that my mustache is the highest point on my body."
> ...


You're quoting yourself from the Grieg thread, post #45, which is a more pretentious act than most of the discussion on here... and with only three hours of membership on this forum, you seem to have come to conclusions rather quickly about the membership here. 

I don't mean to sound snobbish or cranky like your post suggests, but I find your post rather off-putting. This is a discussion board, after all; some people will agree with you in discussions, and some will disagree. It's legitimate to argue about film music, and someone who doesn't like it doesn't necessarily have a superiority complex. (Just as those who enjoy tea don't necessarily have a superiority complex.) This sort of _ad hominem_ isn't going to win over people and isn't going to help introduce the music _you_ like to other people who don't like it/aren't familiar with it. If you think that members of the classical community should listen to more Grieg, Vivaldi, or John Williams, then this is a good place to persuade or proselytize, but accusing us of being pretentious for liking the music we like stifles actual debate or discovery. Your hyperbole is so over-the-top that I'm not sure where you encountered somebody like that; my own experiences here have been very different from what you describe. Sure, there will be some snobbery but what you described sounds more like satire.

If you'd like to share music that is important to you, then welcome. In large part, that's what this community is all about. But please don't start by attacking us!

In a good-faith attempt to engage you in conversation here, I'd like to ask what recordings of the Grieg concerto you favor. I've liked Zimerman/Karajan and Fleisher/Szell.


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

pianoedvard_b93 said:


> i will leave the room immediately while huffing, holding my head back so that my mustache is the highest point on my body."


😂I liked this. Makes me want to create it as a sculpture.

I don't really recognise the character you sketch though. Are there really people who think 'Mauzaart' et al are great, but don't like Grieg? Even if there are, who cares?

I've encountered much more inverted snobbery with regard to hatred of modern classical music, but again who cares really? No-one is forced to listen to music they don't want to listen to. After several centuries' worth there's something for everyone and a lot of it. I like so much of it across the centuries that my quarrels are few. Whether it's Stockhausen or Vaughan-Williams or Purcell.


----------



## pianoedvard_b93 (4 mo ago)

Monsalvat said:


> You're quoting yourself from the Grieg thread, post #45, which is a more pretentious act than most of the discussion on here... and with only three hours of membership on this forum, you seem to have come to conclusions rather quickly about the membership here.
> 
> I don't mean to sound snobbish or cranky like your post suggests, but I find your post rather off-putting. This is a discussion board, after all; some people will agree with you in discussions, and some will disagree. It's legitimate to argue about film music, and someone who doesn't like it doesn't necessarily have a superiority complex. (Just as those who enjoy tea don't necessarily have a superiority complex.) This sort of _ad hominem_ isn't going to win over people and isn't going to help introduce the music _you_ like to other people who don't like it/aren't familiar with it. If you think that members of the classical community should listen to more Grieg, Vivaldi, or John Williams, then this is a good place to persuade or proselytize, but accusing us of being pretentious for liking the music we like stifles actual debate or discovery. Your hyperbole is so over-the-top that I'm not sure where you encountered somebody like that; my own experiences here have been very different from what you describe. Sure, there will be some snobbery but what you described sounds more like satire.
> 
> ...


Not quoting but yes I felt like it kind of deserved its own thread.
I would say most definitely that if someone claims they "don't like film music" its kind of a red flag as you film music is EXTREMELY diverse in everything. Saying "i don't like film music" points to cluelessness and if its accompanied by some praise to a classical composer or piece it sure seems like superiority complexion.

"Accusing us"? "us"? I'm a classical music lover as well, and i didn't accuse myself.
"Your hyperbole is so over-the-top that I'm not sure where you encountered somebody like that". Well i would think it was obvious that i quoted some seriously over-the-top stereotype that doesn't actually represent my true encounters. Except for the "simple music is for the simple minded" and "film music is lesser music", which i have indeed heard several times from people in the classical community.

And yes i LOVE Grieg, not Vivaldi though. I only included him since i have heard him being scrutinized a lot and described as a "simpleton" and such by the people i am referring to, which is not you, unless it is, which only you yourself knows as I am not accusing you of anything. But I do not like Vivaldi very much myself.

As for your question i would have to say Leif Ove Andsnes and Javier Perianes does two of the best renditions. I hate how many completely butchers the first but especially the third movement's faster sections by skipping notes or rushing, which these two, and especially perhaps Javier, does almost perfectly.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

You appear to be arming yourself against an enemy horde which so far has not appeared on the horizon. I want to assure you that most of us on TC are pretty easy to get along with and not inclined to put down others for having tastes that differ from our own.

Don't worry about the opinions of others. Problems on a forum arise most often not from the opinions people hold but from the spirit in which they offer them. You'll find plenty of critical opinions expressed on any forum - that's what a forum is for, among other things - and some of those opinions may seem "pretentious" to you. Dispute them or ignore them, but be cautious about attributing motives to those who offer them. It will become apparent over time who is opining in good faith and who is being a troll or a jerk. Those types tend to be snubbed and fade away, unless they're very clever and persistent, in which case they may get a little help in disappearing (heh heh).

Most people here, I think, enjoy a wide range of music, and that may be why I've rarely seen music criticized for not being long and complex. Heck, if it's Bruckner, Wagner, Mahler or Morton Feldman it may as likely be criticized by some as being overlong, overwrought, pretentious or boring. The range of possible reactions to music is endless, and that's part of the fun.


----------



## pianoedvard_b93 (4 mo ago)

Chat Noir said:


> 😂I liked this. Makes we want to create it as a sculpture.
> 
> I don't really recognise the character you sketch though. Are there really people who think 'Mauzaart' et al are great, but don't like Grieg? Even if there are, who cares?
> 
> I've encountered much more inverted snobbery with regard to hatred of modern classical music, but again who cares really? No-one is forced to listen to music they don't want to listen to. After several centuries' worth there's something for everyone and a lot of it. I like so much of it across the centuries that my quarrels are few. Whether it's Stockhausen or Vaughan-Williams or Purcell.


Well, i sketched a super duper stereotype with very much overblown characteristic of snobbery. I have never met a person that is really just like the character i sketched there 😂
And yes there are LOADS of snobbery from other musical communities as well! More than anything else is the jazz community. They are even worse in my experience. And here as well, i am not accusing anyone who likes jazz of being snobbish for gods sake, i love jazz myself. But i would lie if i didn't say that in my own experience, the jazz community is truly plagued by a sense of superiority and condescension towards other forms of music. More than any other communities i have encountered.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

I'm tempted to assume that the original post here is a joke, or a pastiche. True, there are people who think their tastes in music are inherently right, and anyone who doesn't share them is simply ignorant. But the original poster here swiftly puts himself into that very category, insisting his own aesthetic values and tastes, which apparently include film music, particularly that of John Williams, and more generally music under a half-hour long, is equal or superior to that of Bach, Mozart and Beethoven (though all of those composers wrote music meant to be played in well under half an hour.)

Well, it is to him, and no doubt many others. I have no problem with that, and no intention of trying to convince him otherwise. I also happen to be a fan of a lot of film music and that of many other genres. I have no idea why this non-issue keeps coming up, unless it's due to the insecurity some feel about their own tastes.

Edit: I now see from the OP's post no. 12 that his post no. 1 was indeed a pastiche. So, though I'm not a snob, it's pretty clear I'm smart and perceptive as can be. It ain't snobbery if it's true!


----------



## pianoedvard_b93 (4 mo ago)

Woodduck said:


> You appear to be arming yourself against an enemy horde which so far has not appeared on the horizon. I want to assure you that most of us on TC are pretty easy to get along with and not inclined to put down others for having tastes that differ from our own.
> 
> Don't worry about the opinions of others. Problems on a forum arise most often not from the opinions people hold but from the spirit in which they offer them. You'll find plenty of critical opinions expressed on any forum - that's what a forum is for, among other things - and some of those opinions may seem "pretentious" you. Dispute them or ignore them, but be cautious about attributing motives to those who offer them. It will become apparent over time who is opining in good faith and who is being a troll or a jerk. Those types tend to be snubbed and fade away, unless they're very clever and persistent, in which case they may get a little help in disappearing (heh heh).
> 
> Most people here, I think, enjoy a wide range of music, and that may be why I've rarely seen music criticized for not being long and complex. Heck, if it's Bruckner, Wagner, Mahler or Morton Feldman it may as likely be criticized by some as being overlong, overwrought, pretentious or boring. The range of possible reactions to music is endless, and that's part of the fun.


First off, i get where you are coming from, totally.
But it doesn't change the fact that through my education in classical composition and film music composition i have encountered such snobbish attitudes too many times that it doesn't bother me. Though as i have stated in an earlier reply, the character i sketch in my original post is an over-the-top stereotype that doesn't accurately represent the people i am referring to but rather is a parody on them.
Secondly, my whole reason for posting it here is that i have been analyzing Grieg lately and have been googling a lot. Finding threads on this forum in which he is being discussed and here i will put another majorly overblown parody on the sum of SOME of what i have read, certainly a minority, but still: Read with an overly snobbish british accent "Grieg!? What even is he? huff huff... A lousy troubadour pretending to be a composer of the finer arts?! His pieces are mildly amusing, at best. Certainly no inventor of great musical architecture that challenges the mind, rather dull, if i might be so bold.... Myeees.."


----------



## pianoedvard_b93 (4 mo ago)

fluteman said:


> I'm tempted to assume that the original post here is a joke, or a pastiche. True, there are people who think their tastes in music are inherently right, and anyone who doesn't share them is simply ignorant. But the original poster here swiftly puts himself into that very category, insisting his own aesthetic values and tastes, which apparently include film music, particularly that of John Williams, and more generally music under a half-hour long, is equal or superior to that of Bach, Mozart and Beethoven (though all of those composers wrote music meant to be played in well under half an hour.)
> 
> Well, it is to him, and no doubt many others. I have no problem with that, and no intention of trying to convince him otherwise. I also happen to be a fan of a lot of film music and that of many other genres. I have no idea why this non-issue keeps coming up, unless it's due to the insecurity some feel about their own tastes.


Missing by quite a long shot there, bud..
I like to say "There is no such thing as a bad genre of music as there is great music in every single genre."
In no way do i believe any of the stuff you attributed to me.
The fact that i drew an overblown stereotype of a character does not mean i oppose myself directly to every single opinion of that character. I don't dislike Beethoven, Bach or Mozart at ALL. Bach is one of my favorite composers of all time.


----------



## pianoedvard_b93 (4 mo ago)

fluteman said:


> I'm tempted to assume that the original post here is a joke, or a pastiche. True, there are people who think their tastes in music are inherently right, and anyone who doesn't share them is simply ignorant. But the original poster here swiftly puts himself into that very category, insisting his own aesthetic values and tastes, which apparently include film music, particularly that of John Williams, and more generally music under a half-hour long, is equal or superior to that of Bach, Mozart and Beethoven (though all of those composers wrote music meant to be played in well under half an hour.)
> 
> Well, it is to him, and no doubt many others. I have no problem with that, and no intention of trying to convince him otherwise. I also happen to be a fan of a lot of film music and that of many other genres. I have no idea why this non-issue keeps coming up, unless it's due to the insecurity some feel about their own tastes.
> 
> Edit: I now see from the OP's post no. 12 that his post no. 1 was indeed a pastiche. So, though I'm not a snob, it's pretty clear I'm smart and perceptive as can be. It ain't snobbery if it's true!


"I now see from the OP's post no. 12 that his post no. 1 was indeed a pastiche."
I thought the element of overblown parody would be quite obvious. With the monocle, mustache in the air and all.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

pianoedvard_b93 said:


> "I now see from the OP's post no. 12 that his post no. 1 was indeed a pastiche."
> I thought the element of overblown parody would be quite obvious. With the monocle, mustache in the air and all.


You have to be careful around here. People can post strange things and mean them very seriously. But you can also get some excellent listening recommendations of nearly every imaginable variety, of western music, anyway. Welcome and enjoy.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Where I live, I am the only person I know that even listens to classical music. At this point, I'd welcome a snob if I could just hang out with someone who listens to classical music and doesn't just want to talk about sports.

The snobs I've run into are the prog rockers. I shared a green room with the proggers with my jazz band (what proggers call a "horn band"), and the proggers wouldn't even look at us, much less talk to us.


----------



## pianoedvard_b93 (4 mo ago)

fluteman said:


> You have to be careful around here. People can post strange things and mean them very seriously. But you can also get some excellent listening recommendations of nearly every imaginable variety, of western music, anyway. Welcome and enjoy.


I gave you an answer earlier but for some reason that one is pending admin approval..
What i say in that one is that I do not believe the things you attribute to me. Like putting "film music" (such a broad spectrum of music that you can not possibly use the term to define one specific type of music) above Mozart, Beethoven or Bach. I do not. Nor do i dislike music that is more than half an hour long. I just dislike the pretentiousness that i in fact do sometimes encounter when i am within a genre specific music community.

Edit: I should add, genre specific music communities of genres that are regarded as "finer" or "more advanced".
As a Norwegian I have hung around a lot of black metal fans, and i mean the real deal, makeup and all. They can be pretentious in another manner, in that "unless you listen to black metal you are brainwashed" or "haven't seen anything" or "conforming to everything trendy like a sheep". It is quite rare, as it is in the classical community, as opposed to the jazz community among younger jazz students. There it is actually rampant! And one of the reasons why i got discouraged from pursuing jazz and went to orchestral composition instead.


----------



## pianoedvard_b93 (4 mo ago)

Manxfeeder said:


> Where I live, I am the only person I know that even listens to classical music. At this point, I'd welcome a snob if I could just hang out with someone who listens to classical music and doesn't just want to talk about sports.


Fair! Just be sure to bring your monocle and top hat and brew some tea.


----------



## Shaughnessy (Dec 31, 2020)

Welcome to the forum - You're sure to find something of interest - Work your way through the various sub-forums to discover what may be where - There are a great many interesting nooks and crannies worth discovering

Whenever you enter the forum, bring your sense of humor. If you arrive at the forum and realize that you've forgotten your sense of humor, go back and get it.

Read through some of the threads - Try your hand at posting - At some point, you may even want to try your hand at creating a new thread that someone other than yourself will be interested in

Don't create threads with provocative titles - This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone but provocative titles accomplish nothing other than actually provoking people. No one has ever been "provoked" into gales of laughter... They have however, been "provoked" into a furious red-hot rage of vengeance-seeking havoc-wreaking wrath.

Make friends first - Don't worry about making enemies - That will come naturally.

Don't insult anyone - even if what you've written was intended to be humorous and not offensive - We don't know you - Humor is a language that doesn't travel well and tends to get lost in translation.

Avoid the use of sarcasm - There's a reason why it's known as "the lowest form of wit" - it will make you about as popular as a red-haired leper wearing a clown suit in a kissing booth at a low rent carnival

Don't underestimate the talent here - Always work on the assumption that everyone here knows more than you do - Let them be the ones to prove otherwise.

It's possible to disagree without being disagreeable - At least, in theory... We haven't had a whole lot of luck with that one... File it under "Things that are easy to say and almost impossible to actually do".

If you enter a thread and suddenly realize that you're probably the most intelligent person in that thread, turn around and walk out - No good will come of your staying.

Don't be the type of person who enters a thread in which they have no interest so that they can then write a post telling us that they have no interest in the subject being discussed - We hate that...

No one cares about what you don't like - or what you hate - or what you think sucks - or loathe with every fiber of your being - Tell us about something that you're genuinely interested in - Tell us about something that excites you or inspires you or fascinates you to such an extent that you want to share those experiences and those emotions with us...unless you need to use the words "subjective" or "objective" - or even worse - think that they're actually synonyms - in which case, keep it to yourself...

Always remember - Even if they look friendly and wag their tail, don't pet anyone.

Trust your instincts - Preview every post before clicking on "Post reply" - If what you've just written sounds kind of stupid - guess what - it probably is kind of stupid. - You have to be really funny to be able to pull off being stupid without looking like a fool.

Don't lend anyone money - Despite their promises, you'll never get it back -

Don't give anyone your "spare change".- They'll just keep following you around the forum asking if they can "bum a smoke" even though you've told them like six times already that you don't smoke.

Don't tease the cats... We like the cats... If one of the cats is sitting in "your chair" - guess what - it's no longer "your chair" - it's now "the cat's chair" - Find someplace else to sit...

Don't buy anything to eat from any of the street vendors within the forum especially the guy selling breakfast burritos out of the trunk of his car who calls everyone "Ace" because he can't remember your name - Food poisoning is not nearly as glamorous as it sounds.

There is no forum rule prohibiting the posting of nude images as long as they're tastefully done... and, oh yeah... as long as they're not actually "selfies".

This is a "Survival Guide" - Use it - and you'll not only "survive" - you'll "thrive".


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

pianoedvard_b93 said:


> I gave you an answer earlier but for some reason that one is pending admin approval..
> What i say in that one is that I do not believe the things you attribute to me. Like putting "film music" (such a broad spectrum of music that you can not possibly use the term to define one specific type of music) above Mozart, Beethoven or Bach. I do not. Nor do i dislike music that is more than half an hour long. I just dislike the pretentiousness that i in fact do sometimes encounter when i am within a genre specific music community.
> 
> Edit: I should add, genre specific music communities of genres that are regarded as "finer" or "more advanced".
> As a Norwegian I have hung around a lot of black metal fans, and i mean the real deal, makeup and all. They can be pretentious in another manner, in that "unless you listen to black metal you are brainwashed" or "haven't seen anything" or "conforming to everything trendy like a sheep". It is quite rare, as it is in the classical community, as opposed to the jazz community among younger jazz students. There it is actually rampant! And one of the reasons why i got discouraged from pursuing jazz and went to orchestral composition instead.


Yes, as I'm sure you understand, the whole "X music is better, more sophisticated, more interesting. etc. than Y music" isn't a productive line of discussion. I learn what I can from others' opinions, whether of metal, jazz or Mozart. There are plenty of thoughtful posters here. Those relatively few who want to be condescending about the tastes of others can easily be ignored.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Shaughnessy said:


> Welcome to the forum - You're sure to find something of interest - Work your way through the various sub-forums to discover what may be where - There are a great many interesting nooks and crannies worth discovering
> 
> Whenever you enter the forum, bring your sense of humor. If you arrive at the forum and realize that you've forgotten your sense of humor, go back and get it.
> 
> ...


Huh? I've been doing this all wrong..


----------



## Artran (Sep 16, 2016)

pianoedvard_b93 said:


> "Film music is lesser music."


Film music is music for a film. Why is this hard to understand?



pianoedvard_b93 said:


> "If a piece is under half an hour long and not filled to the brim with complicated compositional intricacy it is not "advanced" enough for my SUPERIOR musical mind!"


Webern anyone?



pianoedvard_b93 said:


> "Myeeees... "simple" music is for the simple minded." _takes a sip of tea_


Depends. Does the person listen to something more complex? If not, maybe they're simple-minded. Those people exist, you know?



pianoedvard_b93 said:


> "I enjoy wearing my monocle and sipping tea while listening to Beithauven, Bach and Mauzaart, and if anyone has the audacity to put on such peasant music like Grieg, Vivaldi, or god forbid John Williams or one of those other _shivers_ film music composers i will leave the room immediately while huffing, holding my head back so that my mustache is the highest point on my body."


Nah. I listen to Ockeghem, Obrecht, Alkan, Scelsi, Lachenmann, Ferneyhough, and Haas. _taking a sip of tea_

Seriously though. Listen to anything you like. But don't restrict your potential growth. Even you can take a sip of tea someday ;-)


----------



## pianoedvard_b93 (4 mo ago)

Artran said:


> Film music is music for a film. Why is this hard to understand?
> 
> 
> Webern anyone?
> ...


Oh i often take a sip of tea! Gladly with some Beethoven or Bach in the background too.
I like to try and take in as many different kinds of music as i can without much bias, sometimes unsuccessfully though, since modern hip hop is really something i struggle to find anything good to say about..
I think simplicity can be extremely deceiving. Just because something seems simple in its complexion does not at all mean it is. Often when i have done transcriptions of seemingly simple compositions, by for example Joe Hisaishi, i am constantly stunned by the underlying complexity.


----------



## pianoedvard_b93 (4 mo ago)

Artran said:


> Film music is music for a film. Why is this hard to understand?
> 
> 
> Webern anyone?
> ...


As a composer, to make something which on the surface may seem very simple, but when you look a little closer it its not actually simple at all is one of the hardest and LEAST simple things you can do.


----------



## Artran (Sep 16, 2016)

pianoedvard_b93 said:


> As a composer, to make something which on the surface may seem very simple, but when you look a little closer it its not actually simple at all is one of the hardest and LEAST simple things you can do.


Have you heard this?


----------



## pianoedvard_b93 (4 mo ago)

Artran said:


> Have you heard this?


Yes 🤩
I absolutely love it. He is my favorite composer alive today, along with JW.
If i may:




Have you heard this? One of my favorite pieces of him. Especially the cue from 1:54, holy moly i can not get through that with dry eyes. NEVER have i been able to do that. 2:42 - 2: 58 = first 😭 and then it only gets more intense.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

I like John Williams, but because he's complex. I think most people here could say that about just anyone else though... complexity is an abstract musical aspect, abstract enough to apply to anybody. I find it useful to get more concrete. I like Williams because of his rhythms and harmonies. His harmonies, while unfolding onto themselves a bit like Wagner, then bunch up, stutter, and hit key notes of wine, resembling harmonically, the impressionists. His rhythms on the other hand, well, they do what rhythms do best: make imprints. This resembles Beethoven. I should however note, if we took a survey of a composer's most popular pieces while they were alive, I'm sure it would look a bit different from today.

Googling top Williams pieces would be bit like using a random generator to listen to Mozart's oeuvre. "K" what? Williams is also a lieder tonstrukturer in essence, which is a more modern profession. People often confuse the songwriting profession with a lack of rhythmic identity, but in my experience this proves the exact opposite. Most importantly, Williams often utilizes a combination of the two infused into all his work, called _harmonic rhythm_, not to be confused with rhythmic harmony or even the common 'harmonic rhythm.' The best example of this is his orchestration to another part, of counter-motif, lending a sense of the extra-ordinary, and proving that combining aspects will lead to an entirely different aspect... I believe Rachmaninoff played around often in this space, as well as Prokofiev who draws a closer identity with the Beethoven/Williams/Uematsu rhythmic spectrum. Regarding the other two you mention, Grieg and Vivaldi, not the biggest fan but they wrote some important things, like _I Dovregubbens hall_.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

pianoedvard_b93 said:


> Have you heard this? One of my favorite pieces of him. Especially the cue from 1:54, holy moly i can not get through that with dry eyes. NEVER have i been able to do that. 2:42 - 2: 58 = first 😭 and then it only gets more intense.


That's a lovely cue from your time stamp. I'll check him out more.
Welcome. So tell us about your music, do you use notation, a DAW, a combo of both, or do you work with samples and no notation? Or are you old skool, manuscript, pencil and much rubber first? Who are your compositional influences when you write concert music? Where did you study?
Remember to post some of your music in the Today's Composers thread if you wish. It's always nice to see actual composers here, especially ones who are JW and Bach fans...


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

During my early years here, I was prone to pulling out the snob card, albeit mostly indirectly. I said a few things I wouldn't now, or even back then if I was in a real life conversation about music. I think a lot of that behaviour stems from a need to prove something, impress people. Its also a way of getting out of an argument when you're on the back foot.

