# All music post 1750 should be burned



## Vivaldi (Aug 26, 2012)

That's right. Works by the likes of Mozart and the other lot. You know, Beethoven, Haydn, Schubert should be burned for they are corrupted and generate. I advocate Baroque music, works by Vivaldi and Bach in particular for their music is the pedagogy from which all music is derived. The deriving process that these malevolent predecessors used produces impurity. Baroque music is apotheosis of musical development. It's structure, form and harmony are timeless and eternal while those of the Romantic and 'classical' eras are bounded by human emotion. The melodic lines forged by Vivaldi together with the contrapuntal magnificence of Bach assimilates music that only an omnipotent God could comprehend. Vivaldi's music mimics nature, perfection and cause and effect. While Bach's music echos in a timeless dimension that isn't bounded by modernity - the complete opposite to music composed after 1750. 

I dislike Mozart's music. I detest Beethoven's drivel and all of the other lot are shadows of the two greatest masters to carve their name atop the musical tree: Bach and Vivaldi. In no particular order. They cannot be compared for their contributions and efforts are independent, yet equally compelling.

I urge you to rid yourself of all music composed past 1750 and become a puritan such as myself. This is the true path to the divine - should it exist it will not welcome self centered music by the likes of Mozart and the other lot.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

I should think I disagree. Carry on ranting, though.


----------



## jani (Jun 15, 2012)

Vivaldi said:


> That's right. Works by the likes of Mozart and the other lot. You know, Beethoven, Haydn, Schubert should be burned for they are corrupted and generate. I advocate Baroque music, works by Vivaldi and Bach in particular for their music is the pedagogy from which all music is derived. The deriving process that these malevolent predecessors used produces impurity. Baroque music is apotheosis of musical development. It's structure, form and harmony are timeless and eternal while those of the Romantic and 'classical' eras are bounded by human emotion. The melodic lines forged by Vivaldi together with the contrapuntal magnificence of Bach assimilates music that only an omnipotent God could comprehend. Vivaldi's music mimics nature, perfection and cause and effect. While Bach's music echos in a timeless dimension that isn't bounded by modernity - the complete opposite to music composed after 1750.
> 
> I dislike Mozart's music. I detest Beethoven's drivel and all of the other lot are shadows of the two greatest masters to carve their name atop the musical tree: Bach and Vivaldi. In no particular order. They cannot be compared for their contributions and efforts are independent, yet equally compelling.
> 
> I urge you to rid yourself of all music composed past 1750 and become a puritan such as myself. This is the true path to the divine - should it exist it will not welcome self centered music by the likes of Mozart and the other lot.


I added something to your post which you accidentally forgot to add.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Oh, no!, they have internet in the asylum again!.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

We know Beethoven was degenerate. That's why we like him. I'm guessing your affection for Vivaldi is a direct result of being obsessed with colour-by-numbers as a child.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

And lose this great 1932 work?


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

Vivaldi said:


> Baroque music is apotheosis of musical development. It's structure, form and harmony are timeless and eternal while those of the Romantic and 'classical' eras are bounded by human emotion.


Johann Mattheson must be spinning in his grave right now.


----------



## StevenOBrien (Jun 27, 2011)

Uh... okay? You have every right to dislike and ignore music which was composed after the death of Bach, but your attempt to not only dictate what is "okay" for the rest of us to listen to, but suggest that the crux of most of the music that I LIVE for should be BURNED is probably one of the most disgusting, bigoted and ignorant things I've ever read on this site.

I sincerely hope that you're trolling. I don't want to believe that a fellow member of my species could possibly conceive of such disgusting thoughts.

There's a lot of Vivaldi which I find repetitive, bland and uninteresting. How would you feel if I suggested that his music should be BURNED purely because I have a dislike for some of it?


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

I'm afraid that if we were to burn all post 1750 music, we would have no Russian music, since they didn't start composing much until after that. So, no Glinka, Borodin, Tchaikovsky, Glazunov, Rachmaninoff, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, etc...


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

Vivaldi said:


> This is the true path to the divine


Have you tried Scriabin??


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

Vivaldi said:


> the two greatest masters to carve their name atop the musical tree: Bach and Vivaldi.


Surely nothing could be more degenerate than defacing a tree with one's name like a graffiti vandal.


----------



## CyrilWashbrook (Feb 6, 2013)

I support the OP's contention but I don't think he goes far enough. We also need to burn all music up to and including 1750.

Sincerely,

Thadius Vent.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

Vivaldi said:


> The melodic lines forged by Vivaldi together with the contrapuntal magnificence of Bach assimilates music that *only an omnipotent God could comprehend*.


If true, this would actually give us mortals reason to burn our Vivaldi and Bach (or put them up for sale and hope God has an eBay account).


----------



## SottoVoce (Jul 29, 2011)

> That's right. Works by the likes of Bach and the other lot. You know, Bach, Handel, Telemann should be burned for they are corrupted and generate. I advocate Renaissance music, works by Josquin du Prez and Giovanni Palestrina in particular for their music is the pedagogy from which all music is derived. The deriving process that these malevolent predecessors used produces impurity. Renaissance music is apotheosis of musical development. It's structure, form and harmony are timeless and eternal while those of the Baroque and 'classical' eras are bounded by human emotion. The melodic lines forged by du Prez together with the contrapuntal magnificence of Palestrina assimilates music that only an omnipotent God could comprehend. du Prez's music mimics nature, perfection and cause and effect. While Palestrina's music echos in a timeless dimension that isn't bounded by modernity - the complete opposite to music composed after 1750.
> 
> I dislike Bach's music. I detest Handel's drivel and all of the other lot are shadows of the two greatest masters to carve their name atop the musical tree: du Prez and Palestrina. In no particular order. They cannot be compared for their contributions and efforts are independent, yet equally compelling.
> 
> I urge you to rid yourself of all music composed past 1750 and become a puritan such as myself. This is the true path to the divine - should it exist it will not welcome self centered music by the likes of Bach and the other lot.


