# Allergic to light classics?



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

Well...Me I AM!!!!!!!

What are light classics for you?

Do you like them: (a) a lot, (b)enough, (c)not very much, (d)not at all, (e)you hate them.

I am an *e* type...What is YOUR type...

We can laugh here, too many serious things out there!!!!!!

E.G. Chopin polonaise, Tchaikovsky's nutcracker, Beethoven's 5th and 9th...ETC.

Tell us. nothing is forbidden. LOL

Should we redefine what light classics are?

LOL

:lol:


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Well yes lets redefine it. Is Beethoven's 5th light?


----------



## mueske (Jan 14, 2009)

Beethoven's fifth and ninth? Are you mad?


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

For me light classics are so called "pops." Also Gilbert and Sulliven, perhaps Bizet's Carmen and Strauss waltzes but these latter to a lesser extent. Also there seems to be a tradition of English light orchestral music featured on a series of Naxos albums. Anything that sounds like a comedy movie soundtrack from the 40's, 50's, and 60's I also consider light.

None of these exactly turn my stomach or anything, but I don't collect them. I do enjoy comedy in classical music. Beethoven, Haydn, and Mozart all had a great sense of humor, but that doesn't make them "light." It's very hard for me to define the difference.


----------



## Falstaft (Mar 27, 2010)

Joining the chorus of people skeptical of your choice of LvB's 5th and 9th. The 9th, in particular, is something I'd regard as a difficult work, even though it is enjoyable on a surface level. When I think light classics, I think Strauss waltzes, Dvorak _Humoreske_, _Eine Kleine Nacht Musik_, etc. I suppose I'd be in your (b) category, especially since many of these "light" classics are not necessarily bad or unsophisticated compositions, just overexposed.


----------



## Aksel (Dec 3, 2010)

That Beethoven's 5th and 9th are "light" works is a rather strange idea, so I do think you've just redefined it yourself.

But to answer your question, yes, I do like light music- So sign me up for b.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

On topic: Im a b


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

*Interesting facts about fashion...*

Beethoven in the 60's was considered the maximum, as Mozart is nowadays. Many works became very popular and (in my opinion) popular means a candidate to ke light classic. Many beautiful pieces became light classics.

Varsovia concerto






Chopin's polonaise:






Beethoven 5th (even my wife says that this is the more known music all over the world)






Martin (me) adds: very known=light classic...my own definition.

The ninth, who doesn't know this:






Gershwin: Rhapsody in blue






Ravel: Bolero






EVERYBODY KNOWS THESE THEMES!

Then...they are light classics for me, here in Montreal we have a radio just for light classics...99.9 FM They have this kind of music all they long. Great music (e.g. Beethoven) become light music because everybody knows it like the Mozart little night music:






Light classic (my definition) is not question of liking or disliking but a question about classical music becoming popular by excessive promotion...Sometimes