The weird thing is that the one upmanship game never ends, so there'll always be someone superior to you, and because its a matter of one online persona against another, you have no way of knowing where reality ends and fantasy begins. The solution is simple - be yourself. Its far easier to have a conversation, even within the limitations of the internet, if you have some sense of reality and ownership in what you say. Otherwise, you risk becoming some sort of cardboard cutout.


----------



## Georgieva (7 mo ago)

A man sees as much as he knows.


----------



## CopistaSignorGomez (Dec 9, 2021)

In my view Music is not a science, but an art, so there is no way we can set objetive standards to valuate music

Of course, we as a music lovers, may think Music as a science, and it is, in the sense of compositional techniques, idiomatic science, etc etc but thinking in the taste, it has no value and it's naif to think there is an objetive truth of wich music is "good" or not

it's the reasonable, but also, the right way: let people think and listen whatever they want

I had a very narrow taste

I only like Galant Music, and very very occasionaly barroco

even in galant style, I have my categories and taste

I never listen romantics, etc... I don't like this music

and, I like little pieces,

a typical Galant Music concerto of 20-30 mins, its too long for me

not to say, the operas... 1, 2, 3 , 4 hours of music and recitatives puffffff

but thats aply for me, I not pretending everyone listen to the music I like

As Leopold Mozart says "

"Good composition, sound construction, *il filo* this distinguishes the master from the bungler even in trifles”

thus wrote Leopold Mozart to his son Wolfgang on August 13, 1778


----------



## CopistaSignorGomez (Dec 9, 2021)

Not Mozart, with tremendous operas full of KILLER MELODIES, intrincates vocal setups, etc like Le nozze or Don Giocvanni that won in the operitic scene of Viena, but Martin y Soler with easy composition methodes, easy vocal music in Una cosa rara


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

pianoedvard_b93 said:


> "Film music is lesser music."
> "If a piece is under half an hour long and not filled to the brim with complicated compositional intricacy it is not "advanced" enough for my SUPERIOR musical mind!"
> "Myeeees... "simple" music is for the simple minded." _takes a sip of tea_
> "I enjoy wearing my monocle and sipping tea while listening to Beithauven, Bach and Mauzaart, and if anyone has the audacity to put on such peasant music like Grieg, Vivaldi, or god forbid John Williams or one of those other _shivers_ film music composers i will leave the room immediately while huffing, holding my head back so that my mustache is the highest point on my body."
> ...


Dear PianoEdvard, if you like, please look around in some wine forums. Compared to those, I find the guys and girls here quite easy and relaxed. (By the way, I appreciate this very much.)


pianoedvard_b93 said:


> your mind is not musically superior


Nobody says that he has an superior mind.

However, we are talking about questions of taste. Wikipedia says:
_"Aesthetic preferences and attendance to various cultural events are associated with education and social origin. Different socioeconomic groups are likely to have different tastes. Social class is one of the prominent factors structuring taste."_

So it is quite natural that people with different education and different social origin have a different taste.

Nothing wrong with that from my perspective.

And yes, someone who played some piano sonatas by Beethoven in his youth might have a quite easy access to, say, his late string quartets and be in position to follow the composer to musical depth - at least to some extent, maybe more than an average listener. I could understand if such listener preferred such Beethoven quartet to music that maybe does not offer the same experience.

To get it clear: This does not mean that the mind of someone is superior to someone other's mind. It just has another origin and another education - and thus different experiences with music of different kind.



pianoedvard_b93 said:


> you just have a severely skewed view on what makes music good.


If you are saying that some poeple have a skewed view, what is the difference between you and the hypothetical people you are adressing that are thinking that someone listening to film music has a skewed view?

If I get you right, you are doing exactly the thing for which you are accusing others. Right?


----------



## PaulFranz (May 7, 2019)

I am a massive snob about singing technique, because most people's wildly uninformed opinions on it are not worth indulging, but I can barely stay awake during a five-minute music-theory primer, so I forfeit my snob rights in matters of composition.

Nevertheless, I'll do my best to embody the windmill you've been riding after: I don't consider most film music of the past 60 years to be classical at all, so I'm not sure it belongs in a discussion centering around classical music. I am of this opinion for reasons similar to those stated in this comment:

__
https://www.reddit.com/r/classicalmusic/comments/mnaqao/_/gty6iw2

Lots of "classical" film music, when not blatantly plagiarized, seems to have fallen out of the sky with respect to other classical pieces. It would be like writing Le Nozze di Figaro in 1890. We've had a century of breaking, rebuilding, and reimagining tonality, and somehow in the 1980s and 90s we have soundtracks that sound like mid-to-late Wagner? It's pastiche, if we're being generous, but it's not classical. For a similar reason, musicals are not opera. Sweeney Todd and West Side Story are not opera. They sound and behave absolutely nothing like operas did in their time, or before their time, or now. They are not part of the classical tradition. The tessiture, the strophic nature of the music, the orchestration--all of it is in the musical theater tradition.

Heck, I don't even buy Porgy as an opera, though I can see that that is a distinctly minority view. Sporting Life was written for Cab Calloway, for God's sake. It was sung by Sammy Davis, Jr., and Gregory Hines. Summertime is a jazz standard that anybody could (and does) sing. Porgy and Bess does well on musical stages with singers that couldn't even handle Gilbert and Sullivan, so I just don't get how that bomb dropped out of nowhere and got to be called an opera. But I digress.

Does any of this make film scores "lesser" music? Well, maybe. Is 80s synth-pop "lesser" than Rautavaara? It's less complex. It engages your mind and creative faculties less. It can be more fun, catchier, and easier to socialize to. Is a Big Mac "lesser" than caviar? How about than rosemary-encrusted braised lamb shanks with a side of slow-cooked beef-cheek soup? The Mac certainly tastes better to a lot of people. Not everyone is always looking to challenge and expand his flavor/musical palate, nor is it likely worthwhile to always do so.

I mean, film music isn't really even meant to be listened to as a standalone piece, so thinking that pieces composed with that goal in mind are more appropriate to listen to in that way doesn't seem outlandish to me.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

I think reverse snobbery has become more frequent than real snobbery since decades ago in most western countries, at least in the field of so called high culture and classical music. (Straight snobbery might be still more frequent with food, cars, travel, roughly stuff that is more directly correlated to spending money. It's also quite popular in pop culture niches, like fandom of silly SF or fantasy movies etc. just watch how mad fans are going if one of these franchises does not go like they'd prefer). 

It's obviously absurd to claim Grieg was some kind of underdog. It's hard to think of another composer who managed to become so popular with a single large scale work and a dozen of popular trifles. And of course, if a few works are so extraordinarily popular as his concerto and some suites and piano pieces there will also be lots of "underrated" pieces, that's almost a corollary to the high popularity of the others. I doubt Grieg fanciers would prefer the popularity more equally distributed because this would also mean to flatten the peaks..
Grieg was also a modest man himself and well aware that he was not at the level of Beethoven or Brahms.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Look at the quickwitted, astute and knowledgeable posts this new member has unleashed. Without new members like this (and other famous posters in here) the forum creeps in this simmering pace. I like this, I don't like this, I like this performance and etc..
How much can we talk about music? How much can we say, and be understood.. And my favorite has been, how do musicians and non-musicians talk to each other?

“The occasion came during a gathering of friends one evening in 1865. Grieg had just received the manuscript from the printer and was hoping that Liszt would play
it at a gathering of friends. "Will you play it?" Liszt asked, to which Grieg quickly replied, "No, I can't. I haven't practiced it."
Liszt took the manuscript, went to the piano, smiled and said to the guests, "All right then, I'll show you that I can't either." He took the first part of the concerto so quickly that it came out a jumble, but after a little tempo coaching from Grieg, he brought out the beauty of the work, playing the most difficult part -- the cadenza -- best of all. Liszt began to make comments to Grieg and the guests as he played, nodding to the right or left at the parts he particularly liked.”

——— the article continues.. with more of the account I hadn’t heard before..









Liszt Plays Grieg


Edvard Grieg was 25 years old when he wrote his masterpiece, the Piano Concerto in A minor.




www.wpr.org


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

If you think classical people are pretetious snobs, try hanging our with electronic music/techno people. Good lord.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

pianoedvard_b93 said:


> Edit: I should add, genre specific music communities of genres that are regarded as "finer" or "more advanced".
> As a Norwegian I have hung around a lot of black metal fans, and i mean the real deal, makeup and all. They can be pretentious in another manner, in that "unless you listen to black metal you are brainwashed" or "haven't seen anything" or "conforming to everything trendy like a sheep". It is quite rare, as it is in the classical community, as opposed to the jazz community among younger jazz students. There it is actually rampant! And one of the reasons why i got discouraged from pursuing jazz and went to orchestral composition instead.


Some of the highest snobbery in my experience comes from anything that is purportedly "underground"/"independent", especially if it's getting mainstream attention (vis: electronic dance music). Anything which receives any mainstream, or even worse - middlebrow acclaim is immediately suspect, and the more obscure a track you find, the better. Noise and ambient music is reaching critical mass at the "I was in it before middlebrow websites started covering it" snob posting flavor.

Some of the most tedious arguments on music involve whether something is "Real punk" or not.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Philidor said:


> Dear PianoEdvard, if you like, please look around in some wine forums. Compared to those, I find the guys and girls here quite easy and relaxed. (By the way, I appreciate this very much.)
> 
> Nobody says that he has an superior mind.
> 
> ...


When this question (FM is sometimes CM?) began to be taken seriously in discussions I've complained that young music students shouldn't be taught such half-serious generalizations. 
As for adults, I think they've made their choices and they would have the experience to waffle back in forth about this question. The kids I teach are 'defenseless'.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

pianoedvard_b93 said:


> Yes 🤩
> I absolutely love it. He is my favorite composer alive today, along with JW.
> If i may:
> 
> ...


I've not heard this, nor did Hisaishi make much of an impression though I've seen several of the movies he's scored (Spirited Away, Howls' Moving Castle, Princess Mononoke etc). Reviews of Departures (summarised in Metacritic.com) were not universally positive, despite its Oscar, but if I can find it, I'll watch and see for myself. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

pianoedvard_b93 said:


> . . . I would say most definitely that if someone claims they "don't like film music" its kind of a red flag as you film music is EXTREMELY diverse in everything. Saying "i don't like film music" points to cluelessness and if its accompanied by some praise to a classical composer or piece it sure seems like superiority complexion. . . .


The punishment for claiming to NOT like film music ought to be having to watch films with the music removed.


----------



## bagpipers (Jun 29, 2013)

Maybe in older times when classical music represented the educated elite or a Victorian morality.
Today the educated elite is likely listening to Rap and the older crowd with stuffy Victorian morals loves the Beatles,Stones and The Who and is snobby against Led Zeppelin,Black Sabbath or Tull.

I don't think much of that is true of a modern classical audience,in some ways the classical audience are now the rebels


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

pianoedvard_b93 said:


> ...I should add, genre specific music communities of genres that are regarded as "finer" or "more advanced"...





fbjim said:


> ...Anything which receives any mainstream, or even worse - middlebrow acclaim is immediately suspect, and the more obscure a track you find, the better...


I think in talking about a topic like this, its worth keeping in mind that this issue is about behaviour and attitude, not about the type of music a person listens to (or even how serious they are about it). Online, its also about people feeling the need to fit into some archetype, perhaps to form a tight group they can fit into, as opposed to just being themselves.

I'm pretty sure that other music forums have had the same sorts of archetypes as this:
the collector
the expert/specialist
the techie/audiophile
the critic
the musician
the unknown/less known music fan
the latest/trendiest music fan

This list can go on. If we wanted to take it further, these archetype groups also tend to project shared values, ideologies, ways of looking at music.

I must emphasise the distinction between simply having some sort of focus - even obsession - within music and the behaviours associated with snobbism, pretension, elitism and so on. The two need not necessarily go together.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Artran said:


> Have you heard this?





pianoedvard_b93 said:


> Yes 🤩
> I absolutely love it. He is my favorite composer alive today, along with JW.
> If i may...





Forster said:


> I've not heard this, nor did Hisaishi make much of an impression though I've seen several of the movies he's scored (Spirited Away, Howls' Moving Castle, Princess Mononoke etc). Reviews of Departures (summarised in Metacritic.com) were not universally positive, despite its Oscar, but if I can find it, I'll watch and see for myself. Thanks for sharing.


Its only this year that I've taken notice of Hisaishi. Although I'd seen a few of the Ghibli movies, I didn't really know his music until I got a compilation (my entry below in current listening). He's quite an eclectic figure, there's similarities to John Williams in that he composes film, commercial and concert music, and also Philip Glass in terms of being one of the early minimalists.

In his seventies, Hisaishi comes from the generation when serialism and avant-garde where dominant in Japan. He's quite eclectic in terms of influence, which include minimalists like Glass, the Second Viennese School, German techno and more predictably Satie and Chopin. He's also been inspired by modern art.









Current Listening Vol VIII


Poulenc, Chansons villageoises I usually don't like art songs in foreign languages because I don't want to have to search the internet for the lyrics and then bury my head in them trying to figure out what's being sung. Poulenc is different; his melodies are so interesting that I don't mind...




www.talkclassical.com


----------



## FrankE (Jan 13, 2021)

pianozach said:


> The punishment for claiming to NOT like film music ought to be having to watch films with the music removed.


Gladly.
A few films I watched recently which I recall don't have a music soundtrack over dialogue:








No Country for Old Men (2007) - IMDb


No Country for Old Men: Directed by Ethan Coen, Joel Coen. With Tommy Lee Jones, Javier Bardem, Josh Brolin, Woody Harrelson. Violence and mayhem ensue after a hunter stumbles upon a drug deal gone wrong and more than two million dollars in cash near the Rio Grande.




www.imdb.com












The Exterminating Angel (1962) - IMDb


The Exterminating Angel: Directed by Luis Buñuel. With Silvia Pinal, Jacqueline Andere, José Baviera, Augusto Benedico. The guests at an upper-class dinner party find themselves unable to leave.




www.imdb.com












Beyond the Hills (2012) - IMDb


Beyond the Hills: Directed by Cristian Mungiu. With Cosmina Stratan, Cristina Flutur, Valeriu Andriuta, Dana Tapalaga. The friendship between two young women who grew up in the same orphanage; one has found refuge at a convent in Romania and refuses to leave with her friend, who now lives in...




www.imdb.com












Winter Light (1963) - IMDb


Winter Light: Directed by Ingmar Bergman. With Ingrid Thulin, Gunnar Björnstrand, Gunnel Lindblom, Max von Sydow. A small-town priest struggles with his faith.




www.imdb.com





I don't necessarily dislike music written for or included in film, just the overuse of music in film in general and the use of music, period in some films.
I wish digital media had toggles for music soundtracks as well as the language and commentary streams.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

pianozach said:


> The punishment for claiming to NOT like film music ought to be having to watch films with the music removed.


Music isn't a requirement for a movie. Nor is dialogue. We're just used to having at least one or the other, usually both. Last night I was watching _Les Diaboliques_. No music, except over the opening credits.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

FrankE said:


> Gladly.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm not sure I follow your reply. Are you saying that these movies can be found with their music removed? Or they are examples of films that _should _have their music removed...Or...?


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Pretentious? Moi? I nearly choked on my kefir and yoghurt! Le gasp. 🧐


----------



## Shaughnessy (Dec 31, 2020)

Merl said:


> *Pretentious? Moi?* I nearly choked on my kefir and yoghurt! Le gasp. 🧐


----------



## FrankE (Jan 13, 2021)

Forster said:


> I'm not sure I follow your reply. Are you saying that these movies can be found with their music removed? Or they are examples of films that _should _have their music removed...Or...?


IIRC the films I linked don't have a music soundtrack over the body of the film.
I have edited the post to make it clearer and added links.


----------



## justineb (3 mo ago)

Classical music is not pretentious, only people are sometime.
As a pianist, I am a fan of Frederic Chopin.


----------



## FrankE (Jan 13, 2021)

I only wear a top hat to obstruct the view of the people in the dearer seats behind me.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

FrankE said:


> IIRC the films I linked don't have a music soundtrack over the body of the film.
> I have edited the post to make it clearer and added links.


Thanks for the clarification. Although No Country For Old Men is one of my favourite films, it's not an easy watch, so I hadn't recalled from my last viewing that there was so little music. The other film I don't know. I'm sure there are others, and it just goes to show that, contrary to those who insist that music must be an integral part (even the most important part to one member), it isn't essential.


----------



## BBSVK (10 mo ago)

Sid James said:


> I'm pretty sure that other music forums have had the same sorts of archetypes as this:
> the collector
> the expert/specialist
> the techie/audiophile
> ...


I will not sleep tonight and wonder which one of these is me !


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

justineb said:


> Classical music is not pretentious, only people are sometime.
> As a pianist, I am a fan of Frederic Chopin.


Great post, exactly right, welcome to the site by the way.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Forster said:


> Music isn't a requirement for a movie. Nor is dialogue. We're just used to having at least one or the other, usually both. Last night I was watching _Les Diaboliques_. No music, except over the opening credits.


Yes, of course. There are exceptions to practically every trope.

"A British sailor is every man's equal. Excepting MINE, of course" - Sir Joseph Porter, K.C.B


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

pianoedvard_b93 said:


> ...
> I do encounter ... misguided and overly pretentious views a lot in the classical community. If this applies to you, stop it, your mind is not musically superior, you just have a severely skewed view on what makes music good.


Hey! If I can't be pretentious (or, rather, "misguided and _overly_ pretentious" -- italics mine) about classical music, then I'm left with few options.
So, please: leave me alone. I just want to listen to some music and feel good about it.


----------



## Nate Miller (Oct 24, 2016)

pretentious, Moi???


----------



## Blakehouse (3 mo ago)

Sid James said:


> During my early years here, I was prone to pulling out the snob card, albeit mostly indirectly. I said a few things I wouldn't now, or even back then if I was in a real life conversation about music. I think a lot of that behaviour stems from a need to prove something, impress people. Its also a way of getting out of an argument when you're on the back foot.
> 
> The weird thing is that the one upmanship game never ends, so there'll always be someone superior to you, and because its a matter of one online persona against another, you have no way of knowing where reality ends and fantasy begins. The solution is simple - be yourself. Its far easier to have a conversation, even within the limitations of the internet, if you have some sense of reality and ownership in what you say. Otherwise, you risk becoming some sort of cardboard cutout.


I am new to talk classical, my interest in classical music began with film scores, I was given a classic FM movie themes CD which then prompted me to listen to classic FM, now I love listening to Debussy or Vaughn Williams as much as I do Vangelis or John Williams.

I came to Classical Talk hoping to learn and perhaps understand why I am so emotionally moved by this music, but most of what I have read so far is exactly what you said, "one upmanship".

I like what I like because I feel it, I can't explain why I get a tingle down my spine from a single note, or a lump in my throat from a certain tune or why I want to running when I hear chariots of fire!

Your comment has made me decide to stick with Talk Classical, thank you


----------



## Monsalvat (11 mo ago)

Blakehouse said:


> I am new to talk classical, my interest in classical music began with film scores, I was given a classic FM movie themes CD which then prompted me to listen to classic FM, now I love listening to Debussy or Vaughn Williams as much as I do Vangelis or John Williams.
> 
> I came to Classical Talk hoping to learn and perhaps understand why I am so emotionally moved by this music, *but most of what I have read so far is exactly what you said, "one upmanship".*
> 
> ...


Welcome to Talk Classical. 

There's no doubt some of this but I think most people aren't trying to show off for the sake of showing off. There's not much to be gained from proving one's superiority to strangers on the internet, after all. A lot of activity is in the Current Listening thread, which is almost exclusively about _sharing_ music recordings and our thoughts about them. The discussion threads can get closer to what you've described but there _is_ something to be said about delving deeper into the music, its influences, what it means, what the composer thought about it, etc. If I'm contributing to one of these, I'll often do some research which isn't necessarily shown in the post. I think this raises the quality of the post; it's not meant to be pretentious. It's not a verbal debate so we all have time to step back, think about what we want to write, do some perfunctory research, and put down our thoughts in a respectful and concise manner. I've learned from reading other contributors' posts here, and I've gained exposure to some music and recordings. However your point also stands that sometimes we like music without being able to articulate why it appeals to us; this is just how we react to art sometimes.


----------



## Organfan (Feb 11, 2013)

I haven't read all four pages of these comments, but so far I haven't seen a single word about the difference between "pure" classical music and movie music as I perceive it. The difference that affects me is that the latter is written to conform to cues generated by the movie. I'm more drawn in by the drama created in the composer's mind than I am by the dramatic necessity of a film score. I don't know or care if this attitude is snobby; I only know how the music makes me feel.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Organfan said:


> I haven't read all four pages of these comments, but so far I haven't seen a single word about the difference between "pure" classical music and movie music as I perceive it. The difference that affects me is that the latter is written to conform to cues generated by the movie. I'm more drawn in by the drama created in the composer's mind than I am by the dramatic necessity of a film score. I don't know or care if this attitude is snobby; I only know how the music makes me feel.


There's a thread with nearly 1,500 comments devoted to discussing the relationship between Classical Music and Film Scores. You may find it enlightening.









Why do many people think that classical music composed...


In the "Movie Corner" I opened a poll about the film scores which got the nomination "Best original score" in the Academy Awards (Oscars) of 1990: Talkclassical best film score award - 1990 This is for the first part of the competition Talkclassical best film score award. Now, the score of...




www.talkclassical.com


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

BBSVK said:


> I will not sleep tonight and wonder which one of these is me !


Weirdly, I think I am all of these!😎


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Organfan said:


> I haven't read all four pages of these comments, but so far I haven't seen a single word about the difference between "pure" classical music and movie music as I perceive it. The difference that affects me is that the latter is written to conform to cues generated by the movie. I'm more drawn in by the drama created in the composer's mind than I am by the dramatic necessity of a film score. I don't know or care if this attitude is snobby; I only know how the music makes me feel.


Yes, some (few imo) film scores lend themselves to being arranged as effective standalone works, such as Sergei Prokofiev's great Alexander Nevsky "cantata", Leonard Bernstein's suite from On the Waterfront, Michael Nyman's The Piano, John Corigliano's Red Violin concerto, or Tan Dun's Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. These composers usually are not film score specialists and from the start may well have envisioned further use for their work beyond the movie. 
Other composers, especially in the so-called golden age of Hollywood, made their living specializing in film scores. Some of these, for example Franz Waxman, Bernard Herrmann, Dimitri Tiomkin and finally John Williams, arguably the last and best exemplar of this honorable tradition, did fine work and I have listened to a great deal of it. But as standalone music I find it most of it far less compelling than the music I listed above. It was written to enhance specific movies, many of which have not aged well, and in fact are often considered obsolete and even ridiculous today. There is often a sameness and monotony to it, when it is strung together into a lengthy "symphonic suite", which in fairness is typically not what the composer intended.
It is not snobbery to acknowledge that not all art has the same shelf life, nor is it condescending or a put down of the original creators. Not all art is meant to live on for centuries, in fact, most of it isn't.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

I'm amused by the notion that somebody who enjoys_ film music_ (gag, just vomited in my mouth a little) thinks they are also fit to judge what is and isn't pretentious. No, sir. You clearly have no taste and cannot be trusted to judge whether a light bulb is on or off. I'm not a psychologist, but every psychologist would say that calling others pretentious for their correct views is just an internalized mechanism to cope with the self-hatred due to the fact that you defile yourself with an ungodly love of _film music_. 