Fixed that for you.

P.S Bach composed music in the 1700s, which is well into modernity. The Baroque is known for its inclusion of dramatic sentiment oppposed to the Renaissance; it is the passions that created the Baroque. You call Beethoven 'drivel'; I call whatever incomprehensible set of words you just posted 'drivel'. The change to the classical era was 300 years ago, get over it.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

A more considered view...burn all music before Cage. No, better than that, burn all music *except* Cage. There.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

I love Baroque music. But won't go that far.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

SottoVoce said:


> Fixed that for you.
> 
> P.S Bach composed music in the 1700s, which is well into modernity. The Baroque is known for its inclusion of dramatic sentiment oppposed to the Renaissance; it is the passions that created the Baroque. You call Beethoven 'drivel'; I call whatever incomprehensible set of words you just posted 'drivel'. The change to the classical era was 300 years ago, get over it.


The Renaissance? Humanist trash. The only music that truly encapsulates the divine is Medieval polyphony. None of those triads to deal with, no secular madrigals glorifying the hedonism of the Greeks and Romans, just fourths, fifths, and octaves against a lovely cantus firmus.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> ...just fourths, fifths, and octaves against a lovely cantus firmus.


And that's EXACTLY when music began to go wrong! Playing different notes together, beginning the long slide into degeneracy. Chants, baby, chants!


----------



## Schubussy (Nov 2, 2012)

I say we burn all music. It's just not good enough.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

I think all went wrong when they began to incorporate sound and instruments to music, perverting the most sacred of concepts: the silence.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

aleazk said:


> I think all went wrong when they began to incorporate sound and instruments to music, perverting the most sacred of concepts: the silence.


Thus, as suggested above, the "great renewal" heralded by John Cage.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Shucks, if I burned all my post-1750 CDs and scores, it would increase my carbon footprint and contribute to the melting of the ice caps. No, my keeping my CD stash is actually saving the planet.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

This is a joke, of course, isn't it ? I hope so ! Years ago, there was an interesting eccentric guy who went by the name o f De Koven on his radio show at the Fordham university radio station in the Bronx 
I used to listen to his show every week from Long Island where I used to live . He was a baroque and classical era nut and to him, anything written after 1828, the year of Schubert's death, was anathema .
He coined the term "baroccoco " for the music he loved , a combination of baroque and Rococo .
Every week he would play music by Bach,Handel and Vivaldi etc, and whenever he loved a work he would describe it as "out of this world" or "super out of this world " (OTW and SOTW ).
He adored Vivaldi . Even though he often played formulaic stuff by th e lesser baroque composers , his show was always a blast just for his colorful personality and over the top comments . He died about 30 years ago .


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

Pfft. To paraphrase Beecham: I'd give you Vivaldi's entire corpus for the Ring cycle and feel that I had profited enormously by the exchange.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

There is no god. However, we may take solace that something far better than a god could ever be does exist, and that would be music ^_^

Also beauty and love. Those exist  I think those are pretty good too.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

aleazk said:


> I think all went wrong when they began to incorporate sound and instruments to music, perverting the most sacred of concepts: the silence.


But Al. There is no silence :3


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

BurningDesire said:


> But Al. There is no silence :3


.... which 4'33'' made abundantly clear.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

BurningDesire said:


> But Al. There is no silence :3


You have studied your J.Cage well.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

aleazk said:


> You have studied your J.Cage well.


He is one of my musical heroes afterall :3


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Vivaldi said:


> I urge you to rid yourself of all music composed past 1750 and become a puritan such as myself. This is the true path to the divine - should it exist it will not welcome self centered music by the likes of Mozart and the other lot.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

"Any musical innovation is full of danger to the whole state, and ought to be prohibited . . . when modes of music change, the fundamental laws of the state always change with them." - Socrates.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Weston said:


> "Any musical innovation is full of danger to the whole state, and ought to be prohibited . . . when modes of music change, the fundamental laws of the state always change with them." - Socrates.


I've been waiting for someone like you to come into my life.We'll destroy it all and then move into art and literature---Oh what fun we will have!!! Burn ,burn baby burn!!!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Weston said:


> "Any musical innovation is full of danger to the whole state, and ought to be prohibited . . . when modes of music change, the fundamental laws of the state always change with them." - Socrates.


"I care not who makes the laws of a state. Just let me write its songs." --Confucius

Soulmates, these two.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Weston said:


> "Any musical innovation is full of danger to the whole state, and ought to be prohibited . . . when modes of music change, the fundamental laws of the state always change with them." - Socrates.


Smart people are allowed to say really stupid things X3


----------



## Pyotr (Feb 26, 2013)

Ok, but all of my music is on my computer hard drive. If I burn that sector that has the post 1750(assuming the drive is not fragmented) won't that ruin the Bach and Vivaldi?


----------



## Guest (May 14, 2013)

By "burning" music (by which, I suppose, s/he means "manuscript") you would not end it.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Vivaldi- interesting post. Looks like you have sat down in a hornet’s nest here!

PS make sure you vote in the Wigs vs Avant garde poll (for Avants of course), before they lynch you.......... :devil:

You'll at least get some redemption then!!


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

Why would you want to burn all the best music.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Burroughs said:


> Why would you want to burn all the best music.


Some people resent the hell out of any and all they don't understand.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

and some people, like me like the corrupted tag. Not so sure about the generate tag would prefer degenerate ............ and also not so keen on the burning !!!


----------



## Novelette (Dec 12, 2012)

I'm devoted to my Palestrina, Byrd, Tallis, Lassus, Praetorius, Campra, Bach, Buxtehude, etc.