Even in Hell they took down the "Abandon all hope, ye who enter here" sign after they started playing the music of John Williams and Danny Elfman 24/7, they found it redundant.


----------



## BBSVK (10 mo ago)

Couchie said:


> an ungodly love of _film music_.


I like the soundtrack to the film Dracula by Francis Ford Coppola !
The author is Wojciech Killar


----------



## EvaBaron (Jan 3, 2022)

Couchie said:


> I'm amused by the notion that somebody who enjoys_ film music_ (gag, just vomited in my mouth a little) thinks they are also fit to judge what is and isn't pretentious. No, sir. You clearly have no taste and cannot be trusted to judge whether a light bulb is on or off. I'm not a psychologist, but every psychologist would say that calling others pretentious for their correct views is just an internalized mechanism to cope with the self-hatred due to the fact that you defile yourself with an ungodly love of _film music_.
> 
> Even in Hell they took down the "Abandon all hope, ye who enter here" sign after they started playing the music of John Williams and Danny Elfman 24/7, they found it redundant.


I would say you’re being sarcastic but I can never really tell on the internet


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

EvaBaron said:


> I would say you’re being sarcastic but I can never really tell on the internet


I think you called it right. _Echt_ Couchie!


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

EvaBaron said:


> I would say you’re being sarcastic but I can never really tell on the internet


No it's true. Do you have any idea how many business management consultants are in Hell? They hate redundancy.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

This thread is just a drawing for a ticket to the upcoming Zimerman concert.



Couchie said:


> Hell?


Tell me more about this.


----------



## Steatopygous (Jul 5, 2015)

It's very sad that no one has supported the premise of the original thread about snobbery. The evidence suggests that classical lovers tend to be reasonable people, which will never do. So I would like to posit that anyone who does not share EXACTLY the same opinion as me about both composers and compositions, is morally and intellectually delinquent, and should probably be in jail.


----------



## Steatopygous (Jul 5, 2015)

fluteman said:


> Yes, some (few imo) film scores lend themselves to being arranged as effective standalone works, such as Sergei Prokofiev's great Alexander Nevsky "cantata", Leonard Bernstein's suite from On the Waterfront, Michael Nyman's The Piano, John Corigliano's Red Violin concerto, or Tan Dun's Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. These composers usually are not film score specialists and from the start may well have envisioned further use for their work beyond the movie.
> Other composers, especially in the so-called golden age of Hollywood, made their living specializing in film scores. Some of these, for example Franz Waxman, Bernard Herrmann, Dimitri Tiomkin and finally John Williams, arguably the last and best exemplar of this honorable tradition, did fine work and I have listened to a great deal of it. But as standalone music I find it most of it far less compelling than the music I listed above. It was written to enhance specific movies, many of which have not aged well, and in fact are often considered obsolete and even ridiculous today. There is often a sameness and monotony to it, when it is strung together into a lengthy "symphonic suite", which in fairness is typically not what the composer intended.
> It is not snobbery to acknowledge that not all art has the same shelf life, nor is it condescending or a put down of the original creators. Not all art is meant to live on for centuries, in fact, most of it isn't.


Just so. Film music is music written for a purpose, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Much of it is indeed superb. But, unlike other music written for a purpose, such as many great commissions, music is not its foremost purpose. Many film musicians were/are indeed truly fine composers, and some (Shostakovich, Korngold etc) traversed both worlds, but the vast majority of that work will not live outside the films for which they were composed.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

BBSVK said:


> I will not sleep tonight and wonder which one of these is me !





Barbebleu said:


> Weirdly, I think I am all of these!😎


We probably wear one hat or another at any given point in time. Of course, in real life we do the same sort of thing, depending on the context we find ourselves in. I guess how much we pretend is a matter of degree. Shakespeare's line about "all the world's a stage" comes to mind here.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Which all reminds me, no one has had a good flounce out of here for years. I miss the days of the flounce! We have witnessed a few TC mini flounces over the years but far less than on other forums.


----------



## Shaughnessy (Dec 31, 2020)

Merl said:


> Which all reminds me,* no one has had a good flounce out of here for years*. * I miss the days of the flounce! *We have witnessed a few TC mini flounces over the years but far less than on other forums.


Well... Okay, Merl... If you insist... I'm never returning! - Never ever ever - I'm leaving forever!... or until next Wednesday, whichever comes first...


----------



## Nate Miller (Oct 24, 2016)

what some might call 'snobbery" I say is simply musicians policing their own ranks. 

when you've put on a tux and performed Bach suites, you wont be in any frame of mind to put up with alot of nonsense from your local rock and roll players

if that's "snobbery" then so be it


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Nate Miller said:


> what some might call 'snobbery" I say is simply musicians policing their own ranks.
> 
> when you've put on a tux and performed Bach suites, you wont be in any frame of mind to put up with alot of nonsense from your local rock and roll players
> 
> if that's "snobbery" then so be it


Great, but you'll have to explain to me the difference between the classical musician wearing white tie and tails and the rock musicians with their long hair (when most of the rest of us have long since cut it shorter) and smoke and light shows. To me, they're exactly the same: theater, complete with costumes and sets designed to appeal to their particular audiences.


----------



## Nate Miller (Oct 24, 2016)

fluteman said:


> Great, but you'll have to explain to me the difference between the classical musician wearing white tie and tails and the rock musicians with their long hair (when most of the rest of us have long since cut it shorter) and smoke and light shows. To me, they're exactly the same: theater, complete with costumes and sets designed to appeal to their particular audiences.


The difference is quite simple. One doesn't dress to play Aerosmith cover tunes, and J.S. Bach wrote no partitas for solo violin and smoke machine

if that's not snobbery, then I don't know what is


----------



## EvaBaron (Jan 3, 2022)

Nate Miller said:


> The difference is quite simple. One doesn't dress to play Aerosmith cover tunes, and J.S. Bach wrote no partitas for solo violin and smoke machine
> 
> if that's not snobbery, then I don't know what is


Bach also didn’t write no partitas for solo violin and tux. Bach just wrote amazing music a long time ago, never imagining some day snobs like you would use his music to denigrate other kinds of music


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Nate Miller said:


> The difference is quite simple. One doesn't dress to play Aerosmith cover tunes, and J.S. Bach wrote no partitas for solo violin and smoke machine
> 
> if that's not snobbery, then I don't know what is


Ahhh, but with all due respect, your premise is incorrect. One DOES dress to play Aerosmith cover tunes, and one even wears one's hair a certain way. As I mentioned, these classic rock musicians are among the few (males) in our society who still wear the free-flowing shoulder-length hair that was popularized in the late 60s and early 70s. Rappers have their own elaborate dress code. There are even stores that feature "hip hop fashion", or at least there were, I don't get out much anymore.


----------



## Nate Miller (Oct 24, 2016)

fluteman said:


> Ahhh, but with all due respect, your premise is incorrect. One DOES dress to play Aerosmith cover tunes, and one even wears one's hair a certain way. As I mentioned, these classic rock musicians are among the few (males) in our society who still wear the free-flowing shoulder-length hair that was popularized in the late 60s and early 70s. Rappers have their own elaborate dress code. There are even stores that feature "hip hop fashion", or at least there were, I don't get out much anymore.



got me there. I've played all kinds of gigs and it helps if you look like you should be up there doing that.

but you gave me such a great set-up, I just had to do it


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

fluteman said:


> Ahhh, but with all due respect, your premise is incorrect. One DOES dress to play Aerosmith cover tunes, and one even wears one's hair a certain way. As I mentioned, these classic rock musicians are among the few (males) in our society who still wear the free-flowing shoulder-length hair that was popularized in the late 60s and early 70s. Rappers have their own elaborate dress code. There are even stores that feature "hip hop fashion", or at least there were, I don't get out much anymore.


it's not a coincidence that a lot of musical genres are correlated with aesthetic/fashion movements


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

fluteman said:


> As I mentioned, these classic rock musicians are among the few (males) in our society who still wear the free-flowing shoulder-length hair that was popularized in the late 60s and early 70s.


Not many from the actual 60s and 70s, they're often bald.


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

I'm more struck by how many classical music fans have come to it via film music. I've also enjoyed it, though I didn't meet classical music through it. Fair play to whatever brings people through the door, but there seem to be quite a few threads where people are super-fans of film music and at war with anyone who thinks it's a separate sort of thing (which it is!).

However that is small fry in the world of 'art music' snootiness. Wait until you get to opera, film fans; you'll think the revolution has started.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Snobbery is an attitude, it doesn't necessarily relate to our opinion about certain issues, what we listen to, or how we dress. I see it as someone trying to rationalise why their taste is superior to others.

Its not difficult to establish a connection between snobbery and pretense, because snobbery was originally about pretending. Its origins go back to the 19th century, when you had the rising bourgeoisie copying the aristocracy. The actual nobility had social connections, some deal of political clout, vast holdings of land and other valuable assets, employed servants (includng musicians) and so on. The bourgeoisie on the other hand where sans nobilite, without nobility, but they sought to copy the nobility, and this included going to concerts and the opera.

I think today, the need to carry on this sort of dynamic is weaker. In some respects, I think that parading the trappings of superiority can actually work against a person's image. It's the equivalent of someone trying to prove they are wealthy by wearing expensive sunglasses, lots of gold jewellery and carrying a Gucci bag. Those who are really wealthy are unlikely to have such a focus on accessories. They don't need to pretend that they are wealthy because they are that already. If they live in a mansion, drive a Rolls and have their own private jet, such add ons make little difference to who they actually are.


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

Yes. If you're already at the top of the social pecking order you're not even concerned with maintaining appearances, but if you're actively trying to give the impression of superiority it's conscious and more obvious.

I do think there is a link with opinions though (how can there not be when they inform attitudes?). And wild notions of enhanced social or moral sensibilities among some listeners.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

PaulFranz said:


> I am a massive snob about singing technique, because most people's wildly uninformed opinions on it are not worth indulging, but I can barely stay awake during a five-minute music-theory primer, so I forfeit my snob rights in matters of composition.
> 
> Nevertheless, I'll do my best to embody the windmill you've been riding after: I don't consider most film music of the past 60 years to be classical at all, so I'm not sure it belongs in a discussion centering around classical music. I am of this opinion for reasons similar to those stated in this comment:
> 
> ...


You replied in the wrong discussion. The right discussion is this one: Why do many people think that classical music composed for film scores is not classical music?


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Steatopygous said:


> Just so. Film music is music written for a purpose, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Much of it is indeed superb. But, unlike other music written for a purpose, such as many great commissions, music is not its foremost purpose. Many film musicians were/are indeed truly fine composers, and some (Shostakovich, Korngold etc) traversed both worlds, but the vast majority of that work will not live outside the films for which they were composed.



False. Given the fact that OST albums are sold and that there are persons who buy ticket for concerts of film music, what you say is objectively false. Incidental classical music (see for example Egmont of Beethoven) was also composed for a purpose.


----------



## HerbertNorman (Jan 9, 2020)

Interesting read this thread , I must admit that I recognized the feeling that there are some about that think they have the superior taste , whatever it may be. But I don't think this has to do with genre. I have a very broad taste I may say , but there is "cr** that I will not listen to" about ... more eloquently put: there is music that doesn't appeal to me...
On TC I have had enough of seeing threads appear about Mahler or Bruckner's symphony cycles ... but who am I to judge those on here that feel like posting in those threads?? I feel good knowing that there is a general interest that binds us here on TC and most of those that I have read posts/ comments/... of , seem to be open minded enough...But there are a few pseudonyms here that I thought of immediately while I skimmed through the first few posts...

I think @Shaughnessy 's post was correct in that it invites you to have your sense of humour ready and that you are open minded enough...in that you feel like you are the one that can learn from the fellow poster.
There have been loads of posts that I thought were completely wrong , but most of the time I feel a bond with the poster as he or she shares my interest in music... and that should be the reason one is on here imho


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Forgive me but when I read posts like the OP I feel I am reading a confession of insecurity. It is intended as a critique of snobbism but the result is unintentionally snobbish because it implies a resentment that some of the things the writer enjoys are somehow less valuable. If someone said they think Bach is trash they wouldn't be accused of snobbism. But if they happen not to like rap or film music they are so accused. Isn't there is a value judgement hidden in the difference there?

Enjoy what you enjoy, why not? And if you like to analyse or evaluate its worth then go ahead - again, why not? Hell, if you can lose any chip that might be on your shoulder you may even get to enjoy debating values.


----------



## pianoedvard_b93 (4 mo ago)

Enthusiast said:


> Forgive me but when I read posts like the OP I feel I am reading a confession of insecurity. It is intended as a critique of snobbism but the result is unintentionally snobbish because it implies a resentment that some of the things the writer enjoys are somehow less valuable. If someone said they think Bach is trash they wouldn't be accused of snobbism. But if they happen not to like rap or film music they are so accused. Isn't there is a value judgement hidden in the difference there?
> 
> Enjoy what you enjoy, why not? And if you like to analyse or evaluate its worth then go ahead - again, why not? Hell, if you can lose any chip that might be on your shoulder you may even get to enjoy debating values.


If anyone says Bach is trash they are musically clueless, and not to be taken seriously in any musical debate.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

pianoedvard_b93 said:


> If anyone says Bach is trash they are musically clueless, and not to be taken seriously in any musical debate.


Do you wear a monocle?


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)




----------



## pianoedvard_b93 (4 mo ago)

Enthusiast said:


> Do you wear a monocle?


Maybe i should!


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

pianoedvard_b93 said:


> Maybe i should!


If you can read scores and perform any piece that you would like, with some practice, and you understand and appreciate the development and the history of music. The rise of dissonance, the rise of ambiguity, the crisis of ambiguity and the resulting achievements, large-scale and small-scale, then you're just a different species. Simple as that.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Enthusiast said:


> Do you wear a monocle?


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

HansZimmer said:


> False. Given the fact that OST albums are sold and that there are persons who buy ticket for concerts of film music, what you say is objectively false. Incidental classical music (see for example Egmont of Beethoven) was also composed for a purpose.


The fact that so many soundtrack albums are sold, and long have been, shows that it is a popular genre. So, exactly the opposite of what you are saying is true. As a collector of vinyl records from the 50s, 60s and 70s, I used to see piles of these forgotten old soundtrack records (and Broadway show records) at the Salvation Army and other thrift shops, along with Sing Along with Mitch, the Ray Conniff Singers, Mantovani, Steve Lawrence and Eydie Gorme, Andy Williams, Robert Goulet, Johnny Mathis, the Carpenters, etc., etc., etc. With these were show and movie LPs ranging from Paint Your Wagon and The Sound of Music to The Pink Panther and James Bond (Live and Let Die was my favorite Bond soundtrack), to Jaws and Saturday Night Fever. These were all hugely popular in their day. But popular music fashions and tastes change rapidly with the times, and that is the key difference between popular and classical music.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

fluteman said:


> The fact that so many soundtrack albums are sold, and long have been, shows that it is a popular genre. So, exactly the opposite of what you are saying is true. As a collector of vinyl records from the 50s, 60s and 70s, I used to see piles of these forgotten old soundtrack records (and Broadway show records) at the Salvation Army and other thrift shops, along with Sing Along with Mitch, the Ray Conniff Singers, Mantovani, Steve Lawrence and Eydie Gorme, Andy Williams, Robert Goulet, Johnny Mathis, the Carpenters, etc., etc., etc. With these were show and movie LPs ranging from Paint Your Wagon and The Sound of Music to The Pink Panther and James Bond (Live and Let Die was my favorite Bond soundtrack), to Jaws and Saturday Night Fever. These were all hugely popular in their day. But popular music fashions and tastes change rapidly with the times, and that is the key difference between popular and classical music.


I replied to a post which says that the music of films will not live outside of the films. I don't know what does your post have to do with the argument. 

Some film scores are roooted in popular music and some other are rooted in classical music. 
We are discussing about the argument here: Why do many people think that classical music composed for film scores is not classical music?


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

HansZimmer said:


> We are discussing about the argument here: Why do many people think that classical music composed for film scores is not classical music?


I consider this a trick question. The assumption that the music is already 'classical music' is introduced into the question as a given. It just 'sounds like' classical music, superficially.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

HansZimmer said:


> I replied to a post which says that the music of films will not live outside of the films. I don't know what does your post have to do with the argument.
> 
> Some film scores are roooted in popular music and some other are rooted in classical music.
> We are discussing about the argument here: Why do many people think that classical music composed for film scores is not classical music?


The vast majority of music of films will not live outside of films. Soundtrack recordings of some hit movies will sell for a while, but once the movie is forgotten, the soundtrack is usually forgotten as well. That is what my post has to do with the argument. The fact that film soundtracks are almost entirely a popular music genre and not classical music in no way diminishes them. Some here seem to have a profound misconception of what classical music is. They seem to think the term refers to high-quality, well-composed, sophisticated, effective music. It does not.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

fluteman said:


> Some here seem to have a profound misconception of what classical music is. They seem to think the term refers to high-quality, well-composed, sophisticated, effective music. It does not.


Genuinely curious what the term does refer to in your estimation.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

MatthewWeflen said:


> Genuinely curious what the term does refer to in your estimation.


I've written so many posts in so many threads on this exact issue, it's genuinely tempting to just put a "see" citation. I guess I'll try again. Popular music, or popular art generally, seeks to capitalize on the zeitgeist or mood of the moment as much as possible, and capture the largest possible audience, at least within a particular social context or demographic, as quickly as possible. Classical music, or classical art generally, seeks to highlight longer term cultural traditions and more universal and permanent (within a specific culture, anyway, as nothing is permanent in the end) themes. 

So, the two serve different cultural functions or purposes. I see art generally as a celebration of our humanity. Popular art celebrates the fashion of the moment, with all of its sparkle and excitement. Classical art celebrates what is enduring about a society and its principles and values. Both are worthy endeavors. Both require great skill and talent from the artist to bring to their greatest potential. Either can be studied in a serious academic context, if that is your thing. One can be snobby and elitist about either, and as someone here has already mentioned, many are quite snobby and elitist indeed, in the popular music arena as well as in the classical.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Chat Noir said:


> *I consider this a trick question.* The assumption that the music is already 'classical music' is introduced into the question as a given. It just 'sounds like' classical music, superficially.


Yes, and the trick is a well-known logical fallacy called _begging the question_. I know this sounds absurd, but there is actually a current thread on this forum with over a thousand posts based on this fallacy.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

fluteman said:


> I've written so many posts in so many threads on this exact issue, it's genuinely tempting to just put a "see" citation. I guess I'll try again. Popular music, or popular art generally, seeks to capitalize on the zeitgeist or mood of the moment as much as possible, and capture the largest possible audience, at least within a particular social context or demographic, as quickly as possible. Classical music, or classical art generally, seeks to highlight longer term cultural traditions and more universal and permanent (within a specific culture, anyway, as nothing is permanent in the end) themes.


I think this is an interesting approach. I wonder if the people who have made classical music in the past and/or present would agree that this is what _they _thought they were doing.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

MatthewWeflen said:


> I think this is an interesting approach. I wonder if the people who have made classical music in the past and/or present would agree that this is what _they _thought they were doing.


One can read books and essays on this subject, starting with David Hume's 1757 essay, Of the Standard of Taste. He pointed out the timeless quality of classical art. Or one can read the letters or essays of any number of famous classical composers, who almost inevitably write about attempting to achieve something profound, universal and lasting in their music, self-serving, inconsistent and disingenuous as some of those comments can be (I'm looking at you, Richard Wagner).

On the other hand, consider the pithy comment by the late, great Tom Petty about rock music: "It isn't supposed to be that good."


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

fluteman said:


> One can read books and essays on this subject, starting with David Hume's 1757 essay, Of the Standard of Taste. He pointed out the timeless quality of classical art. Or one can read the letters or essays of any number of famous classical composers, who almost inevitably write about attempting to achieve something profound, universal and lasting in their music, self-serving, inconsistent and disingenuous as some of those comments can be (I'm looking at you, Richard Wagner).
> 
> On the other hand, consider the pithy comment by the late, great Tom Petty about rock music: "It isn't supposed to be that good."


Tom Petty notwithstanding, I am sure there are pop and rock musicians (among many other genres) who were "attempting to achieve something profound, universal and lasting in their music." Does that mean they are writing classical music? If it's a matter of intention and not of form, then there needs to be some serious sorting in the music shelves of the world.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

MatthewWeflen said:


> Tom Petty notwithstanding, I am sure there are pop and rock musicians (among many other genres) who were "attempting to achieve something profound, universal and lasting in their music." Does that mean they are writing classical music? If it's a matter of intention and not of form, then there needs to be some serious sorting in the music shelves of the world.


Intention and form are related in a multitude of ways that often are complex and profound. Rather than post these seemingly sarcastic comments, why not read a book or two? One I've mentioned here is by famed poetry and literary critic and revered Harvard professor Walter Jackson Bate, called, From Classic to Romantic: Premises of Taste in 18th Century England. There you can find a discussion of how long-term changes in basic cultural principles and values in a particular era and country impacted artistic styles.

I'm sorry if this sounds pretentious, but to understand the idea of classical art as it applies to a highly developed and longstanding culture that has passed through several phases over the course of many centuries requires education. Exactly what classical music is, is not a simple question. I suppose it's easy to forget this, as the music industry likes neat and simple categories as a sales aid, and as we've idolized Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, and Tchaikovsky for so long we no longer think much about exactly what got them atop their pedestals to begin with. Charles Rosen's books are helpful in approaching this question for a selection of these 'heroes'.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

fluteman said:


> Intention and form are related in a multitude of ways that often are complex and profound. Rather than post these seemingly sarcastic comments, why not read a book or two? One I've mentioned here is by famed poetry and literary critic and revered Harvard professor Walter Jackson Bate, called, From Classic to Romantic: Premises of Taste in 18th Century England. There you can find a discussion of how long-term changes in basic cultural principles and values in a particular era and country impacted artistic styles.
> 
> I'm sorry if this sounds pretentious, but to understand the idea of classical art as it applies to a highly developed and longstanding culture that has passed through several phases over the course of many centuries requires education. Exactly what classical music is, is not a simple question. I suppose it's easy to forget this, as the music industry likes neat and simple categories as a sales aid, and as we've idolized Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, and Tchaikovsky for so long we no longer think much about exactly what got them atop their pedestals to begin with. Charles Rosen's books are helpful in approaching this question for a selection of these 'heroes'.


I am genuinely interested in how people use words. No sarcasm was intended, nor do I think it could be reasonably inferred. As someone who has read several hundred philosophy books as both a student and a teacher, I would like to think my approach to such questions is charitable and open minded.


----------



## KlassikerDronning (3 mo ago)

pianoedvard_b93 said:


> "Film music is lesser music."
> "If a piece is under half an hour long and not filled to the brim with complicated compositional intricacy it is not "advanced" enough for my SUPERIOR musical mind!"
> "Myeeees... "simple" music is for the simple minded." _takes a sip of tea_
> "I enjoy wearing my monocle and sipping tea while listening to Beithauven, Bach and Mauzaart, and if anyone has the audacity to put on such peasant music like Grieg, Vivaldi, or god forbid John Williams or one of those other _shivers_ film music composers i will leave the room immediately while huffing, holding my head back so that my mustache is the highest point on my body."
> ...


I grew up listening to classical. Bach, Beethoven, Schubert and Hyden are my favourite classical composers of all time and I could never say Vivaldi was a simpleton by any means! 
I especially like "storm" which is so intense and complex at the same time!🧐🍵

I mean, I respect some Waltz and Romantic era music, but I just prefer the darker style of classical.

Er du frä Danmark også? Skål, Danskerne!🇩🇰🤟🏻


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

MatthewWeflen said:


> I am genuinely interested in how people use words. No sarcasm was intended, nor do I think it could be reasonably inferred. As someone who has read several hundred philosophy books as both a student and a teacher, I would like to think my approach to such questions is charitable and open minded.


In that case, you should understand the fallacies and bass ackwards reasoning that leads many here to be stumped as to why film music, for example, generally isn't considered part of the western classical music tradition, even though it often uses ensembles much the same as the symphony orchestras used by Beethoven and Brahms, especially during the mid-20th century. It has nothing to do with pretentiousness. In fact, Hollywood film music is mainly descended from another significant popular music tradition, that of Broadway (stage) musicals. Hit songs helped sell hit shows, and they helped sell hit movies in exactly the same way.

It is true that in the mid 20th century Hollywood film music was impacted by an influx of composers trained in Austrian-German classical traditions, in particular Korngold and Waxman. Of course, many classical musicians, especially Jewish ones, left Europe for America in that period. But that is just one of many influences, and cross-pollination of classical and popular traditions is nothing new.

Edit: I am a big fan of movie and TV music, and it pains me to see it so misunderstood.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

fluteman said:


> In that case, you should understand the fallacies and bass ackwards reasoning that leads many here to be stumped as to why film music, for example, generally isn't considered part of the western classical music tradition, even though it often uses ensembles much the same as the symphony orchestras used by Beethoven and Brahms, especially during the mid-20th century. It has nothing to do with pretentiousness. In fact, Hollywood film music is mainly descended from another significant popular music tradition, that of Broadway (stage) musicals. Hit songs helped sell hit shows, and they helped sell hit movies in exactly the same way.
> 
> It is true that in the mid 20th century Hollywood film music was impacted by an influx of composers trained in Austrian-German classical traditions, in particular Korngold and Waxman. Of course, many classical musicians, especially Jewish ones, left Europe for America in that period. But that is just one of many influences, and cross-pollination of classical and popular traditions is nothing new.
> 
> Edit: I am a big fan of movie and TV music, and it pains me to see it so misunderstood.


I'm not concerned with pretension or any of that stuff. I want to know what words mean. Why is "classical" not "jazz" or "rock?" I simply don't think your formulation of classical music defined as being made with the intent to "achieve something profound, universal and lasting in their music" works. There is a potentially insoluble epistemic difficulty in terms of understanding the composer's intention (i.e. if we don't have letters affirming the intention as such, the music cannot be classical) and the definition makes the category too broad (there are rock and jazz musicians who clearly strive for profound/universal/lasting impact).

As such, I favor an approach that focuses on the sounds and instruments used, and the musical forms involved. If someone is grinding on electric guitars, it's _probably _not classical. But if they used those grinding electric guitars to develop theme, melody, exposition and development in a classical mode, then a good argument could probably be made. Jazz typically uses certain instruments (drum kit, stand up bass, saxophone, trumpet, piano) but it is always marked by more free form composition, if not outright improvisation. Rock has a verse-chorus-bridge structure most of the time, but then there are more wide ranging compositions that break that mold. Trying to use words to categorize the varied creativity of thousands is difficult, and the categories can be fluid.

Orchestral movie/tv music uses typically classical instruments. It frequently uses leitmotif and thematic development similar to romantic classical music. Whether the intention was to speak to the ages or not, it sure sounds to me like it fits best in that category (as do opera, overtures, and incidental music for plays).

Of course there could be movie/tv music that uses rock instruments and forms, or jazz instruments and forms. Then those pieces of music would be rock and jazz, respectively (whether they would be _good _instances of those genres is another matter entirely).

"Film music" isn't a form. That's a category mistake.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

MatthewWeflen said:


> "Film music" isn't a form. That's a category mistake.


Whatabout classical music? Why is it appropriate to discuss Indian classical music, but not film music on this "Classical Music Discussion" forum?


----------



## Nawdry (Dec 27, 2020)

fluteman said:


> ... Popular music, or popular art generally, seeks to capitalize on the zeitgeist or mood of the moment as much as possible, and capture the largest possible audience, at least within a particular social context or demographic, as quickly as possible. Classical music, or classical art generally, seeks to highlight longer term cultural traditions and more universal and permanent (within a specific culture, anyway, as nothing is permanent in the end) themes.
> 
> So, the two serve different cultural functions or purposes. I see art generally as a celebration of our humanity. Popular art celebrates the fashion of the moment, with all of its sparkle and excitement. Classical art celebrates what is enduring about a society and its principles and values. Both are worthy endeavors. ...


These insights are useful to my own efforts more adequately to define and explain the special value, meaning, and power of classical music. The following excerpt from an online essay may be of interest:

Classical music expresses the deepest thoughts of our civilization. Through their music, composers paint a picture of the society and times in which they lived. You can experience the greatness and achievements of another generation through its music. If we don’t pass on this incredible thread of creative living history that binds us – one generation to the other – then we diminish all of the humanity that came before us and certainly leave a gaping hole for the future. We must always remember how important classical music is in a world that constantly feels like it stands on the precipice of a frighteningly dark chasm. Music continues to bridge the great divide between cultures and countries. It can bring hope for peace in the darkest of times.
The Importance of Supporting Classical Music Education Worldwide - Philadelphia International Music Camp & Festival


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Nawdry said:


> Classical music expresses the deepest thoughts of our civilization. Through their music, composers paint a picture of the society and times in which they lived. You can experience the greatness and achievements of another generation through its music.


All very grand, but none of this is "in" the music, it's in ourselves.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus (Aug 8, 2020)

Forster said:


> All very grand, but none of this is "in" the music, it's in ourselves.


Stating facts

...when only opinions are allowed.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> Stating facts
> 
> ...when only opinions are allowed.


Because I didn't add "(IMO)" you can't recognise a brazenly stated opinion?


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus (Aug 8, 2020)

Forster said:


> Because I didn't add "(IMO)" you can't recognise a brazenly stated opinion?


So what you said .."All very grand, but none of this is "in" the music, it's in ourselves" ...is not true then?


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> So what you said .."All very grand, but none of this is "in" the music, it's in ourselves" ...is not true then?


Where is this exchange going? What do you want from me? An essay explaining what I think is 'in' music and what is only brought to it by the individual listener?

I simply disagree with the proposition I quoted in the post above (#116).


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

classical music isn't a form either


Nawdry said:


> "Classical music expresses the deepest thoughts of our civilization. Through their music, composers paint a picture of the society and times in which they lived. You can experience the greatness and achievements of another generation through its music."
> The Importance of Supporting Classical Music Education Worldwide - Philadelphia International Music Camp & Festival


It's truly miraculous that we can understand something like the quoted paragraph at all (or kid ourselves into the illusion that there is something to understand here). 
Obviously, civilizations _cannot_ have thoughts, only individual people (sometimes) have them (rarely clear and sensible ones, though). Composers also do not _paint pictures_ at all (unless they are also painters) and while one might be able to paint a picture of a society, it seems hard to paint "the times". Again, only individuals can experience something, not a generation, and nobody can have the experience of another person, as experiences are as private as it gets, much less the experiences or "the greatness and achievements" of a generation of people that have been dead and buried for a century or three. So it does hardly matter that the outrageous claim that something like this could happen through music is added because it is impossible anyway.
So, these sentences are mostly nonsense. They don't really mean anything. It's fabulous that people can assume that these sentences have meaning or that this could have been intentionally expressed by the author of that paragraph.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

A further quote from the PIMF article:



> *In today’s world, people consider everything from Gregorian Chants, Beethoven and Brahms, through Ives and Gershwin “classical music.” So how shall we go about reestablishing the relevance of traditional classical music? *


"everything from Gregorian Chants, Beethoven and Brahms, through Ives and Gershwin*" *excludes quite a large amount of what most TC members recognise as "classical music".

I'm not sure what this has to do with the OP except that it's all too easy to wax lyrical about the marvels of CM and tip into pretentious excess.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Kreisler jr said:


> classical music isn't a form either
> 
> It's truly miraculous that we can understand something like the quoted paragraph at all (or kid ourselves into the illusion that there is something to understand here).
> Obviously, civilizations _cannot_ have thoughts, only individual people (sometimes) have them (rarely clear and sensible ones, though). Composers also do not _paint pictures_ at all (unless they are also painters) and while one might be able to paint a picture of a society, it seems hard to paint "the times". Again, only individuals can experience something, not a generation, and nobody can have the experience of another person, as experiences are as private as it gets, much less the experiences or "the greatness and achievements" of a generation of people that have been dead and buried for a century or three. So it does hardly matter that the outrageous claim that something like this could happen through music is added because it is impossible anyway.
> So, these sentences are mostly nonsense. They don't really mean anything. It's fabulous that people can assume that these sentences have meaning or that this could have been intentionally expressed by the author of that paragraph.


Civilizations do not have thoughts, but they do have commonly observed traditions and commonly held values, reflected in their art, and more specifically, their music. I nonetheless agree that the linked paragraph is mostly nonsense, as it is an example of trying to increase the popularity of music of centuries past through modern marketing and sales techniques. They label this approach "education", but most classical music institutions are not in a position to fulfill an educational function as community schools, for example, are. Sadly, this approach, that can at best have a marginal impact, is increasingly the trend in our American classical music institutions. If people lack the respect and appreciation for cultural traditions and values reflected in, among other things, the art of our past (usually passed down to new generations by parents or other close family members, and/or a particularly influential teacher or mentor), then perhaps those traditions and values are not as timeless as we would like to think, and no amount of marketing will change that.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

If the quoted para had said that CM "reflects" something about our civilisation, I'd have objected less (maybe not at all). But it said CM "expresses".

It must be true that the music we choose to write reflects something about our civilisation. A visiting alien to our planet some time in the future when we're all gone (but our artefacts remain) might have trouble discerning what we were like if all they have to go on is someone's eclectic Spotify playlist.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Forster said:


> If the quoted para had said that CM "reflects" something about our civilisation, I'd have objected less (maybe not at all). But it said CM "expresses".


Yes. And what our music, and art generally, reflects is our culture. So, the question becomes, why does every civilization, ancient or modern, have a culture and artistic traditions that last multiple generations, even centuries?
I've quoted here before this passage of Hume's famous essay, Of the Standard of Taste. Yes, the examples of classical art he gives in this particular passage are of poetry, oratory and drama, not music. But I suggest the same principles apply:
Theories of abstract philosophy, systems of profound theology, have prevailed during one age: In a successive period, these have been universally exploded: Their absurdity has been detected: Other theories and systems have supplied their place, which again gave place to their successors: And nothing has been experienced more liable to the revolutions of chance and fashion than these pretended decisions of science. The case is not the same with the beauties of eloquence and poetry. Just expressions of passion and nature are sure, after a little time, to gain public applause, which they maintain for ever. ARISTOTLE, and PLATO, and EPICURUS, and DESCARTES, may successively yield to each other: But TERENCE and VIRGIL maintain an universal, undisputed empire over the minds of men. The abstract philosophy of CICERO has lost its credit: The vehemence of his oratory is still the object of our admiration.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus (Aug 8, 2020)

Forster said:


> What do you want from me?


Consistency.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> Consistency.


Well if you'd like to point to my inconsistency, I'll attempt to address my shortcomings for you.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus (Aug 8, 2020)

Forster said:


> Well if you'd like to point to my inconsistency, I'll attempt to address my shortcomings for you.


You will say you believe everything is relative, then on the other hand you will tell people they are wrong. If everything is relative then no one is wrong, there is no such thing as wrong. So be consistent. 

If you believe everything is relative don't speak as if you are claiming that things are true. If you hold to the belief that everything is relative there is no such thing as true.

It is a position that cannot be defended though, because the statement "everything is relative" cannot by definition by true.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> You will say you believe everything is relative, then on the other hand you will tell people they are wrong. If everything is relative then no one is wrong, there is no such thing as wrong. So be consistent.
> 
> If you believe everything is relative don't speak as if you are claiming that things are true. If you hold to the belief that everything is relative there is no such thing as true.
> 
> It is a position that cannot be defended though, because the statement "everything is relative" cannot by definition by true.


I have never said that "everything is relative" - unless you can point to where I said it. Nor do I believe that "everything is relative". What I do believe is that because there is no absolute authority on whom we can rely for matters of judgement - I assume we're talking about music here, and what is deemed "good" or "bad" - it is a perfectly reasonable proposition for someone to say that there can be no _absolute _judgements eg that classical music is superior to pop music (or vice versa).

Furthemore, it is possible to hold there are no absolute judgements, _and _simultaneously hold the opinion that CM is superior to pop (or vice versa).


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus (Aug 8, 2020)

Forster said:


> I have never said that "everything is relative" - unless you can point to where I said it. Nor do I believe that "everything is relative". What I do believe is that because there is no absolute authority on whom we can rely for matters of judgement - I assume we're talking about music here, and what is deemed "good" or "bad" - it is a perfectly reasonable proposition for someone to say that there can be no _absolute _judgements eg that classical music is superior to pop music (or vice versa).
> 
> Furthemore, it is possible to hold there are no absolute judgements, _and _simultaneously hold the opinion that CM is superior to pop (or vice versa).


Nawdry said *"Through their music, composers paint a picture of the society and times in which they lived"*

To which you replied... *"All very grand, but none of this is "in" the music, it's in ourselves."*

So, you were not just commenting on whether classical music was better than pop music, you were talking about what is or isn't in music itself.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Forster said:


> Furthemore, it is possible to hold there are no absolute judgements, _and _simultaneously hold *the opinion that CM is superior to pop (or vice versa)*.


Doesn't such a judgment assume that CM and pop exist for the same purpose, that both are doing the same thing and one does it better than the other? Why would one assume this? Can you state what this thing is they are both intended to do, what the basis of the comparison is? I don't see it.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> Nawdry said *"Through their music, composers paint a picture of the society and times in which they lived"*
> 
> To which you replied... *"All very grand, but none of this is "in" the music, it's in ourselves."*
> 
> So, you were not just commenting on whether classical music was better than pop music, you were talking about what is or isn't in music itself.


Lets stick to your original point, please. Where did I say that "Everything is relative"?


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

EdwardBast said:


> Doesn't such a judgment assume that CM and pop exist for the same purpose, that both are doing the same thing and one does it better than the other? Why would one assume this? Can you state what this thing is they are both intended to do, what the basis of the comparison is? I don't see it.


Eh? I'm not saying either thing. Since it turns out that my hypothesis was wrong (that is, it wasn't what WT was complaining about) the issue is moot.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus (Aug 8, 2020)

Forster said:


> Lets stick to your original point, please. Where did I say that "Everything is relative"?


Ok, but you can acknowledge that you weren't only talking about whether CM was better than pop.

Again, you said "All very grand, but none of this is "in" the music, it's in ourselves."

If it is not in the music and in ourselves then it is relative, an entirely down to each individual's perception.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> Ok, but you can acknowledge that you weren't only talking about whether CM was better than pop.


None of that is relevant. I was simply hypothesising in the absence of your pointing to a post where I said "everything is relative" - giving an example of a judgement someone (not me) might make about music.



Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> Again, you said "All very grand, but none of this is "in" the music, it's in ourselves."
> 
> If it is not in the music and in ourselves then it is relative, an entirely down to each individual's perception.


Ah, right, I see where you are coming from. Saying that what people hear "in" the music is down to individual perception is consistent with, AFAIR, what I've always said about music. I don't see how that makes me "inconsistent".

Interestingly, in one of the other threads on this topic, @EdwardBast pointed out that there has been, in the past, an understanding that certain forms, figures, sounds (Edward, you'll have to help me out here) would have been known to an informed audience as conveying certain meanings. I don't suppose that applies to the generality of CM any longer (or to the general audience for CM either.)


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus (Aug 8, 2020)

Forster said:


> None of that is relevant. I was simply hypothesising in the absence of your pointing to a post where I said "everything is relative" - giving an example of a judgement someone (not me) might make about music.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, right, I see where you are coming from. Saying that what people hear "in" the music is down to individual perception is consistent with, AFAIR, what I've always said about music. I don't see how that makes me "inconsistent".


I won't bang on for too much longer

if you believe everything is "in" the hearer and not in the music itself. That would mean two listeners can perceive the same music in completely opposite ways. meaning its entirely relative.

which is why I deduced that you believe everything is relative.

and if everything is relative then you can't tell people they are wrong, which you did.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> I won't bang on for too much longer
> 
> if you believe everything is "in" the hearer and not in the music itself. That would mean two listeners can perceive the same music in completely opposite ways. meaning its entirely relative.
> 
> ...


Where did I tell people that they are "wrong", apart from my saying that, IMO, the quote posted by Nawdry contains a falsehood?


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus (Aug 8, 2020)

Forster said:


> Where did I tell people that they are "wrong", apart from my saying that, IMO, the quote posted by Nawdry contains a falsehood?


It actually doesn't matter if you say your comment is just "your opinion".

You are still saying "in your opinion you believe something to be true or false".

But if everything is relative there is no true and false.

So, you can't even make the claim that "in your opinion something is true or false".

You can only say what you prefer. You can't correct anyone.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> It actually doesn't matter if you say your comment is just "your opinion".
> 
> You are still saying "in your opinion you believe something to be true or false".


You started out by complaining that I was stating something as a fact when it was just an opinion. I reiterate that I am stating my opinion, not "correcting" anyone's facts.

To "correct" someone's opinion that there are things to be found "in" the music is not incompatible with the idea that what different listeners get from the act of listening to music might be completely different. I'm not being "inconsistent", but you are, of course, entitled to believe that I am.


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> It is a position that cannot be defended though, because the statement "everything is relative" cannot by definition by true.





Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> You are still saying "in your opinion you believe something to be true or false".
> But if everything is relative there is no true and false.


By Definition? Isn't the point of relativism (a get-out clause if you will) subjective truth/falsity? I agree with you that it can probably only lead to goal-post shifting, but I wouldn't agree that the statement 'everything is relative' cannot _by definition_ be true. All it takes is for the person to say it and claim it as true. That's the point.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

Of all the discussions I've seen here this one may set a record for pointlessness.


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

larold said:


> Of all the discussions I've seen here this one may set a record for pointlessness.


Well it's either this or I have to sand the walls before filling. Not pointless, but less palatable with my bad back.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus (Aug 8, 2020)

Chat Noir said:


> By Definition? Isn't the point of relativism (a get-out clause if you will) subjective truth/falsity? I agree with you that it can probably only lead to goal-post shifting, but I wouldn't agree that the statement 'everything is relative' cannot _by definition_ be true. All it takes is for the person to say it and claim it as true. That's the point.




If everything is relative...

That means there is no such thing as true or false. 

Which in turn means that the statement "everything is relative" cannot be true.

A person claiming "everything is relative" cannot claim anything to be true (including their statement).


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Pretentious. It's 'pretending' CM is superior?


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> If everything is relative...
> 
> That means there is no such thing as true or false.
> 
> ...


This is certainly a pointless discussion. No one is claiming that "everything [literally] is relative" and we don't need a logical/philosophical discussion of the issue. Let's stick with the concrete implications of what people are actually saying.

Or be accused of pretension.

[ADD] If you really want to discuss relativism, at least do some research and note that, for example, _"despite a long history of debate going back to Plato and an increasingly large body of writing, it is still difficult to come to an agreed definition of what, at its core, relativism is, and what philosophical import it has."

Relativism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) _


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> If everything is relative...
> 
> That means there is no such thing as true or false.
> 
> ...


No, you see that's the problem. People who think things are relative generally tend to think that truth/falsity is also something relative; subjective to the point-of-view generally. I don't say this is correct, it's not my view, but relativists don't think there is no true or false, but that they aren't 'fixed'. 

I do see that you are approaching this in a sort of Cretan liar paradox fashion - if there is no true/false, there is no truth to the statement 'everything is relative'.


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

Forster said:


> This is certainly a pointless discussion. No one is claiming that "everything [literally] is relative" and we don't need a logical/philosophical discussion of the issue. Let's stick with the concrete implications of what people are actually saying.
> 
> Or be accused of pretension.


I've been accused of worse.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus (Aug 8, 2020)

Forster said:


> Or be accused of pretension.


accuse away


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus (Aug 8, 2020)

Chat Noir said:


> No, you see that's the problem. People who think things are relative generally tend to think that truth/falsity is also something relative; subjective to the point-of-view generally. I don't say this is correct, it's not my view, but relativists don't think there is no true or false, but that they aren't 'fixed'.


How can truth not be fixed?


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> How can truth not be fixed?


Well it depends what "truth" you are talking about, doesn't it? If I say, "The sun rose this morning at 7.37," is that a fixed truth? What time did the sun rise where you live?

If I say, "Beethoven is the greatest composer who ever lived", is that a fixed truth, or a truth at all? Isn't it just an opinion of mine, a belief?


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus (Aug 8, 2020)

Forster said:


> Well it depends what "truth" you are talking about, doesn't it? If I say, "The sun rose this morning at 7.37," is that a fixed truth? What time did the sun rise where you live?
> 
> If I say, "Beethoven is the greatest composer who ever lived", is that a fixed truth, or a truth at all? Isn't it just an opinion of mine, a belief?



I'm talking about the concept of truth, the definition.

I asked a question. 

It was to do with how truth as a concept cannot be something fixed.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> I'm talking about the concept of truth, the definition.
> 
> I asked a question.
> 
> It was to do with how truth as a concept cannot be something fixed.


There are objective things and subjective things. It's as simple as that. In subjective things there are not absolute truths, but only personal opinions. You can not, for example, determine objectively if the taste of a cake is good or not. Music is basically like food, although music (and arts in general) has more intelletual functions than food and so you can for example say that a piece of music or an artist is dumb (or less deep than other things).
The aesthetic is the most subjective part, so you can like popular music or not, but IMO a lot of it nowadays is dumb: it targets persons with a low culture (not only low musical culture, but low culture in general).


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> I'm talking about the concept of truth, the definition.
> 
> I asked a question.
> 
> It was to do with how truth as a concept cannot be something fixed.


As I suggested earlier, you need to look elsewhere for an answer, in a place where the "concept of truth" is explored and explained. If you've already consulted an authoritative source, why not share your wisdom instead of just asking questions.


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> How can truth not be fixed?


Well I already said relativism wasn't my view, but I was fairly clear about the issue being seen as 'subjective truth'. It's not what I believe. The terminology is bad, I think _truth_ as a concept belongs to verifiable things. Nearly everything else is a matter of taste and opinion and may be either verifiable or not; rest on some evidence or not (often not).

It's slippery though, after all if I say: 'I saw a picture of Beethoven yesterday and thought about how marvellous his _Eroica_ is." The only 'facts' are Beethoven and his Eroica. My statement might actually not be true at all, even if I think it is. That it wasn't yesterday (but I believe it to be); that I looked at the wrong picture (and have always made that error), or that the well-known image has been shown by research to be a historical mistake. At this point I was mistaken and didn't strictly see a picture of Beethoven at all. Yet it's Beethoven I was thinking about. Maybe.

Convoluted I grant you. It happens though. It's happened to me before. That I was convinced I'd read something in a particular book and then scoured the book again and again looking for something which wasn't there. Only when I found it elsewhere did I cease believing it as a 'fact' or 'true' that the passage or sentence wasn't there. We're reliant on our own judgement, but also fallible.