But I'm equally attached to my Haydn, Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Cherubini, Ries, Thalberg, Liszt, Brahms, Sibelius, Stravinsky, Saint-Saens, Mendelssohn, etc., etc. If they're going down, they'll have to take me with them!

As for praising Bach, please continue.  I hope Victoria is in there somewhere.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Vivaldi said:


> atop the musical tree: Bach and Vivaldi.


I can't Handel this statement...


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

BurningDesire said:


> Smart people are allowed to say really stupid things X3


And what they say can then be misinterpreted by certain people on the internet.


----------



## dstring (May 14, 2013)

First post on this forum,

so hello everyone! 

I actually think OP is somewhat right here, as baroque music is often referred as "eternal, timeless art form". The art of baroque music is indeed the purity and the beauty in itself without the affect of human emotions.

Still, it's clearly not the reason to forget everything after the era. The ability of abstract, constructive thinking is available only when we write footnotes and bottom notes from something someone has already done. Substance is something you add from yourself to them.

Thus, even though romantic era was full of emotions and some other era could be the whole different thing, they are as important as baroque music in this complicated but still such a small world and timeline. Richness of thoughts is the key.

-dstring

PS. Does OP also feel that all literature after Don Quixote by Cervantes should be burned?


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

It is my stern belief that people who suggest burning of music or other cultural works should be hazed, then quartered then left for wild animals to dine on!

/ptr


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

If anyone wants to burn all of music, I won't stop you! A lot of my favorite pieces--Ravel's _Water Games_, Debussy's _Reflections in the Water_ and _The Sea_--would easily survive the conflagration. And Scriabin's "Toward the Flame" would just get bigger. So bring on the fire for all I care, suckas!


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

How about this,

Burn all music except those pieces that were completed, published or first performed in the following years:

1794
1804
1894
1913
1985


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

I'll swap you 1913 for 1911? _Petrushka_ is almost as good as _Rite of Spring_, plus we also get _Der Rosenkavelier_ and _L'heure espagnole_ (which helps make up for losing _Jeux_).


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Eschbeg said:


> I'll swap you 1913 for 1911? _Petrushka_ is almost as good as _Rite of Spring_, plus we also get _Der Rosenkavelier_ and _L'heure espagnole_ (which helps make up for losing _Jeux_).


Oh Ok, very well then. Though I prefer L'enfant et les Sortileges!


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Would just like to point out to the OP that burning all music post 1750 would defeat his object. How would anyone know how divine his music is, if there's nothing to contrast it with? How would we know how music 'degenerated' (in OP's opinion) after his heroes, if we can't hear the music of the 'degenerates'.

Right, that's enough of taking OP's point seriously. Sorry, OP - I got carried away for a moment... 

PS I keep saying 'his' but of course the OP might be female - but whatever gender s/he is, s/he belongs, after that post, to 'the unfair sex'.


----------



## Unbennant (May 12, 2013)

I'm in tears from some of the responses in this thread. OP, you're a curmudgeonly genius and your post was super out of this world!

I understand what the OP is saying. There is something about the Baroque era which feels rooted deep in the human psyche. The music just feels "right," as if it couldn't have been any other way. I wasn't aware people refer to the Baroque as "timeless," but I am not surprised to hear it. Actually, I am surprised, 'cause I thought I was the only one who thought this way. Guess I need more friends who like good music.

If you take a moment to think about it, emotion does, in a way, degenerate music, in the sense that it removes it from the "eternal" steadiness of beauty (i.e. the Baroque symmetry) and infuses it with human emotion, which is fickle and impure. I say "impure" in the sense that it can be petty, vile, corrupt, jealous, malevolent, etc. The Baroque, in comparison, with its absence of such violent emotional surges, comes off as godlike.

I see the OP's point. 

I wouldn't want to live without Wagner and Schumann, though.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Unbennant said:


> If you take a moment to think about it, emotion does, in a way, degenerate music, in the sense that it removes it from the "eternal" steadiness of beauty (i.e. the Baroque symmetry) and infuses it with human emotion, which is fickle and impure. I say "impure" in the sense that it can be petty, vile, corrupt, jealous, malevolent, etc. The Baroque, in comparison, with its absence of such violent emotional surges, comes off as godlike.


...because no god has ever displayed violent emotional surges. 

Hey, I love Baroque music too, but "There is something about the Baroque era which feels rooted deep in the human psyche" is quite the generalisation given the seven billion humans currently in existence.


----------



## rrudolph (Sep 15, 2011)

dstring said:


> First post on this forum,
> 
> so hello everyone!
> 
> I actually think OP is somewhat right here, as baroque music is often referred as "eternal, timeless art form". The art of baroque music is indeed the purity and the beauty in itself without the affect of human emotions.


No emotions in baroque music?? Have you ever listened to the Cucifixus-Et Resurexit sequence in Bach's B minor Mass??

Then there's this: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/7687/doctrine-of-the-affections

Oh, and hello. Welcome to TC!!


----------



## Chrythes (Oct 13, 2011)

Unbennant said:


> I'm in tears from some of the responses in this thread. OP, you're a curmudgeonly genius and your post was super out of this world!
> 
> I understand what the OP is saying. There is something about the Baroque era which feels rooted deep in the human psyche. The music just feels "right," as if it couldn't have been any other way.


Wouldn't the opposite be true - that emotions (or essentially imperfections) are more strongly rooted in the human psyche, than the so called "godlike symmetrical perfection" of the baroque era which comes of as too idealistic and artificial?


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

I hate this thread!!


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

The OP is quite the avant gardist. I would set the cutoff point at around 1600 or so...


----------



## dstring (May 14, 2013)

rrudolph said:


> No emotions in baroque music?? Have you ever listened to the Cucifixus-Et Resurexit sequence in Bach's B minor Mass??
> 
> Then there's this: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/7687/doctrine-of-the-affections
> 
> Oh, and hello. Welcome to TC!!


Sure, baroque music is full of emotions, no doubt about it. The point is how the emotions transpire. The difference obvious.

By playing a melancholic melody from romantic era, it's underlined to be a moving tune full of probably somewhat "sad" or "sympathetic" feels. Something you can easily identify.

By playing whatever melody or cluster of harmonies from baroque era, it's underlined to be pure and genuine piece of art, which gives you spectrum of emotions to choose from, to see the world through. And yes, it's such a powerful spectrum, you can even feel you've found something divine.

Baroque music approaches the feels from inside while f.e. romantic music is full of superficial emotions.

But please, don't get me wrong, I love music from 1500 to 2013. I just thought OP has something more here than pure trolling.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Superficial emotions? It is true Baroque music is more about purity and God. But saying the raw emotions of the Romantic Era is superficial is not respectful to that Era at all. I like both Eras for different reasons. When I am burnt out on one style, I tend to go to the other as these are probably my favorite 2 Eras though quite different.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Unbennant said:


> If you take a moment to think about it, emotion does, in a way, degenerate music, in the sense that it removes it from the "eternal" steadiness of beauty (i.e. the Baroque symmetry) and infuses it with human emotion, which is fickle and impure. I say "impure" in the sense that it can be petty, vile, corrupt, jealous, malevolent, etc. The Baroque, in comparison, with its absence of such violent emotional surges, comes off as godlike.


I have taken a moment to think about it and I have concluded that there is not a lot of symmetry in Baroque music.

Further, the more perfectly symmetrical music becomes, the more predictable it must become.

Lastly, you will find many who subscribe to the view that 'emotion' is what the listener feels and not what the composer writes. The composer writes notes - long ones and short ones, loud and soft, high or low. _You _respond with as little or as much emotion depending on who _you_ are.


----------



## dstring (May 14, 2013)

I'm not a native English speaker so I'm not 100% sure about the definition of the word superficial. By using that word I try to refer to f.e. feeling when you are falling in love with someone. It's much more - superficial - to fall in love with a person than to love a person. When you are falling in love your body is full of hormones that control your emotions.

Do I get this word right?


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

Burn all the music you want, it's all saved in bits and bytes anyway.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

dstring said:


> I'm not a native English speaker so I'm not 100% sure about the definition of the word superficial. By using that word I try to refer to f.e. feeling when you are falling in love with someone. It's much more - superficial - to fall in love with a person than to love a person. When you are falling in love your body is full of hormones that control your emotions.
> 
> Do I get this word right?


Not quite. Superficial means that the emotions are only on the surface, and lack any real deeper basis. The emotions aroused when infatuated (the first stage of falling in love) are strong but do not last long, so they are ephemeral. Perhaps that's what you meant?

(I understand how hard a language English is to learn. You're doing a great job!)


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Unbennant said:


> I'm in tears from some of the responses in this thread. OP, you're a curmudgeonly genius and your post was super out of this world!
> 
> I understand what the OP is saying. There is something about the Baroque era which feels rooted deep in the human psyche. The music just feels "right," as if it couldn't have been any other way. I wasn't aware people refer to the Baroque as "timeless," but I am not surprised to hear it. Actually, I am surprised, 'cause I thought I was the only one who thought this way. Guess I need more friends who like good music.
> 
> ...


The OP doesn't believe anything and has no point at all. To talk about it seriously is where madness lies.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

neoshredder said:


> It is true Baroque music is more about purity and God.


not so sure... what kind of purity are we talking about?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

"A baroque music is that in which the harmony is confused, charged with modulations and dissonances, the melody is harsh and little natural, the intonation difficult, and the movement constrained." - Rousseau


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

This is stupid, surely you must get some pleasure from the romantic period. And why would you want to deprive others of it. Maybe you just wanted to create an argument.


----------



## Unbennant (May 12, 2013)

Nereffid said:


> ...because no god has ever displayed violent emotional surges.


I am not trying to provoke a trite theological debate on whether or not "God" is evil, though I cannot help but point out that I don't see how any "God" could have any kind of emotion. I've never seen one come down and slap someone around.

Anyway, I think most people intuitively understand the concept of God as a source of peace and will get my point.



> Wouldn't the opposite be true - that emotions (or essentially imperfections) are more strongly rooted in the human psyche, than the so called "godlike symmetrical perfection" of the baroque era which comes of as too idealistic and artificial?


Not sure if I implied emotions are not strongly rooted in the human psyche. They are. This is the reason the OP may very well find the Romantic era "degenerate," or whichever word he used.

I think some people took my words to mean Baroque is emotionless. What I mean to say (and what I am assuming the OP meant) is that in the Baroque, the emotions are "pure," in the sense that they are symmetrical, even, whole. In the later Romantic era, more base emotions come out, more violent and neurotic, like a Pandora's box.

A Freudian would probably argue the Baroque was "sexually repressed." The OP seems to be arguing it was elevated.



> The OP doesn't believe anything and has no point at all. To talk about it seriously is where madness lies.


lol Well, I don't dismiss people with whom I disagree by calling them crazy. I like to see different sides of an argument, this way I may learn something.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

I cannot see how Bach's Passions could be written 'without emotion'. Baroque composers were human, so they felt emotion & wanted to connect with their audience just as other human beings do. I am so lucky to have a teacher who is a baroque performer with a strong interest in what is authentic or not, and he spends all his time in lessons emphasising dynamics, the emotional heart of a piece and so on.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

deggial said:


> not so sure... what kind of purity are we talking about?


The kind that associates with inner peace.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

Didn't you know anti-modernism fascists love Beethoven? Get with it man.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

Unbennant said:


> I am not trying to provoke a trite theological debate on whether or not "God" is evil, though I cannot help but point out that I don't see how any "God" could have any kind of emotion. I've never seen one come down and slap someone around.


Don't they teach Greek mythology in schools anymore?