There are lots of things that are tangible and factual as states (but which fall prey to terminology). Is e.g. love ever really 'true' or real or even a fact? If you approach it biochemically/psychologically it fades away pretty rapidly in its usual sense. So why do we accept it as true when people say 'I love you'? When it's just an utterance and a subjective one? Whilst I would say 'truth' as a word and concept should be defined where it is used, there are lots of things where it is used, and by everyone, where it aligns with no fixed and verified state.

A language problem perhaps. It's why disagreements exist online and off.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> How can truth not be fixed?


Why would it be?


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Even laymen intuitively know concepts like relative truth value, where a statement might be false in a classical sense yet contain more "truth" than another false statement. Or the concept of statements which may be literally true but deceptive in precisely the same way that lies are.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus (Aug 8, 2020)

Luchesi said:


> Why would it be?


If it wasn't it wouldn't be true.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> If it wasn't it wouldn't be true.


Now I can't think of any assertion that is true. There are only more highly informed opinions, as the evidence comes in.

Of course we can 'personally define' truth in many ways.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus (Aug 8, 2020)

Luchesi said:


> Now I can't think of any assertion that is true. There are only more highly informed opinions, as the evidence comes in.
> 
> Of course we can 'personally define' truth in many ways.


I think you maybe confusing truth as a concept with epistemology (how we know truth). I'm not asking how anyone knows anything to be true. I'm just talking about the definition or concept of truth.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> I think you maybe confusing truth as a concept with epistemology (how we know truth). I'm not asking how anyone knows anything to be true. I'm just talking about the definition or concept of truth.


I think you're on your own there.


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> I think you maybe confusing truth as a concept with epistemology (how we know truth). I'm not asking how anyone knows anything to be true. I'm just talking about the definition or concept of truth.


Indivisible from one another. You can't even form an idea of 'the concept' without knowing what it means. This is like reading Plato and seeing discussions of 'happiness' or 'duty', it can't be answered with multiples of examples and a core definition is elusive. The concept itself is subject to the problems of epistemology; and epistemology isn't just 'how we know' it's a complete attempt at a theory of knowing anything at all, itself prey to its own subject matter.

True itself is a problem word. I tend to avoid it if possible. As a common language word it is often belief dependent. For me 'scientific truths' are a wholly different thing than e.g. 'biblical truths'. So I'd say 'scientific facts' and still get wrapped in tiresome word tangles. Facts are defined as things considered 'true', real, beyond 'reasonable doubt', more than just beliefs. That sort of thing goes in a circle. Language is often useless or limited. Before you begin to suspect that I'm a relativist in disguise or some mad pyrrhonian, I'm not. As much as anyone I want to be able to enter a court of law to show my view to be the true and factual account, rather than faced with a sea of metaphysical doubt.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus (Aug 8, 2020)

Chat Noir said:


> Indivisible from one another. You can't even form an idea of 'the concept' without knowing what it means. This is like reading Plato and seeing discussions of 'happiness' or 'duty', it can't be answered with multiples of examples and a core definition is elusive. The concept itself is subject to the problems of epistemology; and epistemology isn't just 'how we know' it's a complete attempt at a theory of knowing anything at all, itself prey to it's own subject matter.
> 
> True itself is a problem word. I tend not to avoid it if possible. As a common language word it is often belief dependent. For me 'scientific truths' are a wholly different thing than e.g. 'biblical truths'. So I'd say 'scientific facts' and still get wrapped in tiresome word tangles. Facts are defined as things considered 'true', real, beyond 'reasonable doubt', more than just beliefs. That sort of thing goes in a circle. Language is often useless or limited. Before you begin to suspect that I'm a relativist in disguise or some mad pyrrhonian, I'm not. As much as anyone I want to be able to enter a court of law to show my view to be the true and factual account, rather than faced with a sea of metaphysical doubt.


Words are just used to describe "things". So, wouldn't you say the "problem" is not with the language, it's with the concept itself?

Although I believe the concepts are only a problem if you begin with and hold to a certain worldview.

On a purely materialistic framework you can't begin to make sense of them or account for them.

These concepts are unavoidable. They are intuitive to mankind.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

It may be that all the religious worldviews have truth in them. Read about them and they'll tell you why they're true.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus (Aug 8, 2020)

Luchesi said:


> It may be that all the religious worldviews have truth in them. Read about them and they'll tell you why they're true.


Atheists will also tell you that they have the truth.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> Words are just used to describe "things". So, wouldn't you say the "problem" is not with the language, it's with the concept itself?
> 
> Although I believe the concepts are only a problem if you begin with and hold to a certain worldview.
> 
> ...


I suspect you can't explain what you mean without straying into forbidden territory. Why not post on the subject of the OP instead of this somewhat obscure foray into metaphysics ?


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

The topic of this thread is "Pretentiousness in the classical community".

The recent discussion seems to have drifted pretty far from that and is now sailing into territories where it is difficult to see how religion can not be introduced even more - which is against the TC rules.

I suggest to get back to the original topic.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Art Rock said:


> The topic of this thread is "Pretentiousness in the classical community".
> 
> The recent discussion seems to have drifted pretty far from that and is now sailing into territories where it is difficult to see how religion can not be introduced even more - which is against the TC rules.
> 
> I suggest to get back to the original topic.


A gallant effort, Mr. Super Moderator, but threads like this will always degenerate into foolish forays into epistemology, theology, Cartesian rationalism, or other false paths. With a fundamental lack of understanding of what the term "classical" means, in the sense just about everyone here cheerfully and uncritically uses it, these discussions have nowhere to go. Interestingly, if one goes back to the original Harvard Dictionary of Music, a more general definition of classical, some version of which we all implicitly use here (music of established value and fame, serious or art music as opposed to ephemeral entertainment, etc.), is bluntly dismissed, as it "does not deserve serious consideration." I tried to save us by arguing it is merely a term of convenience coined by the music industry that remains convenient for an internet discussion forum like this one. But I was ignored. Sniff.

Fortunately for us, the New Harvard Dictionary of Music is slightly more lenient, saying that our definition has historiographic importance, but otherwise is essentially evaluative. And there you have it. Classical art is art which is traditionally or historically deemed worthy of special consideration within a particular culture. Let's not keep trying to invest the term with more meaning than it can have.


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

fluteman said:


> but threads like this will always degenerate into foolish forays into epistemology, theology, Cartesian rationalism, or other false paths. With a fundamental lack of understanding of what the term "classical" means, in the sense just about everyone here cheerfully and uncritically uses it, these discussions have nowhere to go.


Nothing 'foolish' about them, even if they strayed. Or any misunderstanding about the loose use of the word 'classical'. As the term to describe post baroque/pre-romanticism; or as a general term for 'orchestra-type music / but not 'pop' music.


fluteman said:


> I tried to save us by arguing it is merely a term of convenience coined by the music industry that remains convenient for an internet discussion forum like this one. But I was ignored. Sniff.


Is it because most people already knew?


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Chat Noir said:


> Nothing 'foolish' about them, even if they strayed. Or any misunderstanding about the loose use of the word 'classical'. As the term to describe post baroque/pre-romanticism; or as a general term for 'orchestra-type music / but not 'pop' music.
> 
> Is it because most people already knew?


As the term used to describe post baroque/pre-romanticism, yes, that is a legitimate usage, as one can pinpoint and analyze stylistic differences. As a general term for "orchestra-type music / but not 'pop' music", no. Think about it for a moment. Can't you see how arbitrary and lacking in any analytical framework that attempted distinction is? Didn't pop singers like Frank Sinatra, Nat Cole, Andy Williams and Barbra Streisand use conventional orchestras? Didn't modern classical composers like Stockhausen, Boulez and Crumb (and many of their students and followers) use new or modified traditional instruments and electronics and completely different ensembles? Didn't music of the renaissance and early baroque lack what we consider a standard symphony orchestra? 

Before you dismiss my argument, keep in mind that according to the arch-conservative, plain vanilla, reference standard Harvard Dictionary of Music, your argument for that second definition of classical music "does not deserve serious consideration." The New Harvard Dictionary, that some argue is more controversial and less authoritative, only slightly softens that stance. Why do you think that is?


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Ha!

Earlier Classical Music is inherently tied to religion. 

So many Masses and Orotorios!


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

I think I'm missing something here. Despite the occasional foray into precision-bombing of critical terminology, we all really know what we're all talking about when we speak of CM.

It just doesn't need unpicking that often. Even those who object to the inclusion of what they regard as the Abomination of Desolation that is "contemporary and avant-garde" know that none of us only means post -Baroque/pre-Romantic when we refer to CM.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Forster said:


> I think I'm missing something here. Despite the occasional foray into precision-bombing of critical terminology, we all really know what we're all talking about when we speak of CM.
> 
> It just doesn't need unpicking that often. Even those who object to the inclusion of what they regard as the Abomination of Desolation that is "contemporary and avant-garde" know that none of us only means post -Baroque/pre-Romantic when we refer to CM.


With respect, as far as I can tell, yes, you are, no, we don't, yes, it does, and no, we don't. And I believe I have finally put my finger on the reason these discussions always degenerate into gibberish, such as a debate about what truth means, and finally require the intervention of the moderator to prevent the intrusion of religious or political arguments. As Kreisler jr. remarked above, in a brief but telling post, Classical music is not a form. By all means stay with your definition as a matter of practical convenience, where imo it serves a useful purpose, but please don't try to enhance it with any significance beyond that.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

fluteman said:


> With respect, as far as I can tell, yes, you are, no, we don't, yes, it does, and no, we don't. And I believe I have finally put my finger on the reason these discussions always degenerate into gibberish, such as a debate about what truth means, and finally require the intervention of the moderator to prevent the intrusion of religious or political arguments. As Kreisler jr. remarked above, in a brief but telling post, Classical music is not a form. By all means stay with your definition as a matter of practical convenience, where imo it serves a useful purpose, but please don't try to enhance it with any significance beyond that.


With respect, your yes, no etc is closer to gibberish than my post.

I'm not investing the term with any significance beyond what I have already explained.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

fluteman said:


> if one goes back to the original Harvard Dictionary of Music, a more general definition of classical, some version of which we all implicitly use here (music of established value and fame, serious or art music as opposed to ephemeral entertainment, etc.)


If "classical music" is the music of the "established value and fame" , there is no such thing as "contemporary classical music", because we still don't know what is the music of our times to which the people of 2500 will still listen to. It might be The Beatles and not a piece of what we call "contemporary classical music". Maybe some rap songs will survive and I would like to see the faces of some members of this forum when exposed to the idea that rap music might be the classical music of the future.

If it's "serious music", we should consider "serious" all the music in which we can see clear technical skills. Some of the music that we now consider "popular" should be considered classical, given this definition.

If it's music not intended for entertainment, Mozart was not a classical music composer, because he was an entertainer (the composers of Vienna basically were all entertainers).



So, for me "classical music" is basically a "musical tradition" in which the composers follow determined rules for composing and arranging music. Classical music is surely "serious music", but the seriousness is something that connotates the musical tradition, not something that defines it: without the fundamental part of the definition some popular music should be considered classical music. Once it's clear that "classical music" is first of all a "musical tradition", you can't include serious pieces of popular music in the category and, on the other hand, you can consider some modern pieces as "classical" for the simple fact that the intent of the authors is to create new material inside the musical tradition and the public accepts it inside the category.

So, the music of The Beatles might be timeless, but it won't never be classical music because the intent of the group was not to create music inside the tradition of "classical music" and everyone recognizes their music as pop.

Remember that also in the old folk music there is timeless music, so classical music can not be defined as "timeless music", otherwise "twinkle twinkle little star" should be considered classical, as well as many folk songs that have survived for centuries.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

HansZimmer said:


> If "classical music" is the music of the "established value and fame" , there is no such thing as "contemporary classical music", because we still don't know what is the music of our times to which the people of 2500 will still listen to. It might The Beatles and not a piece of what we call "contemporary classical music". Maybe some rap songs will survive and I would like to see the faces of some members of this forum when exposed to the idea that rap music might be the classical music of the future.
> 
> If it's "serious music", we should consider "serious" all the music in which we can see clear technical skills. Some of the music that we now consider "popular" should be considered classical, given this definition.
> 
> ...


Well said, and here we agree. Classical music is as you say a long-term cultural tradition, one that can be found in non-Western cultures such as those of India and China as well as in European culture. And cultural traditions are created and built upon in many different ways, but inevitably, much of it is the arbitrary result of historical accident and chance. That can be seen, for example, in the immense difference between the European classical music tradition and those of India or China.

We also can observe through historical study the process through which, over the long term, certain artistic traditions, including musical ones, eventually are deemed to be of special significance or value in a given civilization. I use 75 years, or the expected length of one human life, as a benchmark for "long term", but you can argue for something else.

The problem comes when people attempt to justify the denotation of specific works as worthy of the "classical" label, or reject others, without acknowledging the inevitable arbitrary element inherent in this classification. If you enjoy the music of Hans Zimmer, that's great. There is no reason to be frustrated that his or other's movie scores are not granted the "classical music" label (though a few movie scores, or arrangements of them, are). That's just a cultural thing, and therefore largely arbitrary. Arguments based on musical form, rationality, theology, etc. lead nowhere.


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

fluteman said:


> As a general term for "orchestra-type music / but not 'pop' music", no. Think about it for a moment. Can't you see how arbitrary and lacking in any analytical framework that attempted distinction is?


I didn't say it was my preferred term, just that it's used by people in a general sense in that way. When the average person says 'classical music' it's anything from Bach to Wagner and 'of that type'; which is why film music (aka ersatz classical music) is lumped in with it.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

fluteman said:


> With respect, as far as I can tell, yes, you are, no, we don't, yes, it does, and no, we don't. And I believe I have finally put my finger on the reason these discussions always degenerate into gibberish, such as a debate about what truth means, and finally require the intervention of the moderator to prevent the intrusion of religious or political arguments. As Kreisler jr. remarked above, in a brief but telling post, Classical music is not a form. By all means stay with your definition as a matter of practical convenience, where imo it serves a useful purpose, but please don't try to enhance it with any significance beyond that.


I think what you say is correct, scientifically. But it's bad for the future of CM. What can we do? 

Education and exposure must smoothen out and enhance these 'correct' attitudes, in all the arts, as they've come to be analyzed in our time ("Like a patient etherized upon a table..").


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Chat Noir said:


> I didn't say it was my preferred term, just that it's used by people in a general sense in that way. When the average person says 'classical music' it's anything from Bach to Wagner and 'of that type'; which is why film music (aka ersatz classical music) is lumped in with it.


Yes, people use the term because it is convenient, especially in a commercial sense, to have these clearly defined categories, even if they are in significant part arbitrary. But notice the music industry has long separated "soundtracks" out as a separate non-classical category, much like "comedy" or "international", thought that last one is less used in recent years as the popular music scene continues to globalize. None of those relate to any particular style or genre of music. Soundtracks borrow from just about every genre one can think of, including but not limited to, and not even mostly, from the European classical Bach to Stravinsky tradition.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

fluteman said:


> The problem comes when people attempt to justify the denotation of specific works as worthy of the "classical" label, or reject others, without acknowledging the inevitable arbitrary element inherent in this classification. If you enjoy the music of Hans Zimmer, that's great. There is no reason to be frustrated that his or other's movie scores are not granted the "classical music" label (though a few movie scores, or arrangements of them, are). That's just a cultural thing, and therefore largely arbitrary. Arguments based on musical form, rationality, theology, etc. lead nowhere.


This is not the discussion about film scores, but it's not true that I'm frustrated because film music is not recognized as classical music.
Infact:
1) I opened the other discussion only to chat, not because it's an important argument
2) The masses already recognize some film scores as "classical music", infact the OST album of Star Wars in wikipedia is labeled as "classical music" in the genre










Star Wars (soundtrack) - Wikipedia

In reality, the discussion has reached 88 pages because some persons are frustrated for the fact that the masses recognize some film scores as classical music. The intent of my discussion was simply to chat about the frustration that some folks in the world of classical music have about the subject.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

HansZimmer said:


> This is not the discussion about film scores, but it's not true that I'm frustrated because film music is not recognized as classical music.
> Infact:
> 1) I opened the other discussion only to chat, not because it's an important argument
> 2) The masses already recognize some film scores as "classical music", infact the OST album of Star Wars in wikipedia is labeled as "classical music" in the genre
> ...


^ Disingenuous.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

HansZimmer said:


> View attachment 176927
> 
> 
> Star Wars (soundtrack) - Wikipedia


I won't argue whether the soundtrack is objectively Classical music or not in this thread. But wikipedia articles tend to be editted by people interested in the subjects. If you're an avid editor of the wikipedia article about film music, chances are you're an enthusiast of film music, possibly biased to favor it in anything you say. It's not the ultimate authority of anything. A lot of wikipedia pages actually lack professionalism because of this.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus (Aug 8, 2020)

pianozach said:


> Ha!
> 
> Earlier Classical Music is inherently tied to religion.
> 
> So many Masses and Orotorios!


Be quiet!!!!!


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

hammeredklavier said:


> I won't argue whether the soundtrack is objectively Classical music or not in this thread. But wikipedia articles tend to be editted by people interested in the subjects. If you're an avid editor of the wikipedia article about film music, chances are you're an enthusiast of film music, possibly biased to favor it in anything you say. It's not the ultimate authority of anything. A lot of wikipedia pages actually lack professionalism because of this.


I was reading this article about Chopin's last polonaise. And I was thinking that I won't come across articles like this about any film scores. But non-musicians probably won't get much out of it..





__





The Reflective Musician by Håkon Austbø






www.researchcatalogue.net


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

fluteman said:


> As the term used to describe post baroque/pre-romanticism, yes, that is a legitimate usage, as one can pinpoint and analyze stylistic differences. As a general term for "orchestra-type music / but not 'pop' music", no. Think about it for a moment. Can't you see how arbitrary and lacking in any analytical framework that attempted distinction is? Didn't pop singers like Frank Sinatra, Nat Cole, Andy Williams and Barbra Streisand use conventional orchestras? Didn't modern classical composers like Stockhausen, Boulez and Crumb (and many of their students and followers) use new or modified traditional instruments and electronics and completely different ensembles? Didn't music of the renaissance and early baroque lack what we consider a standard symphony orchestra?
> 
> Before you dismiss my argument, keep in mind that according to the arch-conservative, plain vanilla, reference standard Harvard Dictionary of Music, your argument for that second definition of classical music "does not deserve serious consideration." The New Harvard Dictionary, that some argue is more controversial and less authoritative, only slightly softens that stance. Why do you think that is?


It's simple: Classical (Era) music is capitalized. It means the specific Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven era. Uncapitalized, classical music means traditional western art music as a whole. Both are fully accepted usages in modern English. You're welcome.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

pianozach said:


> Ha!
> 
> Earlier Classical Music is inherently tied to religion.
> 
> So many Masses and Orotorios!


All of my favorite stuff by Machaut, Dufay, et alia is the secular music.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Forster said:


> ^ Disingenuous.


It's not disingenous, because in the OP of my discussion you find a link to an article of The Guardian where a musical journalist manifest frustration for the fact that Classic FM promotes soundtrack composers. I told myself "Why not to open a discussion about the subject, since this kind of frustration is not uncommon in the classical music world?".
My discussion would have died in 2 days without the partecipation of the users who support the point of view of that journalist. I did nothing but respond to the arguments for the purpose of simple entertainment.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

hammeredklavier said:


> I won't argue whether the soundtrack is objectively Classical music or not in this thread. But wikipedia articles tend to be editted by people interested in the subjects. If you're an avid editor of the wikipedia article about film music, chances are you're an enthusiast of film music, possibly biased to favor it in anything you say. It's not the ultimate authority of anything. A lot of wikipedia pages actually lack professionalism because of this.


I don't think so, because there are many editors in wikipedia and when you write an article there are other persons who check what you wrote and correct the errors. I know what I'm speaking about, because I've created and edited pages of wikipedia.
The point is that no one of the editors thought that it was an error to write "classical music" in the genre of the OST album of Star Wars.

In a family reunion I put some music on and the husband of my sister, when he heard the suite of The Gladiator, asked me "Is this Wien?". He is not a passionate of classical music or film music (infact he was not even able to recognize one of the most famous soundtracks), so he hasn't any kind of bias.
The point is that in the masses many persons would easily accept the idea that some film scores are classical music.

I don't feel I am in the position of someone who is fighting against society. I think that this role is covered by the persons with the opposite position.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

HansZimmer said:


> This is not the discussion about film scores, but it's not true that I'm frustrated because film music is not recognized as classical music.
> Infact:
> 1) I opened the other discussion only to chat, not because it's an important argument
> 2) The masses already recognize some film scores as "classical music", infact the OST album of Star Wars in wikipedia is labeled as "classical music" in the genre
> ...


I've always been a big fan of good and interesting movie scores, and never before this thread and others you have posted in here did I ever give the slightest thought or care in the least as to whether the masses or anyone else considered any or all of them "classical music." What does frustrate me are the endless attempts here to invest the term with some special significance or meaning which it does not have, beyond meaning a style of late 18th and early 19th century Europe exemplified by the work of Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven, and to some extent Schubert. And as I mentioned, non-western cultures will have entirely different classical music traditions.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

fluteman said:


> *the endless attempts here* to invest the term with some special significance or meaning which it does not have, beyond meaning a style of late 18th and early 19th century Europe exemplified by the work of Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven, and to some extent Schubert.


When you say "here", are you suggesting that TC members are attempting something that isn't being "attempted" elsewhere? Here are three online dictionary definitions: (Oxford, Cambridge, Merriam)



> A loose expression for European and American music of the more serious kind, as opposed to popular or folk music.





> music that is considered to be part of a long, formal tradition and to have lasting value





> of, relating to, or being music in the educated European tradition that includes such forms as art song, chamber music, opera, and symphony as distinguished from folk or popular music or jazz


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Forster said:


> music that is considered to be part of a long, formal tradition and to have lasting value


So, contemporary music is not classical music, according to this definition. The music of The Beatles will become classical music, if the fashion won't never die (maybe also some rap songs, maybe some dance songs of the nineties).

IMO the best definition is "a long musical tradition with determined rules for arranging and composing music which change throughout the time".
So, a piece is "classical music" if you intentionally write music intended to be inserted in the tradition, but only if you actually follow the rules for composing and arranging the music.


----------



## Bone (Jan 19, 2013)

Shaughnessy said:


> There is no forum rule prohibiting the posting of nude images as long as they're tastefully done... and, oh yeah...* as long as they're not actually "selfies".*


Considering the previous era beauty standards, my retired grandpa bod would certainly be considered “classical;” thus, I find you ban on nude selfies rather anti talk classical.

Lemme know when you want me to begin generating unpretentious photographic art for the benefit of our community.


----------



## Shaughnessy (Dec 31, 2020)

Bone said:


> *Considering the previous era beauty standards, my retired grandpa bod would certainly be considered “classical;” thus, I find you ban on nude selfies rather anti talk classical.
> 
> Lemme know when you want me to begin generating unpretentious photographic art for the benefit of our community.*


Sure, no problem, we have a special section of the forum for nude selfies - 









Funny pictures to brighten your day.







www.talkclassical.com


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

fluteman said:


> What does frustrate me are the endless attempts here to invest the term with some special significance or meaning which it does not have, beyond meaning a style of late 18th and early 19th century Europe exemplified by the work of Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven, and to some extent Schubert. And as I mentioned, non-western cultures will have entirely different classical music traditions.