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

Vivaldi said:


> That's right. Works by the likes of Mozart and the other lot. You know, Beethoven, Haydn, Schubert should be burned for they are corrupted and generate. I advocate Baroque music, works by Vivaldi and Bach in particular for their music is the pedagogy from which all music is derived. The deriving process that these malevolent predecessors used produces impurity. Baroque music is apotheosis of musical development. It's structure, form and harmony are timeless and eternal while those of the Romantic and 'classical' eras are bounded by human emotion. The melodic lines forged by Vivaldi together with the contrapuntal magnificence of Bach assimilates music that only an omnipotent God could comprehend. Vivaldi's music mimics nature, perfection and cause and effect. While Bach's music echos in a timeless dimension that isn't bounded by modernity - the complete opposite to music composed after 1750.
> 
> I dislike Mozart's music. I detest Beethoven's drivel and all of the other lot are shadows of the two greatest masters to carve their name atop the musical tree: Bach and Vivaldi. In no particular order. They cannot be compared for their contributions and efforts are independent, yet equally compelling.
> 
> I urge you to rid yourself of all music composed past 1750 and become a puritan such as myself. This is the true path to the divine - should it exist it will not welcome self centered music by the likes of Mozart and the other lot.


While I respectfully disagree with all that you're saying, I LOVE your style - this forum needs more fire and brimstone!!


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Unbennant said:


> I am not trying to provoke a trite theological debate on whether or not "God" is evil, though I cannot help but point out that I don't see how any "God" could have any kind of emotion. I've never seen one come down and slap someone around.


Well, I don't want to belabour what was essentially an off-the-cuff smart-*** response, but you did in particular mention "jealous", which immediately reminded me of the Biblical God. Looked it up: Exodus 34:14: "For you shall worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God". Also there's quite a bit of wrath going on too.

Actually, come to think of it, doesn't the Bible also mention God loving the world? Yes, John 3:16. And as it happens, Bach set that passage in his cantata no.68. So I guess at least one Baroque composer would disagree with you about God showing emotions.



Unbennant said:


> Anyway, I think most people intuitively understand the concept of God as a source of peace and will get my point.


I do indeed get your point. Just not letting you get away with dubious generalisations! :devil:


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

dstring said:


> First post on this forum,
> 
> so hello everyone!
> 
> I actually think OP is somewhat right here, as baroque music is often *referred as "eternal, timeless art form"[/I*_._


_

The same has been said of so many kinds of music, from Gagaku to Western art music of all eras to progressive jazz or prog-rock. I demand more from a pro stance argument than that!

*"PS. Does OP also feel that all literature after Don Quixote by Cervantes should be burned?"

By all means, and all art, scientific research, medicine, philosophy, changes in religion, and discoveries as well. Next time he has a cavity, its off to the barber's in an unheated shed without electricity to get that tooth just yanked right out, and without benefit of either antiseptics or anesthetic*_

*There's no having it both ways!*


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

Vivaldi said:


> That's right. Works by the likes of Mozart and the other lot. You know, Beethoven, Haydn, Schubert should be burned for they are corrupted and generate. I advocate Baroque music, works by Vivaldi and Bach in particular for their music is the pedagogy from which all music is derived. The deriving process that these malevolent predecessors used produces impurity. Baroque music is apotheosis of musical development. It's structure, form and harmony are timeless and eternal while those of the Romantic and 'classical' eras are bounded by human emotion. The melodic lines forged by Vivaldi together with the contrapuntal magnificence of Bach assimilates music that only an omnipotent God could comprehend. Vivaldi's music mimics nature, perfection and cause and effect. While Bach's music echos in a timeless dimension that isn't bounded by modernity - the complete opposite to music composed after 1750.
> 
> I dislike Mozart's music. I detest Beethoven's drivel and all of the other lot are shadows of the two greatest masters to carve their name atop the musical tree: Bach and Vivaldi. In no particular order. They cannot be compared for their contributions and efforts are independent, yet equally compelling.
> 
> I urge you to rid yourself of all music composed past 1750 and become a puritan such as myself. This is the true path to the divine - should it exist it will not welcome self centered music by the likes of Mozart and the other lot.


You sure hate that emotional stuff. Make sure don't listen to any Chopin or Schumann. You will probably faint. Also if you really dislike emotion in music keep away from Bach and Vivaldi as well... Just a warning.


----------



## dstring (May 14, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> Not quite. Superficial means that the emotions are only on the surface, and lack any real deeper basis. The emotions aroused when infatuated (the first stage of falling in love) are strong but do not last long, so they are ephemeral. Perhaps that's what you meant?


Thank you!

Ephemeral is probably closer, nevertheless, I genuely think it's also something about deep emotions in romantic era, and now underlined, compared to baroque music.


----------



## dstring (May 14, 2013)

PetrB said:


> The same has been said of so many kinds of music, from Gagaku to Western art music of all eras to progressive jazz or prog-rock. I demand more from a pro stance argument than that!


This is something we don't wanna go in this thread right?  Let us stick to western art music tradition.

But you've got a point there. The first statement is incoherent although I tried to justify it later in the same post. Many art philosphers have elaborated the statement already - for what it's worth - with various arguments.


----------



## Unbennant (May 12, 2013)

ahammel said:


> Don't they teach Greek mythology in schools anymore?


Sigh. I am Greek. I went to school in Greece. I'm sure I'm better-versed in Greek mythology than you are, since it was not only part of my studies, but of my cultural upbringing. Can we get off the high horse now?  I will repeat:

My aim was not to begin a trite theological discussion. Most people will intuitively understand the point I was making. I was referring to God in the post-pagan sense, not in the sense of the Gods of Olympus, for crying out loud. You know what I meant, you just like to bicker.

By the way, people are taking the OP way too seriously. Lighten up.



> I do indeed get your point. Just not letting you get away with dubious generalisations! :devil:


lol Fair enough!


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*It appears to me that Vivaldi is pulling our legs.*

It appears to me that Vivaldi is pulling our legs.

He submitted the opening post. With all of the activity here has yet to respond.


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

arpeggio said:


> It appears to me that Vivaldi is pulling our legs.
> 
> He submitted the opening post. With all of the activity here has yet to respond.


I think you may be right.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Unbennant said:


> My aim was not to begin a trite theological discussion. Most people will intuitively understand the point I was making. I was referring to God in the post-pagan sense, not in the sense of the Gods of Olympus, for crying out loud. You know what I meant, you just like to bicker.





Unbennant said:


> I am not trying to provoke a trite theological debate on whether or not "God" is evil, though I cannot help but point out that I don't see how any "God" could have any kind of emotion. I've never seen one come down and slap someone around.
> 
> Anyway, I think most people intuitively understand the concept of God as a source of peace and will get my point.


Oh_ that_ God, the vengeful one who kills the first born of a population. Still, I guess it's not as bad as 'slapping someone around'. Or perhaps you were talking about a Hindu God or maybe the Buddha. Why would you assume everyone understands intuitively that one particular God is being referred to.

Not that I want to bicker about anything.


----------



## IBMchicago (May 16, 2012)

Burroughs said:


> I think you may be right.


Just when I was going to submit my own snarky comment, and now I'm too proud to participate in any discussion in which "the joke's on me." Oh well....I guess so much for my Costanza moment.


----------



## Unbennant (May 12, 2013)

Petwhac said:


> Oh_ that_ God, the vengeful one who kills the first born of a population.


Now I think you're taking the ****. You show me a "God" that descended from the heavens and personally went and killed someone's firstborn, and we'll continue this conversation.  Until then, the concept of "God" is a manmade idea. Continuing to belabour the point makes you sound as if you believe in fairytales. No "God" has ever killed anyone.



> Why would you assume everyone understands intuitively that one particular God is being referred to.


Because I assume other posters have a modicum of common sense. We are discussing the Baroque period of music, which took place in Europe, which was a monotheistic, Christian nation. I realize some people have a fetish with this word, "God," but I'm quite over that stuff. So when I made my rather casual, tongue-in-cheek post, I didn't think to put a disclaimer covering every possible interpretation. You can nitpick all you want, it's just a counterproductive waste of time.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Unbennant said:


> I am not trying to provoke a trite theological debate on whether or not "God" is evil, though I cannot help but point out that I don't see how any "God" could have any kind of emotion. I've never seen one come down and slap someone around.
> 
> Anyway, I think most people intuitively understand the concept of God as a source of peace and will get my point.
> 
> ...


If you read what I said ,it wasn't very difficult,I didn't call anyone mad.
The whole thread is ridiculous and how you can talk about seeing the other side beats me.
Are you seriously suggesting that burning all the designated music is a sensible side of an argument that you may learn something from ??
PHOOEY !!!


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

arpeggio said:


> It appears to me that Vivaldi is pulling our legs.
> 
> He submitted the opening post. With all of the activity here has yet to respond.


If that is so it means that he knew he could rely on an idiotic response---and he got it !!


----------



## Guest (May 15, 2013)

Unbennant said:


> Europe, which was a monotheistic, Christian nation.


Small point. Europe was not and is not a nation.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

ptr said:


> It is my stern belief that people who suggest burning of music or other cultural works should be hazed, then quartered then left for wild animals to dine on!
> 
> /ptr


Personally I'd rather sacrifice music and other cultural works instead of people. But people who think culture should be destroyed are wrong.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> Small point. Europe was not and is not a nation.


Anyone who isn't aware of that simple fact is unlikely to know much about music.....or God!!


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Unbennant said:


> Now I think you're taking the ****. You show me a "God" that descended from the heavens and personally went and killed someone's firstborn, and we'll continue this conversation.  Until then, the concept of "God" is a manmade idea. Continuing to belabour the point makes you sound as if you believe in fairytales. No "God" has ever killed anyone.
> 
> Because I assume other posters have a modicum of common sense. We are discussing the Baroque period of music, which took place in Europe, which was a monotheistic, Christian nation. I realize some people have a fetish with this word, "God," but I'm quite over that stuff. So when I made my rather casual, tongue-in-cheek post, I didn't think to put a disclaimer covering every possible interpretation. You can nitpick all you want, it's just a counterproductive waste of time.


Um, those Baroque composers probably believed a lot of old testament stories in which there are plenty references to a vengeful, jealous and murderous God. I don't believe in fairy tales but I'm alive in 2013 not 1750.
We were discussing _our _attitudes to Baroque music not the Baroque-ians attitude. Who brought God into the conversation anyhow?


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

MacLeod said:


> Small point. Europe was not and is not a nation.


Not yet, it isn't, but the EU is working its socks off to bring this 'ideal' ever closer...


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Kieran said:


> Not yet, it isn't, but the EU is working its socks off to bring this 'ideal' ever closer...


Idling away on large salaries (and even larger pensions and expenses) you mean.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Taggart said:


> Idling away on large salaries (and even larger pensions and expenses) you mean.


Yep. Trying to make us all into one nice happy family...


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Kieran said:


> Yep. Trying to make us all into one nice happy family...


I notice that the Irish Republic joined the Eurozone with great alacrity--now the rest of us are bailing them out.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

moody said:


> I notice that the Irish Republic joined the Eurozone with great alacrity--now the rest of us are bailing them out.


We did, unfortunately, I never voted for that myself, and I thank you for bailing us out! Hopefully when we've paid off all the exorbitant rates of interest etc, and generously saved all the failing banks, we can buy you a pint of your favourite beer to thank you...


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Kieran said:


> ... we can buy you a pint of your favourite beer to thank you...


Liffey water? :cheers: Too short


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Taggart said:


> Liffey water? :cheers: Too short


Still tastes as sweet...