"exemplified"? (For whom? In what context?) That's another "misconception" people have. Being popular doesn't objectively equate to being exemplary. By the logic, "being popular = being exemplary", Paisiello would be a more exemplary opera composer than Mozart cause he was far more popular across Europe than Mozart in opera, for a good reason.


hammeredklavier said:


> Could Mozart ever create sounds like Paisiello's "Ma dov'eri tu, stordito"? Just listen to Mozart's own "Non più andrai", "Se a caso madama", or "Se vuol ballare" and think about it.
> 
> 
> 
> "At the beginning of the nineteenth century, before Berlioz's time, some influential critics - for instance, Julien-Louis Geoffroy - rejected Mozart as a foreigner, considering his music 'scholastic', stressing his use of harmony over melody, and the dominance of the orchestra over singing in the operas - all these were considered negative features of 'Germanic' music." -Benjamin Perl


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

fluteman said:


> What does frustrate me are the endless attempts here to invest the term with some special significance or meaning which it does not have, beyond meaning a style of late 18th and early 19th century Europe exemplified by the work of Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven, and to some extent Schubert. And as I mentioned, non-western cultures will have entirely different classical music traditions.


By the way, here's also something I want to you to have a look at-
a book written in 2018 by Mara Parker, who claims to have examined over 650 string quartet works from 1750-1797 —








"As so much scholarship is devoted to Mozart and Haydn at the expense of other composers, I wanted to avoid this pitfall as much as possible."

"The string quartet of the second half of the eighteenth century is often presented as a medium which underwent a logical progression from first-violin dominated homophony to the conversation among four equal participants. To a certain extent, this holds true if one restricts oneself to the works of Haydn and Mozart, and some of their contemporaries. My own research initially led to me believe this be to a provable and convincing argument. Once I began examining the actual works, however, I realized my assumptions were continuously being challenged, and that things were not nearly as nice and tidy as I had expected. Increasingly, I found numerous exceptions to my model and it was not long before I realized that my hypothesis was simply wrong."

"Hickman criticizes the developmental approach, stating that the idea that Haydn invented the string quartet and single-handedly advanced the genre is based on only a vague notion of the true history of the eighteenth-century genre. In a number of articles, Hickman argues for the recognition of various types of quartet, each of which can be related to and distinguished from each other, and whose popularity and prominence rises and falls."


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

HansZimmer said:


> The point is that in the masses many persons would easily accept the idea that some film scores are classical music.


I see what you're saying. (I'm just against using wikipedia as an ultimate authority.) After all, I recently said in another thread things that corroborate your position regarding film music. Why do many people think that classical music composed...


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

hammeredklavier said:


> I see what you're saying. (I'm just against using wikipedia as an ultimate authority.)


I didn't use wikipedia as an ultimate authority. The point is that wikipedia is edited by many persons and if a statement of an article is not corrected, it means that more persons think that it's not wrong and therefore it's not an unpopular statement.

I simply used wikipedia to show the popularity of the position "some film scores are classical music". 

What I want to say is that:
1) It's not really important to determine if the film score XY is classical music or not, but it seems to be an argument which is suited for chatting in a forum, so it does it's work

2) Even if it was an important matter, I wouldn't feel like I have to wield the sword, because the society is quite open to the idea there is an intersection between film scores and classical music. The journalist of The Guardian, on the other hand, seems to not accept the trend.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

HansZimmer said:


> So, contemporary music is not classical music, according to this definition. The music of The Beatles will become classical music, if the fashion won't never die (maybe also some rap songs, maybe some dance songs of the nineties).
> 
> IMO the best definition is "a long musical tradition with determined rules for arranging and composing music which change throughout the time".
> So, a piece is "classical music" if you intentionally write music intended to be inserted in the tradition, but only if you actually follow the rules for composing and arranging the music.


No, not quite. While the dictionary definitions given are a decent overall description of ways of thinking of Classical Music, none of the three given are in any sense "complete" definitions. They are simply simplistic one-sentence overgeneralizations.

The phrase "Classical Music" is a vague and hazy catch-all moniker, and doesn't have a concrete definition. Some folks want to say that nothing after Schubert is Classical Music, while others think that orchestral and chamber Film Scores are.

Modern Classical Music has no "rules for composing and arranging", so MOST folks have altered our perceptions of what Classical Music can be, and THAT is why some post-Romantic and other Film Music can be under the same umbrella.

There is already a "group" of musicians (The Analogues) that present music of the Beatles note for note (without attempting to also be lookalikes), as though they are recreating a Beethoven symphony, so by default you COULD say it's already Classical Music. 

There are so many gray areas here.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Forster said:


> When you say "here", are you suggesting that TC members are attempting something that isn't being "attempted" elsewhere? Here are three online dictionary definitions: (Oxford, Cambridge, Merriam)


I'm not sure why you are quoting these dictionary definitions to me. Perhaps you didn't read my earlier post on this very issue. Of course, that is the broader, modern definition of classical music that we all use here, including myself, and that can be found in every dictionary. That is the "Classical" in "Talk Classical". It is a convenient and useful definition to have.

However, in a deeper sense, it is arbitrary, and reflects random historical development in the particular civilization it is applied to. A different highly developed civilization will have a different culture and an entirely different classical music. There is no consistent analytical framework underlying that broader definition of classical music, where there most certainly is for the narrower one, that applies only to a certain style of music predominant in a 75-year period from the late 18th to the early 19th century in the educated classes in Europe.

That is why the conservative, detailed, precise and serious in the academic sense original Harvard Dictionary of Music rejects the broad colloquial definition of classical music. Harrumph! The more forgiving New Harvard Dictionary of Music allows for it but warns against attaching too much significance to it.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

HansZimmer said:


> So, contemporary music is not classical music, according to this definition. The music of The Beatles will become classical music, if the fashion won't never die (maybe also some rap songs, maybe some dance songs of the nineties).
> 
> IMO the best definition is "a long musical tradition with determined rules for arranging and composing music which change throughout the time".
> So, a piece is "classical music" if you intentionally write music intended to be inserted in the tradition, but only if you actually follow the rules for composing and arranging the music.


Let's be clear. I did not seek out these three definitions because I thought any of them were of particular merit. Nor was I looking for a definition in order to advance the cause of any particular style or form or tradition or composer or period. I only sought some out to show that TC is not the only place where the term "classical" carries a more general sense than just "a style of late 18th and early 19th century Europe [etc]"

You may make of them what you will.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

pianozach said:


> No, not quite. While the dictionary definitions given are a decent overall description of ways of thinking of Classical Music, none of the three given are in any sense "complete" definitions. They are simply simplistic one-sentence overgeneralizations.
> 
> The phrase "Classical Music" is a vague and hazy catch-all moniker, and doesn't have a concrete definition. Some folks want to say that nothing after Schubert is Classical Music, while others think that orchestral and chamber Film Scores are.
> 
> ...


This is why we should simply say that it's a "long musical tradition" and that the music which is clearily rooted in that tradition is classical music. This definition is sufficiently vague and generic, therefore it can cover everything that it's considered "classical music".


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Forster said:


> Let's be clear. I did not seek out these three definitions because I thought any of them were of particular merit. Nor was I looking for a definition in order to advance the cause of any particular style or form or tradition or composer or period. I only sought some out to show that TC is not the only place where the term "classical" carries a more general sense than just "a style of late 18th and early 19th century Europe [etc]"
> 
> You may make of them what you will.





HansZimmer said:


> This is why we should simply say that it's a "long musical tradition" and that the music which is clearily rooted in that tradition is classical music. This definition is sufficiently vague and generic, therefore it can cover everything that it's considered "classical music".


I agree with "vague and generic", but I think you also need to add "arbitrary". And btw, I wouldn't be diving so deeply into the etymological side of things if it wasn't the source for so much confusion and acrimony here in thread after thread.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Pachelbel's canon isn't objectively great art just cause a minority group of nerdy people (with their elitism, which is inherently "self-induced") in classical music communities today (which comprises a _teeny tiny_ fraction of the world's population) thinks it is not? Think about the double standard; the way of thinking, "A isn't great art although it withstood the test of time. B is, cause it did."


hammeredklavier said:


> One could ask-
> "Upon seeing the phenomenon of hundreds of millions of people (even without the knowledge of how a canon works) going onto youtube to listen to it (something written for the sensibilities of an age 350 years of the past), -aren't you in AWE, of the power of Western classical music?"


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Pachelbel's Canon in D is interesting because it's an example of classical music becoming popular in the same way that pop/popular music becomes popular - it became popular due to radio play, and it was a very specific recording, not the piece itself, which became popular, and even inspired a lot of "cover versions".


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

fbjim said:


> Pachelbel's Canon in D is interesting because it's an example of classical music becoming popular in the same way that pop/popular music becomes popular - it became popular due to radio play, and it was a very specific recording, not the piece itself, which became popular, and even inspired a lot of "cover versions".


Yes, exactly right. And that recording was made by the late Jean-Francois Paillard and his chamber orchestra. He and the late Karl Munchinger, who also led his own chamber orchestra, were two of the leaders of the baroque revival movement of the mid-20th century. Though their ensembles typically did not feature so-called "original" instruments or performance practices (far from it, in fact), they paved the way for those movements later in the 20th century.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

fbjim said:


> Pachelbel's Canon in D is interesting because it's an example of classical music becoming popular in the same way that pop/popular music becomes popular - it became popular due to radio play, and it was a very specific recording, not the piece itself, which became popular, and even inspired a lot of "cover versions".


There's also this-


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

fbjim said:


> Pachelbel's Canon in D is interesting because it's an example of classical music becoming popular in the same way that pop/popular music becomes popular - it became popular due to radio play, and it was a very specific recording, not the piece itself, which became popular, and even inspired a lot of "cover versions".


It was written for Bach's oldest brother, maybe.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

fbjim said:


> Pachelbel's Canon in D is interesting because it's an example of classical music becoming popular in the same way that pop/popular music becomes popular - it became popular due to radio play, and it was a very specific recording, not the piece itself, which became popular, and even inspired a lot of "cover versions".


The original Pachelbel's Canon is quite good in itself...






... but the piece of Jean-François Paillard, with its added romantic touch (dramatic arcs, powerful orchestration), brought the melody at it's full power.






I don't know if the original would have so much success if pushed by radios, but the version of Jean-François Paillard is a masterpiece: one of the nicest melodies of classical music.

As I've said many times, the general public of music (including the general public of classical music) has one simple expectation from music: nice melodies that give you goosebumps. This is why the piece of Jean-François Paillard was pushed by radios and acclaimed by the public.

The general public tends to prefer pieces of music with lyrical and beatiful melodies more than (for example) fugues with rudimental and/or forgettable subjects. The complexity plays almost no role in the preferences: only the minority of persons with a nerdy view of music think that a piece of music is better if it's more complex.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

fbjim said:


> *Pachelbel's Canon in D is interesting* because it's an example of classical music becoming popular in the same way that pop/popular music becomes popular - it became popular due to radio play, and it was a very specific recording, not the piece itself, which became popular, and even inspired a lot of "cover versions".


You lost me with the part in bold.  I've never found it so, except in proving the extent to which it is possible to be extremely concise and yet boring.

Seriously though, the point you are making _is_ interesting.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

EdwardBast said:


> You lost me with the part in bold.  I've never found it so, except in proving the extent to which it is possible to be extremely concise and yet boring.


What do you think of (my reply to DaveM in the thread)-


hammeredklavier said:


> On the fundamental level, I can't see how this (the popularity)
> www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCHREyE5GzQ&t=6m30s
> (number of views: 12,982,133 / date of upload: Jun 23, 2010)
> is really a different phenomenon from
> ...


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Canon in D. Even inexperienced ears can quickly hear the falling scale melody with each note expressly harmonized by each successive chord in the famous continually repeating progression. Once the chord progression is ‘learned’ (or remembered), it's the same throughout the piece.

Our brains reward us for recognizing patterns in sights and sounds (tastes and smells), because the next time the same effort for finding patterns could save our lives in a dangerous world. …Because our brains ‘know’ that we're exceedingly lazy. lol We seek to conserve energy, but humans think of it as "being lazy".


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

HansZimmer said:


> The original Pachelbel's Canon is quite good in itself...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There's more to it than that. Both Paillard and Munchinger specialized in a lush, lyrical style that brought their baroque music closer to a style of popular music that was common in the 40s, 50s and early 60s. It evoked crooners like Bing Crosby, Frank Sinatra, Tony Bennett, Nat Cole, Perry Como, Vic Damone, Andy Williams and Robert Goulet, instrumentalists like Nelson Riddle and his orchestra, Mantovani, and many others.

But beginning in the late 60s, popular music fashions changed dramatically. Suddenly, the most famous classical music in the popular arena was the synthesized version created by Walter / Wendy Carlos for Stanley Kubrick's 1971 movie A Clockwork Orange, one of the most popular and influential movie soundtracks of all time.

What that shows is that any statement beginning with "The general public tend to prefer pieces of music with ..." is not true for all eras and in all contexts. Popular music fashions and tastes swing wildly from one extreme to another with everything in between.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

fluteman said:


> There's more to it than that. Both Paillard and Munchinger specialized in a lush, lyrical style that brought their baroque music closer to a style of popular music that was common in the 40s, 50s and early 60s. It evoked crooners like Bing Crosby, Frank Sinatra, Tony Bennett, Nat Cole, Perry Como, Vic Damone, Andy Williams and Robert Goulet, instrumentalists like Nelson Riddle and his orchestra, Mantovani, and many others.
> 
> But beginning in the late 60s, popular music fashions changed dramatically. Suddenly, the most famous classical music in the popular arena was the synthesized version created by Walter / Wendy Carlos for Stanley Kubrick's 1971 movie A Clockwork Orange, one of the most popular and influential movie soundtracks of all time.
> 
> What that shows is that any statement beginning with "The general public tend to prefer pieces of music with ..." is not true for all eras and in all contexts. Popular music fashions and tastes swing wildly from one extreme to another with everything in between.


I remember Crosby being the doobie doobie doo king, in my childhood. The recordings and video clips of him were so easy to follow, even for the youngest in the audience. All types of listeners could immediately hear the music.

And how Dean Martin overdid the crooning thing. Listeners didn't laugh at him, they laughed WITH him. They loved it (for a while).

It's an interesting point you're making. I wasn't paying close attention to trends for audiences in soundtracks, but it makes sense when there's big production money involved. The 'natural' and extra-musical features make for more attractiveness, more sales.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Luchesi said:


> Canon in D. Even inexperienced ears can quickly hear the falling scale melody with each note expressly harmonized by each successive chord in the famous continually repeating progression. Once the chord progression is ‘learned’ (or remembered), it's the same throughout the piece.
> 
> Our brains reward us for recognizing patterns in sights and sounds (tastes and smells), because the next time the same effort for finding patterns could save our lives in a dangerous world. …Because our brains ‘know’ that we're exceedingly lazy. lol We seek to conserve energy, but humans think of it as "being lazy".


What about these melodies of Mozart? Aren't they also nice? What if they were pushed by radios?


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

HansZimmer said:


> What about these melodies of Mozart? Aren't they also nice? What if they were pushed by radios?


I love Mozart's music. In fact, I hired a professional string quartet to play his quartet no. 19 at my wedding. And don't lose hope for its mainstream popularity. His piano concerto no. 21 got a big push in popularity from the 1967 movie Elvira Madigan. His Requiem got a push from the Broadway musical turned 1984 movie Amadeus. There is no reason something like that couldn't happen again. And by the way, that famous theme from A Clockwork Orange that I linked to is Henry Purcell's Music for the Funeral of Queen Mary.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

HansZimmer said:


> What about these melodies of Mozart? Aren't they also nice? What if they were pushed by radios?


Nope. Far too many notes for the uninitiated.

JOSEPH
My dear fellow, there are in fact only so many notes the ear can
hear in the course of an evening. I think I'm right in saying that,
aren't I, Court Composer?

SALIERI
Yes! yes! er, on the whole, yes, Majesty.

MOZART
(to Salieri)
But this is absurd!


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Luchesi said:


> Nope. Far too many notes for the uninitiated.


I don't agree. The folks don't count the notes: this is the point. They don't use the number of notes to measure the quality. They like pieces with nice melodies, doesn't matter how much complex they are.

If you had to simply use repetitive chord progressions for being a succesful composer, then everyone could become a succesful composer. To say that the composer XY is succesful only because he doesn't write supercomplex things is a lie: he is succesful because he is able to write very good melodies, and this requires artistic talent.

On the other hand, you can use more complex chord progressions and write nice melodies.


The folks are not aware of the compositional process and are not able to hear the difference between simple chord progressions and supercomplex chord progressions.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

HansZimmer said:


> I don't agree. The folks don't count the notes: this is the point. They don't use the number of notes to measure the quality. They like pieces with nice melodies, doesn't matter how much complex they are.
> 
> If you had to simply use repetitive chord progressions for being a succesful composer, then everyone could become a succesful composer. To say that the composer XY is succesful only because he doesn't write supercomplex things is a lie: he is succesful because he is able to write very good melodies, and this requires artistic talent.
> 
> ...


I wonder what the difference is between a music fan who agrees with me and a fan who agrees with you. I've met all kinds and we all seem to have a unique history. 

I suspect that that means we can't find the answers among us, in this group. ...Because we don't seem to understand eachother. We know the words but..


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Luchesi said:


> I wonder what the difference is between a music fan who agrees with me and a fan who agrees with you. I've met all kinds and we all seem to have a unique history.
> 
> I suspect that that means we can't find the answers among us, in this group. ...Because we don't seem to understand eachother. We know the words but..


To understand my point of view you simply have to follow your istinctive emotions instead of analyzing, which is is the most natural approach to music. The technique is subservient to the result, it's not the fundamental point of music.

The "keep things simple" philosophy/technique is subservient to determined aesthetic goals.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

fluteman said:


> I love Mozart's music. In fact, I hired a professional string quartet to play his quartet no. 19 at my wedding. And don't lose hope for its mainstream popularity. His piano concerto no. 21 got a big push in popularity from the 1967 movie Elvira Madigan. His Requiem got a push from the Broadway musical turned 1984 movie Amadeus. There is no reason something like that couldn't happen again. And by the way, that famous theme from A Clockwork Orange that I linked to is Henry Purcell's Music for the Funeral of Queen Mary.


Nice wedding. Did the quartet do a good job?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Luchesi said:


> JOSEPH: My dear fellow, there are in fact only so many notes the ear can hear in the course of an evening.


But why didn't the theatre manager Baron Peter von Braun in 1805 think the same way about Mozart?

Baron Braun: But take the Magic Flute, for instance, _now that really did rouse the multitude!_
Beethoven: *I don't compose for the multitude!*
Baron Braun: If we had paid Herr Mozart the same percentage for the receipts of his operas, he would have been a very rich man.
Beethoven: WHAT ARE YOU SAYING?!
Baron Braun: nothing. I..
Beethoven: I think you should raise your Herr Mozart from the dead, because the performances of this opera are finished!


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

HansZimmer said:


> To understand my point of view you simply have to follow your istinctive emotions instead of analyzing, which is is the most natural approach to music. The technique is subservient to the result, it's not the fundamental point of music.
> 
> The "keep things simple" philosophy/technique is subservient to determined aesthetic goals.


Yes, that's what your side might say.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

hammeredklavier said:


> But why didn't the theatre manager Baron Peter von Braun in 1805 think the same way about Mozart?
> 
> Baron Braun: But take the Magic Flute, for instance, _now that really did rouse the multitude!_
> Beethoven: *I don't compose for the multitude!*
> ...


Interesting.
I was comparing the simple Pachebel with Mozart's violin melodies in a concerto. I think there would be too many notes for a neophyte to hear in the latter. That's been my experience. Unless it's a music fan they simply tune out (or in and out) so that they need many hearings. The result is, no favorites are formed so quickly.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Luchesi said:


> Yes, that's what your side might say.


As you probably know from our many discussions here, I disagree with both you and HansZimmer. Music for the most part is not natural or instinctive, as HansZimmer argues, nor is it scientific or analytically rigorous as you argue, though it shares features with both concepts. Music is a cultural tradition specific to a particular society and era. To those who grow up and live immersed in a particular musical tradition, it often can seem natural and instinctive, though it likely will be anything but to one raised in a vastly different cultural environment. To those who analyze a complex, sophisticated, highly developed musical tradition, many features of it are comparable to sophisticated mathematics. Yet, a high-level theoretical or analytical understanding is not necessary for its enjoyment, witness the numerous members here who enjoy the music of Mozart without little or no theoretical or analytical understanding. These listeners may not be able to analyze or describe the distinctions between a simple and complex chord progression, but they certainly can hear them.

But I do agree with you that there is no point pursuing these debates in endless marathon threads here.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

fluteman said:


> As you probably know from our many discussions here, I disagree with both you and HansZimmer. Music for the most part is not natural or instinctive, as HansZimmer argues, nor is it scientific or analytically rigorous as you argue, though it shares features with both concepts. Music is a cultural tradition specific to a particular society and era. To those who grow up and live immersed in a particular musical tradition, it often can seem natural and instinctive, though it likely will be anything but to one raised in a vastly different cultural environment. To those who analyze a complex, sophisticated, highly developed musical tradition, many features of it are comparable to sophisticated mathematics. Yet, a high-level theoretical or analytical understanding is not necessary for its enjoyment, witness the numerous members here who enjoy the music of Mozart without little or no theoretical or analytical understanding. These listeners may not be able to analyze or describe the distinctions between a simple and complex chord progression, but they certainly can hear them.
> 
> But I do agree with you that there is no point pursuing these debates in endless marathon threads here.


I believe I have more in common with the non-musician than someone like you. I started later than you and you have said that you can memorize the solo part of the concerto and play it back mostly by ear. That takes years of experience, reading music for harmony and structure, years of listening to others, and then improving your facility, all at the same time, I suspect. You could write a lot about that experience. Very few of us have it.

I have pushed myself in music because I didn't want to be just a scientific guy, working in science and never growing up past my youthful pop favorites (too busy, and they eventually become irrelevant for exploring), like so many of my colleagues. What do they have? The next discovery, yes. Music, very little. Spectator sports, games, shows


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Luchesi said:


> I believe I have more in common with the non-musician than someone like you. I started later than you and you have said that you can memorize the solo part of the concerto and play it back mostly by ear. That takes years of experience, reading music for harmony and structure, years of listening to others, and then improving your facility, all at the same time, I suspect. You could write a lot about that experience. Very few of us have it.
> 
> I have pushed myself in music because I didn't want to be just a scientific guy, working in science and never growing up past my youthful pop favorites (too busy, and they eventually become irrelevant for exploring), like so many of my colleagues. What do they have? The next discovery, yes. Music, very little. Spectator sports, games, shows


Ha! I'm with you there. Tonight I practice. No sports, games or shows.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

fluteman said:


> As you probably know from our many discussions here, I disagree with both you and HansZimmer. Music for the most part is not natural or instinctive, as HansZimmer argues, *nor is it scientific or analytically rigorous as you argue, though it shares features with both concepts.*



That’s what we call ‘playing both ends against the middle’. As far as the ‘not natural or instinctive’ goes, have you ever seen a toddler who is barely walking moving the legs up and down in a primitive dance motion when he/she hears some music?


> Music is a cultural tradition specific to a particular society and era. To those who grow up and live immersed in a particular musical tradition, it often can seem natural and instinctive, though it likely will be anything but to one raised in a vastly different cultural environment.