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

Thank goodness!! It seems the arguing has finally stopped.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Vivaldi said:


> That's right. Works by the likes of Mozart and the other lot. You know, Beethoven, Haydn, Schubert should be burned for they are corrupted and generate. I advocate Baroque music, works by Vivaldi and Bach in particular for their music is the pedagogy from which all music is derived. The deriving process that these malevolent predecessors used produces impurity. Baroque music is apotheosis of musical development. It's structure, form and harmony are timeless and eternal while those of the Romantic and 'classical' eras are bounded by human emotion. The melodic lines forged by Vivaldi together with the contrapuntal magnificence of Bach assimilates music that only an omnipotent God could comprehend. Vivaldi's music mimics nature, perfection and cause and effect. While Bach's music echos in a timeless dimension that isn't bounded by modernity - the complete opposite to music composed after 1750.
> 
> I dislike Mozart's music. I detest Beethoven's drivel and all of the other lot are shadows of the two greatest masters to carve their name atop the musical tree: Bach and Vivaldi. In no particular order. They cannot be compared for their contributions and efforts are independent, yet equally compelling.
> 
> I urge you to rid yourself of all music composed past 1750 and become a puritan such as myself. This is the true path to the divine - should it exist it will not welcome self centered music by the likes of Mozart and the other lot.


Actually, there's a grain of truth to what Vivaldi is saying here. I realize that "burning" the music is just a figure of speech. With Bach, I can see no dispute; there's all the chromaticism and pure musical idea that one could desire, in prototype. Vivaldi....I might leave him out of it. I suppose he represents a kind of sensuality which Bach lacked; at any rate, they are both prototypes for the inevitability which followed, carried out by whatever agents were available.


----------



## Unbennant (May 12, 2013)

Petwhac said:


> Um, those Baroque composers probably believed a lot of old testament stories in which there are plenty references to a vengeful, jealous and murderous God.


Irrelevant. I was not discussing their beliefs. I was pointing out the simple idea that being close to God means being "serene" and at peace with oneself. You know that. You just like to argue 'cause you think proving others "wrong" in some imaginary tangent gives you self-validation.



> I don't believe in fairy tales but I'm alive in 2013 not 1750.
> We were discussing _our _attitudes to Baroque music not the Baroque-ians attitude. Who brought God into the conversation anyhow?


The original poster did.



> The melodic lines forged by Vivaldi together with the contrapuntal magnificence of Bach assimilates music that only an omnipotent God could comprehend.


Which led to my comment:



> If you take a moment to think about it, emotion does, in a way, degenerate music, in the sense that it removes it from the "eternal" steadiness of beauty (i.e. the Baroque symmetry) and infuses it with human emotion, which is fickle and impure. I say "impure" in the sense that it can be petty, vile, corrupt, jealous, malevolent, etc. The Baroque, in comparison, with its absence of such violent emotional surges, comes off as godlike.


I'm sure someone as intelligent and astute as you understands the simple concept of "God is peace" or that being godly means being serene; "at one" as they say. We are not discussing the various historic and disastrous interpretations of man.

Look, one could theoretically exploit any single part of anyone's words for the sake of creating a cumbersome, drawn out argument. If you haven't noticed, no one cares. We were having a playful, tongue-in-cheek row over the OP's amusing pseudo-rant until you decided to indulge in egoistic hair-splitting. Were this a more serious forum or a more serious thread regarding religion, I'd have understood your inflexibility on certain points. But here, you're just a party-pooper.

It's equally my fault, though, 'cause I'm egoistic too and must always try to get the last word. I think that in this case, it would be best to finally just let you be "right" all by yourself.

You "win."


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Where's Vivaldi????

Is he sitting back laughing- this thread has taken off seriously quickly or maybe his/ her computer has crashed or forgot the password?? all possibities..........

We could start a new thread -a bit like where's Wally!


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Where's Vivaldi????


Underneath the Vienna University of Technology, according to Wikipedia.

Oh wait, that's probably not who you meant.


----------



## Guest (May 16, 2013)

Unbennant said:


> We are not discussing the various historic and disastrous interpretations of man.


I should say that anyone discussing 'god' must be discussing the interpretations of man, since god cannot come to our attention except by man.

Interesting that we must all be careful when it comes to talking about religion, but the EU is fair game for pot shots.


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

*oh no* the arguing has started again!!


----------



## Guest (May 16, 2013)

Burroughs said:


> *oh no* the arguing has started again!!


If you don't like 'arguing', what are you doing in a discussion forum? You don't need to keep returning here and posting that you don't like the way other people post. (irony noted).


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Where's Vivaldi????


I would not be surprised if He/She/It was consumed by the flames trying to burrrrn all that post baroque music...








... Dangerous stuff that fire is!

/ptr


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Unbennant said:


> Irrelevant. I was not discussing their beliefs. I was pointing out the simple idea that being close to God means being "serene" and at peace with oneself. You know that. You just like to argue 'cause you think *proving others "wrong" *in some imaginary tangent gives you self-validation.


No, just proving *you* wrong my friend.

After all this is a discussion forum is it not?

So,

There is nothing 'simple' about the idea that being close to God means being serene. That is a concept that exists in _your_ mind.

The OP's idea is obvious complete nonsense but you were the one who said.." If you stop and think about it"..... and then went on to make all sorts of insupportable statements about symmetry and God. If you don't want to debate, why post?



Unbennant said:


> You "win."


Now _that _is the first sensible thing you've said. Hallelujah!!:lol:


----------



## LordBlackudder (Nov 13, 2010)

what about the works that cross between two periods.

do u burn half their work and not the rest.

i'm in the middle of burning here i would appreciate a quick response.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

LordBlackudder said:


> what about the works that cross between two periods.
> 
> do u burn half their work and not the rest.
> 
> i'm in the middle of burning here i would appreciate a quick response.


Burn everything above middle C using an approximation of A = 430 (half way between the two systems)!

PS Ask Baldrick to see if he has a more cunning plan.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Contemplation*

Actually I am an agnostic, dyslexic insomniac who spends his evenings contemplating the existence of Dog.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Unbennant said:


> I'm in tears from some of the responses in this thread. OP, you're a curmudgeonly genius and your post was super out of this world!
> 
> I understand what the OP is saying. There is something about the Baroque era which feels rooted deep in the human psyche. The music just feels "right," as if it couldn't have been any other way. I wasn't aware people refer to the Baroque as "timeless," but I am not surprised to hear it. Actually, I am surprised, 'cause I thought I was the only one who thought this way. Guess I need more friends who like good music.
> 
> ...


Gee, so all that is universally taught about the Baroque era of music being one of high "Pathos" must be incorrect, or a conspiracy?

It may sound emotionally neutral to you because it is so OLD compared to present. At that time, it was (and still is) some of the more "emotional" music around.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Chrythes said:


> Wouldn't the opposite be true - that emotions (or essentially imperfections) are more strongly rooted in the human psyche, than the so called "godlike symmetrical perfection" of the baroque era which comes of as too idealistic and artificial?


The Baroque era was all about asymmetry, and Ethos, i.e. emotion and emotionality. The Classical era has the distinction of formal symmetry and restraint from being overtly emotional.

Just proves that music is all in the ears of the listener, and the emotional reaction is all between the ears of each listener.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Is CPE Bach burnable?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

neoshredder said:


> Is CPE Bach burnable?


Sure... what the hey.

Best to start that particular fire using all of Medtner as kindling.


----------



## Pyotr (Feb 26, 2013)

LordBlackudder said:


> what about the works that cross between two periods.
> 
> do u burn half their work and not the rest.
> 
> i'm in the middle of burning here i would appreciate a quick response.


You have to burn all the transition era composers. It's the only way to be sure.
Sorry but look on the bright side. You get to keep all of your medieval music.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Pyotr said:


> You have to burn all the transition era composers. It's the only way to be sure.
> Sorry but look on the bright side. You get to keep all of your medieval music.


Brilliant. Brilliant.


----------



## Guest (May 17, 2013)

neoshredder said:


> Is CPE Bach burnable?


On to a CD, yes! In an incinerator, no.


----------



## StevenOBrien (Jun 27, 2011)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Where's Vivaldi????
> 
> Is he sitting back laughing- this thread has taken off seriously quickly or maybe his/ her computer has crashed or forgot the password?? all possibities..........
> 
> We could start a new thread -a bit like where's Wally!












... I have far too much time on my hands .


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

ahammel said:


> Don't they teach Greek mythology in schools anymore?


Too sensitive, too incestuous, too, uh, Pagan ;-)


----------



## Novelette (Dec 12, 2012)

PetrB said:


> The Baroque era was all about asymmetry, and Ethos, i.e. emotion and emotionality. The Classical era has the distinction of formal symmetry and restraint from being overtly emotional.


My thoughts exactly, PetrB! In my reckoning, the ascription of symmetry is more characteristic of the formalism of the Classical Era, exemplified, especially, in sonata form. Perhaps Scarlatti, whose sonatas are frequently theorized an early template for what became sonata form, is the main exception to Baroque asymmetry?

Forgive me that I did not search this thread for the poster, but someone did mention that "Baroque" was a rather pejorative term in that era, for excessive ornament, etc., and I believe that fact is apropos inasmuch as it underlines that, in its own day, even the much sainted Baroque music itself was held to be degenerate.

Monteverdi's "harmonic revolution" was held to be degenerate by more conservative types in his own day. There were those who held all music soever after Palestrina to be degenerate. Given how much music I believe to be excellent has, at one point or another, been so condemned, I cannot help but express my gratitude that none who would condemn these great works had the power to effect the erasure so desired, lest even Bach himself were lost to us!


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Burroughs said:


> *oh no* the arguing has started again!!


Well,I'm sure you can spend your time on the ridiculous thread about cats and dogs instead.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

StevenOBrien said:


> ... I have far too much time on my hands .


I know where to go for my graphics now, puts me to shame!:tiphat:


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

"All music post 1750 should be burned" -- especially anything you have written, or will ever write in your lifetime, of course?


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

One could view this as an amazing avant-garde performance piece. We can call it "Emancipation from the Past". Of course we'd have to burn all the music pre-1750 as well :3


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

BurningDesire said:


> One could view this as an amazing avant-garde performance piece. We can call it "Emancipation from the Past". Of course we'd have to burn all the music pre-1750 as well :3


Qin Shi Huang, the so-called "First Emperor" of China, decided to do just that in 213 BC. He had almost all books burned, and ownership of copies was punishable by death. In fact, he had several hundred scholars buried alive in a common pit for owning the books, and his troops stomped on the dirt use to fill the pit. Just to make sure, you understand. "Emancipation from the past" indeed.

We could start music anew if we did this, free from the dead hands of those musty masters, seeking the glory of a new humankind!

Added: An interesting quote from Chairman Mao, who was something of a Qin Shi Huang fan: "He buried 460 scholars alive; we have buried forty-six thousand scholars alive... You [intellectuals] revile us for being Qin Shi Huangs. You are wrong. We have surpassed Qin Shi Huang a hundredfold."


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Qin Shi Huang, the so-called "First Emperor" of China, decided to do just that in 213 BC. He had almost all books burned, and ownership of copies was punishable by death. In fact, he had several hundred scholars buried alive in a common pit for owning the books, and his troops stomped on the dirt use to fill the pit. Just to make sure, you understand. "Emancipation from the past" indeed.
> 
> We could start music anew if we did this, free from the dead hands of those musty masters, seeking the glory of a new humankind!


Well when you put it like that  it almost makes me statement sound plum silly!


----------