‘Music is a cultural tradition specific to a particular society and era’? Then explain how classical music has made such inroads in Japan and China, where there are societies with a strong cultural tradition that didn’t include classical music during the CP era.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

DaveM said:


> That’s what we call ‘playing both ends against the middle’. As far as the ‘not natural or instinctive’ goes, have you ever seen a toddler who is barely walking moving the legs up and down in a primitive dance motion when he/she hears some music?
> 
> ‘Music is a cultural tradition specific to a particular society and era’? Then explain how classical music has made such inroads in Japan and China, where there are societies with a strong cultural tradition that didn’t include classical music during the CP era.


I find it interesting that their tuning pushes the music (clearer intervals?) so that I visualize and respond to it very differently. And not like any Western Music. It's difficult to put into words the different levels of appreciation between the two.

From the nursery songs of every culture the children learn to recognize (and be rewarded by finding again) the integer relationships in simple music. They will endlessly sing and repeat a favorite nursery rhyme. We might think they're just being silly and energetic, but it's serious business, their little brains are calculating the integer ratios.


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

fluteman said:


> As you probably know from our many discussions here, I disagree with both you and HansZimmer. Music for the most part is not natural or instinctive, as HansZimmer argues, nor is it scientific or analytically rigorous as you argue, though it shares features with both concepts. Music is a cultural tradition specific to a particular society and era. To those who grow up and live immersed in a particular musical tradition, it often can seem natural and instinctive, though it likely will be anything but to one raised in a vastly different cultural environment. To those who analyze a complex, sophisticated, highly developed musical tradition, many features of it are comparable to sophisticated mathematics. Yet, a high-level theoretical or analytical understanding is not necessary for its enjoyment, witness the numerous members here who enjoy the music of Mozart without little or no theoretical or analytical understanding. These listeners may not be able to analyze or describe the distinctions between a simple and complex chord progression, but they certainly can hear them.
> 
> But I do agree with you that there is no point pursuing these debates in endless marathon threads here.


As far as I can tell this viewpoint is directly contradicted by actual scientific study: New Harvard study says music is universal language.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

"Music is a cultural universal" is an entirely different thing to say than "Western classical music is a cultural universal"


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I'd imagine that music is like language. It's instinctive in the sense that any neurologically normal human who grows up in a human community is going to learn it (absent severe stresses); it's cultural in the sense that the specifics of the "grammar" and "vocabulary" depend on which particular community one grows up in. 

Anyone who believes that Western music specifically is anything like universal needs to listen either to more non-Western music or for that matter to more early Western music.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Is language the large category which contains music, or is music the large category which contains language?


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

fbjim said:


> "Music is a cultural universal" is an entirely different thing to say than "Western classical music is a cultural universal"





science said:


> I'd imagine that music is like language. It's instinctive in the sense that any neurologically normal human who grows up in a human community is going to learn it (absent severe stresses); it's cultural in the sense that the specifics of the "grammar" and "vocabulary" depend on which particular community one grows up in.
> 
> Anyone who believes that Western music specifically is anything like universal needs to listen either to more non-Western music or for that matter to more early Western music.


I don't know if either of you read the article, but it appears you are missing the point. The article is saying is not saying "all cultures have music", which is stupidly obvious and not worthy of study, but rather that many broad themes music is meant to express are universally recognisable across cultures; it is in this sense that music is a "universal language" as large aspects of it can be understood cross-culturally. This is very different from typical languages; I could not, for example, understand any Japanese. For example, people can recognise love songs as being love songs even if they have no experience with the culture the love song was taken from.

In this sense, I believe Western music is to some degree universal simply because all music is to some degree universal.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

science said:


> I'd imagine that music is like language. It's instinctive in the sense that any neurologically normal human who grows up in a human community is going to learn it (absent severe stresses); it's cultural in the sense that the specifics of the "grammar" and "vocabulary" depend on which particular community one grows up in.
> 
> Anyone who believes that Western music specifically is anything like universal needs to listen either to more non-Western music or for that matter to more early Western music.


What has been called Western music isn’t just western anymore, is it.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

DaveM said:


> What has been called Western music isn’t just western anymore, is it.


When in history are the different musics going separate ways, with regard to fundamentals?


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Luchesi said:


> When in history are the different musics going separate ways, with regard to fundamentals?


There are musicologists who specialize in that kind of question. One was in the music department where I went to college. Very interesting. In various cultures there is use of common concepts such as rhythm, timbre, pitch, volume, structures and patterns featuring symmetry, contrast and repetition, but in very different ways. I'm no expert, but I came away with some basic concepts. First, non-western music can be as sophisticated and complex as western music. Second, harmony, which is such a central element in the 18th and 19th century western classical music tradition, can be less central or entirely absent in other musical traditions. Tonality in the broad sense does not require harmony. Third, the diatonic scale, which in western culture we take as a given at the earliest age, is absent from non-western music traditions, even those based on scales. And finally, even in western classical music, harmony only gradually attained over several centuries the central prominence it had by the mid to late 19th century.
Some people here get all in a dither over these things, but they are matters of historical and anthropological fact, not musical taste. Many people believe western music is superior to non-western music, in fact many believe western art generally, not just music, is superior to all non-western art. I suspect a major reason many of these people also are unhappy with modern art generally is that in the modern era we have seen cross-cultural influences where once there were almost completely separate western (i.e. European) and non-western traditions. All of which are opinions and tastes they are entitled to have. But that's what they are: opinions and tastes.

Edit: For those interested, this is what I believe is the current edition of my college textbook, which I believe is a good introduction to this topic. My college professor is one of the authors. Worlds of Music: An Introduction to the Music of the World's Peoples, 6th Edition, Jeff Todd Titon, general editor.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

fluteman said:


> There are musicologists who specialize in that kind of question. One was in the music department where I went to college. Very interesting. In various cultures there is use of common concepts such as rhythm, timbre, pitch, volume, structures and patterns featuring symmetry, contrast and repetition, but in very different ways. I'm no expert, but I came away with some basic concepts. First, non-western music can be as sophisticated and complex as western music. Second, harmony, which is such a central element in the 18th and 19th century western classical music tradition, can be less central or entirely absent in other musical traditions. Tonality in the broad sense does not require harmony. Third, the diatonic scale, which in western culture we take as a given at the earliest age, is absent from non-western music traditions, even those based on scales. And finally, even in western classical music, harmony only gradually attained over several centuries the central prominence it had by the mid to late 19th century.
> Some people here get all in a dither over these things, but they are matters of historical and anthropological fact, not musical taste. Many people believe western music is superior to non-western music, in fact many believe western art generally, not just music, is superior to all non-western art. I suspect a major reason many of these people also are unhappy with modern art generally is that in the modern era we have seen cross-cultural influences where once there were almost completely separate western (i.e. European) and non-western traditions. All of which are opinions and tastes they are entitled to have. But that's what they are: opinions and tastes.


You didn't answer. Maybe branching points are lost to history. And if they are, then all we have are our logical opinions about what grew from which older ideas (breakthroughs for effectiveness in music theory), and what grew from contemporary inspirations (I call it rule breaking) and became popular (for popular reasons).


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Luchesi said:


> You didn't answer. Maybe branching points are lost to history. And if they are, then all we have are our logical opinions about what grew from which older ideas (breakthroughs for effectiveness in music theory), and what grew from contemporary inspirations (I call it rule breaking) and became popular (for popular reasons).


True. I punted, and cited the textbook used and partly written by my college music professor, which by the way, though readable and with lots of fun pictures, was and no doubt still is, very thick. Still, you can browse through it.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

BachIsBest said:


> For example, people can recognise love songs as being love songs even if they have no experience with the culture the love song was taken from.


My experiences with Chinese traditional opera leads me not to believe this is true.


----------



## PaulFranz (May 7, 2019)

science said:


> My experiences with Chinese traditional opera leads me not to believe this is true.


It's definitely not true. Ask someone what Una furtiva lagrima is about.


----------



## KlassikerDronning (3 mo ago)

CopistaSignorGomez said:


> In my view Music is not a science, but an art, so there is no way we can set objetive standards to valuate music
> 
> Of course, we as a music lovers, may think Music as a science, and it is, in the sense of compositional techniques, idiomatic science, etc etc but thinking in the taste, it has no value and it's naif to think there is an objetive truth of wich music is "good" or not
> 
> ...





CopistaSignorGomez said:


> In my view Music is not a science, but an art, so there is no way we can set objetive standards to valuate music
> 
> Of course, we as a music lovers, may think Music as a science, and it is, in the sense of compositional techniques, idiomatic science, etc etc but thinking in the taste, it has no value and it's naif to think there is an objetive truth of wich music is "good" or not
> 
> ...


As an Anglo-Germanic music theorist, physicist, and bio-chemist bitch I can definitely correct you: music IS a science.
It is the science of sounds and frequencies.
There is a lot of math in music making it sorta some scientific theory. It is artistic too in a creative sense. But we can say that chemistry is as well. I believe Einstein even said something about science being an art aswell*sips some tea with crumpets** 🧐🍵🫓


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

KlassikerDronning said:


> As an Anglo-Germanic music theorist, physicist, and bio-chemist bitch I can definitely correct you: music IS a science.
> It is the science of sounds and frequencies.
> There is a lot of math in music making it sorta some scientific theory. It is artistic too in a creative sense. But we can say that chemistry is as well. I believe Einstein even said something about science being an art aswell*sips some tea with crumpets** 🧐🍵🫓


"You might think that Aesthetics is a science telling us what's beautiful - almost too ridiculous for words. I suppose it ought to include also what sort of coffee tastes well."
Ludwig Wittgenstein: Lectures and Conversations on Aesthetics, Psychology and Religious Belief (1966).


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

fluteman said:


> "You might think that Aesthetics is a science telling us what's beautiful - almost too ridiculous for words. I suppose it ought to include also what sort of coffee tastes well."
> Ludwig Wittgenstein: Lectures and Conversations on Aesthetics, Psychology and Religious Belief (1966).


One thing I've learned in TC, for my own personal philosophy, is that we should try to believe that aesthetics is a science, and all that that implies. Otherwise we'll end up in one of those bad states (nihilism etc.). We can't change the realities in the universe, but we can make the best of human perceptions and experiences.


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

Luchesi said:


> One thing I've learned in TC, for my own personal philosophy, is that we should try to believe that aesthetics is a science, and all that that implies. Otherwise we'll end up in one of those bad states (nihilism etc.). ...


I agree that there are scientific approaches to music that are valuable, and would be worth looking into further. Certainly, to find ways of not ending up with nihilism is necessary. But I don't understand what you mean about trying to believe aesthetics is a science, even with the broadest of interpretations.

Also I don't see how one would learn from TC anything much about aesthetics. There may be a few contributors who know it well enough.


----------



## Nate Miller (Oct 24, 2016)

I've always believed that a modern musician needs to be aware of acoustics as a physics and perception as a psychology.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Roger Knox said:


> I agree that there are scientific approaches to music that are valuable, and would be worth looking into further. Certainly, to find ways of not ending up with nihilism is necessary. But I don't understand what you mean about trying to believe aesthetics is a science, even with the broadest of interpretations.
> 
> Also I don't see how one would learn from TC anything much about aesthetics. There may be a few contributors who know it well enough.


We have covered this topic in length here before. No doubt, sensory perception, physiology and psychology are scientific subjects. Even the human tendency to form societies and then create cultural traditions for them, including artistic ones, is a subject for anthropologists or other social scientists. And mathematical terms may help us describe how sophisticated musical systems work. 

But art is not science. What is considered artistic beauty by most in one culture may be considered ugly or senseless by most in another. This, even though art from different cultures often will have significant common features or properties. Of course, no two individuals, even with the same cultural background, will view art exactly the same way. Their differences are too important, as humans are quite sensitive to aesthetic features. In profound contrast, science is exactly the same from one culture to another.


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

I hope I wasn't being too dismissive of aesthetics on TC in post #243. If you're interested in 19th- and 20th-century classical music as I am, aesthetics is an important philosophical area. But it's hard. I have only a basic knowledge and much is beyond me; there may be some members who know a lot more. Then, how much of aesthetics can you really get into on TC anyway? Yet the _topics _of aesthetics do come up in our discussions. IMHO the best course would be to refer off to other sites and sources. Then bring something back only if it is crucially important to discussions here.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Roger Knox said:


> I hope I wasn't being too dismissive of aesthetics on TC in post #243. If you're interested in 19th- and 20th-century classical music as I am, aesthetics is an important philosophical area. But it's hard. I have only a basic knowledge and much is beyond me; there may be some members who know a lot more. Then, how much of aesthetics can you really get into on TC anyway? Yet the _topics _of aesthetics do come up in our discussions. IMHO the best course would be to refer off to other sites and sources. Then bring something back only if it is crucially important to discussions here.


I'm no expert on aesthetics, but one of my college philosophy professors was a famous one, and I've listed some books and essays on that topic here easily understandable by anyone on the level of a college philosophy student. I'm not going to do that yet again, though I quoted from one of them above.


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

science said:


> My experiences with Chinese traditional opera leads me not to believe this is true.


I cited a rather extensive study that shows this is the case. The researchers examined thousands upon thousands of pieces of music from nearly a hundred cultures. Here is a quote from the article

"Definitely seeing music as cross-cultural excites Singh because he comes to the Natural History of Song project as someone who studies the social, cognitive, and cultural evolutionary foundations of complex traditions found throughout societies from music to law, narrative to witchcraft.

For Mehr, who began his academic life in music education, the study looks toward unlocking the governing rules of “musical grammar.” That idea has been percolating among music theorists, linguists, and psychologists of music for decades, but has never been demonstrated across cultures.

“In music theory, tonality is often assumed to be an invention of Western music, but our data raise the controversial possibility that this could be a universal feature of music,” he said. “That raises pressing questions about structure that underlies music everywhere — and whether and how our minds are designed to make music.”

I respect that you might have had a unique difficulty accessing other cultures music, but the actual research shows that this experience may have been more unique to you.


----------



## KlassikerDronning (3 mo ago)

fluteman said:


> "You might think that Aesthetics is a science telling us what's beautiful - almost too ridiculous for words. I suppose it ought to include also what sort of coffee tastes well."
> Ludwig Wittgenstein: Lectures and Conversations on Aesthetics, Psychology and Religious Belief (1966).


I don't want to argue with you nor go against the guidelines, but all I meant was there is creative thinking in science, just as there are mathematical theories in music. It's as simple as that!😌


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Luchesi said:


> One thing I've learned in TC, for my own personal philosophy, is that *we should try to believe that aesthetics is a science*, and all that that implies. Otherwise we'll end up in one of those bad states (*nihilism *etc.). We can't change the realities in the universe, but we can make the best of human perceptions and experiences.


"Trying" isn't necessary when it comes to belief. Either one believes aesthetics is a science, or one doesn't.

As for "nihilism" being a "bad state" - it's not a bad state for the nihilist. Few "-isms" can be deemed wholly good or bad. It's a mistake, IMO, to assume that a moral tag can be simplistically applied, just because a particular "-ism" doesn't appeal.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

KlassikerDronning said:


> I don't want to argue with you nor go against the guidelines, but all I meant was there is creative thinking in science, just as there are mathematical theories in music. It's as simple as that!😌


Indeed it is! Obviously, Newton and Einstein were creative thinkers of the highest order. And there are sophisticated mathematical principles at work in the paintings of Jan Vermeer (1632-1675) and Piet Mondrian (1872-1944), never mind the music of Bach and Schoenberg. But I stand by the crucial distinction I pointed out above: Art differs from culture to culture, from era to era, and from individual to individual. Science is absolutely identical for all.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

BachIsBest said:


> I don't know if either of you read the article, but it appears you are missing the point. The article is saying is not saying "all cultures have music", which is stupidly obvious and not worthy of study, but rather that many broad themes music is meant to express are universally recognisable across cultures; it is in this sense that music is a "universal language" as large aspects of it can be understood cross-culturally. This is very different from typical languages; I could not, for example, understand any Japanese. For example, people can recognise love songs as being love songs even if they have no experience with the culture the love song was taken from.
> 
> In this sense, I believe Western music is to some degree universal simply because all music is to some degree universal.


To make it more clear what I was responding to, I meant that western music gaining popularity in Japan/China is not proof of universality, because it could easily be attributed to the westernization of Japan and China, which is a well-known phenomenon.

Whether or not music has aesthetic universals is not a solved problem and I think will always be studied.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

BachIsBest said:


> I cited a rather extensive study that shows this is the case. The researchers examined thousands upon thousands of pieces of music from nearly a hundred cultures. Here is a quote from the article
> 
> "Definitely seeing music as cross-cultural excites Singh because he comes to the Natural History of Song project as someone who studies the social, cognitive, and cultural evolutionary foundations of complex traditions found throughout societies from music to law, narrative to witchcraft.
> 
> ...


I can imagine lullabies and perhaps "dance" music having recognizable similarities due to human biology (though there must be questions about the definitions: are Korean shamans "dancing" in the same way K-pop boy bands and Mevlevi dervishes and randy American middle-schoolers "dance?"), but I don't see that the article you've quoted (or the study it's about) actually claims that:



BachIsBest said:


> ... people can recognise love songs as being love songs even if they have no experience with the culture the love song was taken from.


(Edit: Just to be clear, I'm assuming "people" here means "laypeople" rather than something like "trained ethnomusicologists." But even if you mean something like the latter, I'd like to see the percentages....) 

Even if you can find a reputable, peer-reviewed study that does claim to "establish" such a thing, I'm going to need more than one study to overcome my skepticism. I mean, heck, I doubt most hardcore classical music fans (such as we have here) can listen to Dufay's motets without checking the titles or lyrics and tell which ones are love songs.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

I think musicologists are actually more open to the idea of aesthetic universals than they were a few decades ago. It's an ongoing subject of study.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

fbjim said:


> To make it more clear what I was responding to, I meant that western music gaining popularity in Japan/China is not proof of universality, because it could easily be attributed to the westernization of Japan and China, which is a well-known phenomenon.
> 
> Whether or not music has aesthetic universals is not a solved problem and I think will always be studied.


If you think of art as a celebration of our humanity, i.e., what is unique about each of us as well as what we share, it seems fruitless to try to reduce it to a single set of universal principles, i.e., a science. This is the point of a famous essay by Morris Weitz entitled The Role of Theory in Aesthetics. It is true that American music, in particular African-American music, has had a very successful period of international popularity and influence, the roots of which date as far back as the late 19th century. But even African-American music is not a monolithic phenomenon based on a single set of universal principles. Scott Joplin is not Louis Armstrong or Fats Waller, who are not Miles Davis or John Coltrane, who are not B.B King or Albert King, who are not James Brown or Michael Jackson, who are not JZ or Kanye (or "Ye").

And it would be naive to assume American music, African-American or otherwise, will forever hold its high position on the world's stage.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Roger Knox said:


> I agree that there are scientific approaches to music that are valuable, and would be worth looking into further. Certainly, to find ways of not ending up with nihilism is necessary. But I don't understand what you mean about trying to believe aesthetics is a science, even with the broadest of interpretations.
> 
> Also I don't see how one would learn from TC anything much about aesthetics. There may be a few contributors who know it well enough.





fluteman said:


> Indeed it is! Obviously, Newton and Einstein were creative thinkers of the highest order. And there are sophisticated mathematical principles at work in the paintings of Jan Vermeer (1632-1675) and Piet Mondrian (1872-1944), never mind the music of Bach and Schoenberg. But I stand by the crucial distinction I pointed out above: Art differs from culture to culture, from era to era, and from individual to individual. Science is absolutely identical for all.


The notes and intervals of the music I know about come from doubling, tripling, quadrupling and quintupling the frequency of a fundamental tone (sextupling might not be universal). Start with C=65.41 Hz to get A 440 music. If there's some music in the world that isn't fundamentally based on these derivations then I would like to know about them, honestly. I'm not saying that there isn't music like this, I would just like to learn a little bit about it.


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

science said:


> I can imagine lullabies and perhaps "dance" music having recognizable similarities due to human biology (though there must be questions about the definitions: are Korean shamans "dancing" in the same way K-pop boy bands and Mevlevi dervishes and randy American middle-schoolers "dance?"), but I don't see that the article you've quoted (or the study it's about) actually claims that:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well ask and you shall receive. Beyond the fact that in the article on the study I linked to literally said that love songs were one of the things that they found had universalities across cultures (although I do concede that this leaves it somewhat vague as to how easily identifiable these characteristics are to the naked human ear), there was another article linked to from the first (also out of Harvard) that polled participants and found, among other things, they could accurately identify love songs from other cultures: Music may transcend cultural boundaries to become universally human. To quote from the study (linked to in the linked article) "Listeners’ _perceptions_ of song functions were in reliable agreement with the songs’ _actual_ functions."

You can also take a (in the linked page) test to see how accurately you identify songs functions from other cultures. I scored 4/4 .


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Luchesi said:


> The notes and intervals of the music I know about come from doubling, tripling, quadrupling and quintupling the frequency of a fundamental tone (sextupling might not be universal). Start with C=65.41 Hz to get A 440 music. If there's some music in the world that isn't fundamentally based on these derivations then I would like to know about them, honestly. I'm not saying that there isn't music like this, I would just like to learn a little bit about it.


?? Well then, start learning about it. I cited what I thought was a good introductory text from my college days that is still in print and is in its 6th edition, so how bad can it be? Non-western musical traditions often include scales that, while they may differ considerably from those of traditional western classical music, are still recognizable. But there is also microtonal music, and long has been.



fbjim said:


> I think musicologists are actually more open to the idea of aesthetic universals than they were a few decades ago. It's an ongoing subject of study.


Even beyond music, in the fields of art and aesthetics generally, the dominant movement in western philosophy since the 18th century, often referred to in shorthand as "empiricism", is not and never has been the only approach. I guess we should heed the warning of David Hume, one of the original and most important empiricists, that each system of philosophy eventually gives way to another.

Nevertheless, the empirical approach to aesthetics (as well as many other things) has held more or less steady since the days of David Hume and Immanuel Kant through John Dewey, Ludwig Wittgenstein, and others.

In sum, if you're going to challenge empiricism, you'd better have some heavy artillery. For example, you'll be hard pressed to find any principle that absolutely applies to all music always, other than that it involves humans making sounds. The presence of scales and intervals based on the harmonic series doesn't. Edit: Recent studies attempting to find these universal elements have been inconclusive at best, at least according to a recent article in Smithsonian. Not surprisingly, as demonstrating some element or feature is always, inevitably, present in all music is a tough task.

In fact, many musicologists have gone in the opposite direction, exploring how musical styles relate to the cultural values of the societies that produce them, rather than searching for universal constants. Strange Magic was conversant in that area, though the books he recommended were far from light reading. One book I've mentioned here, From Classic to Romantic: Premises of Taste in 18th Century England, by poetry scholar Walter Jackson Bate, discusses art in general and not just music. But on the plus side, it is readable by ordinary folk like me.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

BachIsBest said:


> Well ask and you shall receive. Beyond the fact that in the article on the study I linked to literally said that love songs were one of the things that they found had universalities across cultures (although I do concede that this leaves it somewhat vague as to how easily identifiable these characteristics are to the naked human ear), there was another article linked to from the first (also out of Harvard) that polled participants and found, among other things, they could accurately identify love songs from other cultures: Music may transcend cultural boundaries to become universally human. To quote from the study (linked to in the linked article) "Listeners’ _perceptions_ of song functions were in reliable agreement with the songs’ _actual_ functions."
> 
> You can also take a (in the linked page) test to see how accurately you identify songs functions from other cultures. I scored 4/4 .


I'm sorry, the link didn't work for me, but I will try again later.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

fbjim said:


> I think musicologists are actually more open to the idea of aesthetic universals than they were a few decades ago. It's an ongoing subject of study.





science said:


> I'm sorry, the link didn't work for me, but I will try again later.


Anyway, here is a link to the Smithsonian article, which is far from the last word on this, of course. This isn't a greatly compelling topic for me in general, though. Long ago, my job was to design and implement statistical studies like this, so I'm all too painfully aware of their limitations. No doubt there are certain fundamental features that are commonly found in most forms of music. Certain basic rhythmic patterns, alternating between loud and soft sounds and high and low pitches, exploiting the contrast in timbre between the human voice and instrumental sounds, or between various instruments, and orderings or hierarchies of pitches that often correspond to the harmonic series all are probable candidates.
But are any of these invariably found in all music? And, more importantly, is there a set of principles in all music that are truly universal in the sense of rational scientific principles? Though the Smithsonian article points out some basic difficulties in locating any such principles, especially with statistical studies (which after all are empirical tools), people have been looking for them for a long time. 16th century French mathematician René Descartes, perhaps the most famous rationalist of all time, made an attempt with his Compendium Musicae. His work is easily found online in English, and I wonder what you all would think of it.

Why Music Is Not a Universal Language


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Why is it that Artificial Intelligence ('science') can create visual art, but fail so miserably at musical art? It's obviously using science for its creations, but when it comes to asking an AI to write a hit song or a symphony it always requires human intervention to "finish" and/or "tweak" the product, and even then it still fails.


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

science said:


> I'm sorry, the link didn't work for me, but I will try again later.


It works for me, so I'm not so sure what is happening. You could also just google the title.


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

fluteman said:


> Anyway, here is a link to the Smithsonian article, which is far from the last word on this, of course. This isn't a greatly compelling topic for me in general, though. Long ago, my job was to design and implement statistical studies like this, so I'm all too painfully aware of their limitations. No doubt there are certain fundamental features that are commonly found in most forms of music. Certain basic rhythmic patterns, alternating between loud and soft sounds and high and low pitches, exploiting the contrast in timbre between the human voice and instrumental sounds, or between various instruments, and orderings or hierarchies of pitches that often correspond to the harmonic series all are probable candidates.
> But are any of these invariably found in all music? And, more importantly, is there a set of principles in all music that are truly universal in the sense of rational scientific principles? Though the Smithsonian article points out some basic difficulties in locating any such principles, especially with statistical studies (which after all are empirical tools), people have been looking for them for a long time. 16th century French mathematician René Descartes, perhaps the most famous rationalist of all time, made an attempt with his Compendium Musicae. His work is easily found online in English, and I wonder what you all would think of it.
> 
> Why Music Is Not a Universal Language


The article was not written by an active researcher explaining research but by someone explaining other peoples conclusions. If you go to the studies the author uses to, supposedly, support his conclusions the actual researchers seem to make somewhat different conclusions. Both the articles I linked to quoted extensively from the authors themselves.

For example, he says in a computer analysis 1706 field recordings were flagged as outliers. If you go to the study, you find there were over 8200 field recordings from around the world meaning about 80% of the field recordings were not outliers. If you stop and think about this, considering for most human history these societies would have little to no contact, this is hardly supportive of music not being somewhat universal. The original study, too, was seeking to find the most unique musical traditions in the world, or the "outliers" from how music generally sounds globally. The very fact that there can be outliers from a "general global sound" is again, hardly supportive of music not being somewhat universal, as it necessitates a "general global sound".

As another example he cites the Harvard study I linked to. He says the study concluded "maybe people can tell if a song is a lullaby or a dance and sometimes if it is a healing song, but don't fare so well with identifying love songs." If you read the study, you see people can identify whether a song is a lullaby or a dance song with astonishing accuracy, and are able to identify love songs with an accuracy above random probability (though with a large error), which is hardly what he makes it seem.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

There must be some degree of universality to music since it will involve basic biological sound patterns (roars, coos, cries), the common abilities and limits of the human voice and ear, some basic structures that are just going to occur to anyone (rhythmic structures), and universal emotions.

On the other hand, we all have our own ears and we can listen to a wide variety of music and see how well we understand it or not. Anyone who claims to understand music they've never heard before is either a jillion times smarter than me or lying. Again, Chinese opera, Renaissance motets. I'd be very surprised if you anyone can tell an upbeat K-pop love song from a song that is boasting about confidence, or a ballad that is about undying romance versus a ballad that is about missing a dead mother, without knowing Korean well enough to understand the lyrics or knowing the songs already. And that is basically western musical forms. 

Beyond that, the difference between descriptors like "don't fare so well" and "astonishing accuracy" is basically just spinning a number according to ideology.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

fluteman said:


> Long ago, my job was to design and implement statistical studies like this, so I'm all too painfully aware of their limitations.


That's a great point. In the academic fields I'm most familiar with (religion and TESOL), saying a study has found something is rarely much better than not saying anything at all.


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

science said:


> There must be some degree of universality to music since it will involve basic biological sound patterns (roars, coos, cries), the common abilities and limits of the human voice and ear, some basic structures that are just going to occur to anyone (rhythmic structures), and universal emotions.


But this is just what I'm saying. Aspects like tonality, rhythm, and emotion are near ubiquitous in all the worlds music. 



science said:


> On the other hand, we all have our own ears and we can listen to a wide variety of music and see how well we understand it or not. Anyone who claims to understand music they've never heard before is either a jillion times smarter than me or lying. Again, Chinese opera, Renaissance motets. I'd be very surprised if you anyone can tell an upbeat K-pop love song from a song that is boasting about confidence, or a ballad that is about undying romance versus a ballad that is about missing a dead mother, without knowing Korean well enough to understand the lyrics or knowing the songs already. And that is basically western musical forms.


I think we may agree more than you think. I am absolutely not saying that one can't cherry pick music out there that is highly stylized or otherwise hard to understand upon first listening.



science said:


> Beyond that, the difference between descriptors like "don't fare so well" and "astonishing accuracy" is basically just spinning a number according to ideology.


No. This is the sort of thing post-modernist types love to claim, but it just isn't true. Believe it or not, but there is an actual difference between "astonishing accuracy" and "don't fare so well". I will admit, adding the astonishing in front of the accuracy was probably unnecessary.

But here is a quote from the paper if you don't believe me:

"Listeners’ perceptions of song functions were in reliable agreement with the songs’ actual functions. When listening to dance songs, participants rated them as used ‘‘for dancing’’ higher than they did for any other song type (Figure 2A), with the mean difference (M_{diff}) in raw scores ranging from 1.09– 2.18 on a 6-point scale. "


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

BachIsBest said:


> But this is just what I'm saying. Aspects like tonality, rhythm, and emotion are near ubiquitous in all the worlds music.
> 
> I think we may agree more than you think. I am absolutely not saying that one can't cherry pick music out there that is highly stylized or otherwise hard to understand upon first listening.
> 
> ...


"For dancing" doesn't impress me very much. It means there was rhythm. 

Man, I have actually spent many hours listening to different musical traditions from around the world. Chinese, Japanese, South Asian, African, Islamic. I know very well what it is like to do that. You cannot persuade me that the music of foreign cultures is immediately intuitive to everyone. There may be a few basic things that people can pick up on -- like, oh, there's a beat, I guess you could dance to this -- but the profound strangeness of it does not go away for a very long time. Even after having listened to that music for a while, I could not tell you whether a particular bit of Chinese music is for a temple ritual or for an opera. I can barely tell Korean court music from Korean folk music. I suppose Korean shamanistic music is somewhat obviously "for dancing" but "dancing" is a pretty poopy description of what is going on in a spirit possession. 



BachIsBest said:


> No. This is the sort of thing post-modernist types love to claim, but it just isn't true. Believe it or not, but there is an actual difference between "astonishing accuracy" and "don't fare so well". I will admit, adding the astonishing in front of the accuracy was probably unnecessary.


Let's say something is 80%. Is that "didn't fare so well" or is it "astonishing accuracy?" 

What about 65%? 90%? 40%? 

It takes a huge amount of context to know what those numbers mean. If a pitcher throws strikes 40% of the time, no one is going to call that "astonishing accuracy." If a batter gets hits 40% of the time, that's superhumanly "astonishing accuracy." If a free-throw shooter hits 40% of the time, that's not faring so well. If a three-point shooter hits 40% of the time, it'd be arguably fair to call that "astonishing accuracy." If a QB's pass completion is 40%, that's not faring so well. 

We know what these numbers mean because they can be compared to tens or maybe hundreds of thousands of other data points. 

It's not that no numbers at all mean anything. It's that: 

a) Any study like this has so many questionable assumptions -- like the definition of "for dancing" -- that the methodology by which the numbers were created is suspect. I note for example the very weird term "dance songs." Is Korean shamanistic ritual music "dance songs?" Is the music played when Mevlevi dervishes whirl a "dance song?" I don't even know. It's almost like asking whether a cup of coffee is a good father. I guess this is what happens when an entire generation uses computer programs that label every digital track a "song." It's an intellectual muddle that makes me suspicious of everything that follows. 

b) When the data is gathered, there is little or nothing to compare the numbers to. What can we compare them to besides our pre-existing intuitive sense of how often people would be able to recognize whether another culture's music was "for dancing?" If there's nothing but that, then the difference between "didn't fare so well" and "astonishing accuracy" is nothing but whether you're selling or buying.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Let's consider the category "dancing." Are these people all doing the same thing?


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

science said:


> "For dancing" doesn't impress me very much. It means there was rhythm.
> 
> Man, I have actually spent many hours listening to different musical traditions from around the world. Chinese, Japanese, South Asian, African, Islamic. I know very well what it is like to do that. You cannot persuade me that the music of foreign cultures is immediately intuitive to everyone. There may be a few basic things that people can pick up on -- like, oh, there's a beat, I guess you could dance to this -- but the profound strangeness of it does not go away for a very long time. Even after having listened to that music for a while, I could not tell you whether a particular bit of Chinese music is for a temple ritual or for an opera. I can barely tell Korean court music from Korean folk music. I suppose Korean shamanistic music is somewhat obviously "for dancing" but "dancing" is a pretty poopy description of what is going on in a spirit possession.
> 
> ...


Yes. The key word in all of that is "context". Once you take art completely out of its cultural context, it becomes much less meaningful. Two examples of my own: Go to a museum featuring an exhibit of, say, African or ancient Egyptian art. Museums will often put up a large white notice on the wall next to each object with one or more long paragraphs of fine print all about the cultural traditions reflected in the object. This is even done for less well-known western art of previous centuries. Try this: Look long and hard at the object before reading the text, and then after. Most of the time, that text makes a big difference in what you see in the object. 

Second example: A NYC-based composer, performer and musicologist named Johnny Reinhard is fond of performances of Bach in a non-equal temperament (only slightly different) known as Werckmeister III. He and some other (but not all) scholars argue that this was the tuning Bach intended for the Well-Tempered Clavier and elsewhere. (Andreas Werckmeister was a German organist slightly before Bach's time who would have been known by his uncles, but never mind all that). When I listen to the WTC played in that tuning, it sounds vaguely like I'm in a Chinese or Indian restaurant with piped in music. Even that slightly different scale throws the whole thing off and makes it sound strange and foreign. Of course, there is nothing natural about equal temperament. The perfect fifths and fourths are only 2 cents off the natural harmonic series, but the major and minor thirds are worse, and the sevenths much worse. But our western ears are used to it, and it sounds completely natural to us.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

fluteman said:


> . . . Of course, there is nothing natural about *equal temperament*. The perfect fifths and fourths are only 2 cents off the natural harmonic series, but the major and minor thirds are worse, and the sevenths much worse. But our western ears are used to it, and *it sounds completely natural* to us.


It most certainly does. As a pianist practically all my life, I am so very very very tuned into Equal Temperament. For decades I've been teaching casts of shows emphatically in ET.

Now a great deal of my accompaniment work is accompanying choirs, which, as we're all aware, tend to sing in *Just Intonation *when they are singing* a capella.* But it's amusing how quickly they'll switch to *12-tone Equal Temperament* when the piano is introduced as accompaniment. 

This is something I was fairly ignorant of up to about five years ago, when I switched my focus to full time accompanying. One of the two choir directors I work with was quite focused on the differences between the two, and very knowledgeable about choir tuning, almost being frustrated at how Equal Temperament pianos are basically 'out-of-tune'.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

pianozach said:


> It most certainly does. As a pianist practically all my life, I am so very very very tuned into Equal Temperament. For decades I've been teaching casts of shows emphatically in ET.
> 
> Now a great deal of my accompaniment work is accompanying choirs, which, as we're all aware, tend to sing in *Just Intonation *when they are singing* a capella.* But it's amusing how quickly they'll switch to *12-tone Equal Temperament* when the piano is introduced as accompaniment.
> 
> This is something I was fairly ignorant of up to about five years ago, when I switched my focus to full time accompanying. One of the two choir directors I work with was quite focused on the differences between the two, and very knowledgeable about choir tuning, almost being frustrated at how Equal Temperament pianos are basically 'out-of-tune'.


Exactly. And though anyone here is welcome to prove me wrong, my reading suggests that equal temperament, though it was around since the early 18th century, didn't really take over from just temperament in western instrumental music until the middle of the 19th century. The main reason for the shift seems to have been the increasing dominance of the piano, originally known as the pianoforte (soft-loud in Italian) in honor of its immense dynamic range.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Reading this thread recently, we can say that cultures are different. Tunings are slightly different. 

The tunings from nature vs using the fixed ratio might have a different 'artistic', unconscious effect on young ears. I don't know and I wonder if it's been studied.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

I wanted to add, for members in here who might want to try to tune their pianos at home. My violinist friend has a very good ear (relative pitch) and he's frugal. He wanted to save money by trying to tune his piano. Afterwards, he called me and said, “Oh I’ve completely messed up my piano, could you come over and see what I’ve done?”.
I knew what he had done, he had mixed tunings unintentionally (and mistakenly). Slight errors in the set up continued on throughout all the notes. It sounded good as he was going along (musical ear), but when he got to the end - it sounded terrible terrible terrible.


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

science said:


> "For dancing" doesn't impress me very much. It means there was rhythm.


There's rhythm in like 95% of music. Rhythm is probably one of the defining features of music. Yes, dance music has a certain type of rhythm, usually a strong identifiable beat that is consistent so the dancer's can keep there time with the music, but these sort of universal features are precisely why I believe music is something of a universal language.



science said:


> Man, I have actually spent many hours listening to different musical traditions from around the world. Chinese, Japanese, South Asian, African, Islamic. I know very well what it is like to do that. You cannot persuade me that the music of foreign cultures is immediately intuitive to everyone. There may be a few basic things that people can pick up on -- like, oh, there's a beat, I guess you could dance to this -- but the profound strangeness of it does not go away for a very long time. Even after having listened to that music for a while, I could not tell you whether a particular bit of Chinese music is for a temple ritual or for an opera. I can barely tell Korean court music from Korean folk music. I suppose Korean shamanistic music is somewhat obviously "for dancing" but "dancing" is a pretty poopy description of what is going on in a spirit possession.


Okay. No one is claiming there aren't pronounced differences between different music traditions in the world. I again wish to emphasize we may be closer in our opinions here than you think. The idea that someone not intimately familiar with a culture could tell the function of every piece of music the culture has is, of course, patently ridiculous.



science said:


> Let's say something is 80%. Is that "didn't fare so well" or is it "astonishing accuracy?"
> 
> What about 65%? 90%? 40%?
> 
> ...


I feel you've misrepresented my viewpoint here. I never said that you could tell whether 80% is astonishing accuracy or not without even knowing what the 80% refers to. I've already admitted the adjective "astonishing" was unnecessary. However, I think your baseball analogy really breaks down here, and the clue that it does is in the fact that no one would refer to batter's batting percentage with the term "astonishing accuracy". We are talking about whether or not participants were able to identify some sort of truth, i.e., how they fared on a question with an objective answer. Whether or not the result was astonishing is influenced by your opinion of how well people can identify musical functions cross-culturally (in this sense, I'm somewhat surprised you aren't more astonished given that you believe so fervently in the difficulty of this feet), but I don't think the word accuracy becomes meaningless here. If people did no better than random, surely this is "inaccurate", and if they scored perfectly this is "perfect accuracy". Of course, neither of these extremes will happen in real life, and there is some grey area in the middle, but the existence of a grey area does not preclude making any accurate (pun intended) statements at all.

This is a common form of fallacious thinking. There is uncertainty, therefore we may say nothing with any degree of accuracy. It's the sort of logic that's invoked when people say something like "scientific theories change all the time, why should we believe in the ones they have now?"



science said:


> It's not that no numbers at all mean anything. It's that:
> 
> a) Any study like this has so many questionable assumptions -- like the definition of "for dancing" -- that the methodology by which the numbers were created is suspect. I note for example the very weird term "dance songs." Is Korean shamanistic ritual music "dance songs?" Is the music played when Mevlevi dervishes whirl a "dance song?" I don't even know. It's almost like asking whether a cup of coffee is a good father. I guess this is what happens when an entire generation uses computer programs that label every digital track a "song." It's an intellectual muddle that makes me suspicious of everything that follows.


I mean, "dancing songs" are those pieces of music which were written for people to dance to (I agree "song" is perhaps not the best term here). You could come up with something somewhat unclassifiable, but we can (hopefully) agree there has been music made for the explicit purpose of dancing. The fact that you think asking whether a piece of music is for dancing is like asking whether a cup of coffee is a good father, probably says more about this debate than anything preceding this statement.



science said:


> b) When the data is gathered, there is little or nothing to compare the numbers to. What can we compare them to besides our pre-existing intuitive sense of how often people would be able to recognize whether another culture's music was "for dancing?" If there's nothing but that, then the difference between "didn't fare so well" and "astonishing accuracy" is nothing but whether you're selling or buying.


This argument quickly breaks down when you realise the guy who said "didn't fare so well" was the one who thought there wasn't much of an ability to identify music cross-culturally. Again, as I have said before, I do agree that the moniker "astonishing" was perhaps not the best choice and a result of my own bias. The term "accurately", I maintain as accurate.


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

science said:


> Let's consider the category "dancing." Are these people all doing the same thing?


So if we showed these videos to people worldwide they wouldn't be able to recognise that all these people are dancing? I'm not sure what your point is. Is it that despite the astonishing variety and rich and varied cultural histories of the different peoples of the earth, it is amazing that we can all recognise each others' "dance music" as "dance music" and "dancing" as "dancing". I mean, I obviously know that's not your point, but that was my takeaway from this.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Everyone has seen Bernstein talking about the language of music? According to him it has semantics and syntax if you make allowances.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

BachIsBest said:


> So if we showed these videos to people worldwide they wouldn't be able to recognise that all these people are dancing? I'm not sure what your point is. Is it that despite the astonishing variety and rich and varied cultural histories of the different peoples of the earth, it is amazing that we can all recognise each others' "dance music" as "dance music" and "dancing" as "dancing". I mean, I obviously know that's not your point, but that was my takeaway from this.


I'm so much more impressed by the differences than the similarities in what they are doing that I doubt the word "dancing" is a very useful description of it, or that "dance music" is something all the music in those videos has in common. 

It's like "religion" and "art" and "trade." Just because someone who has these concepts can apply them across many cultures that don't have them doesn't mean it's enlightening to do so.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Luchesi said:


> Everyone has seen Bernstein talking about the language of music? According to him it has semantics and syntax if you make allowances.


Well, *Bernstein* is right, and was a very observant musician and composer. Music does have semantics and syntax and other similarities to an outright language. It also has grammar, metaphors, dialects, colloquialisms. There is order, nuance. There are building blocks on which its language is constructed.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

pianozach said:


> Well, *Bernstein* is right, and was a very observant musician and composer. Music does have semantics and syntax and other similarities to an outright language. It also has grammar, metaphors, dialects, colloquialisms. There is order, nuance. There are building blocks on which its language is constructed.


If I remember correctly, children in many culltures begin communicating with their mother and their father (quite differently) with reactive sounds that they make with their mouths. So it's very physical (oral/emotional) and this brain activity and intimate muscle coordinating is the beginning of music and language for them (as it was for us in pre-history).


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Luchesi said:


> If I remember correctly, children in many culltures begin communicating with their mother and their father (quite differently) with reactive sounds that they make with their mouths. So it's very physical (oral/emotional) and this brain activity and intimate muscle coordinating is the beginning of music and language for them (as it was for us in pre-history).


One major difference between music and spoken language in young children is that while nearly all children develop great facility in their native language by the time they are five or six, many children (ime a minority but still significant percentage) have no facility for music whatsoever and never develop it. My best friend from ages 4-12 was one such. Highly intelligent, but unable to sing a single note, and unable to tell he couldn't sing a single note. There are others who can do better, but only slightly.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

fluteman said:


> One major difference between music and spoken language in young children is that while nearly all children develop great facility in their native language by the time they are five or six, many children (ime a minority but still significant percentage) have no facility for music whatsoever and never develop it. My best friend from ages 4-12 was one such. Highly intelligent, but unable to sing a single note, and unable to tell he couldn't sing a single note. There are others who can do better, but only slightly.


It's quite a complicated subject, beyond the consideration of favorable genetics. 
Two factors I think about a lot are (1.) siblings who are 1 to 2 years older, and also (2.) impressive in-person music-making that they experience during a crucial year of their own musical development.

Bach had his older brother, Handel had older siblings(?), Mozart had his older sister, Schubert had his older brother, Chopin had his older sister, Schumann was the youngest of five, Mendelssohn had his older sister, Brahms had his older sister. Probably most others..

I assume that Haydn and Beethoven were impressed (at the right time in their young lives) by experiencing music-making close-up, as with the others coming from musical families.

The child seems to discover that his music-making will impress others (who are important in his life at that time) and he benefits in ways he hadn’t wholly expected. It is a sparkling journey of a few years (for the young brain as it organizes), but in many cases it doesn’t last, due to all the complicated, unpredictable reasons.

Today, these two factors have become much less likely to influence a child. We know the reasons why.


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

science said:


> I'm so much more impressed by the differences than the similarities in what they are doing that I doubt the word "dancing" is a very useful description of it, or that "dance music" is something all the music in those videos has in common.
> 
> It's like "religion" and "art" and "trade." Just because someone who has these concepts can apply them across many cultures that don't have them doesn't mean it's enlightening to do so.


I'm sorry, but this has just gone off the deep end. It is enlightening to identify the creation stories of the indigenous people who lived in the plains of North America as being somewhat similar in function to Norse legends. It is enlightening to look at ancient cave art and wonder about the similarities across many different geographic regions. And it is enlightening to identify that exchanging goods and services (i.e., trade) has been a ubiquitous feature of complex human society. 

In the words of Charlie Brown, good grief.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

BachIsBest said:


> I'm sorry, but this has just gone off the deep end. It is enlightening to identify the creation stories of the indigenous people who lived in the plains of North America as being somewhat similar in function to Norse legends. It is enlightening to look at ancient cave art and wonder about the similarities across many different geographic regions. And it is enlightening to identify that exchanging goods and services (i.e., trade) has been a ubiquitous feature of complex human society.
> 
> In the words of Charlie Brown, good grief.


It can also cause misunderstandings. "Somewhat similar in function" means very little and if we blink at stuff like that it tends to turns into at best wild and simply wrong extrapolations and at worst ideas that intend to justify hurting people. 

I'm all for noting similarities, but not for glibness. Baby steps only.


----------

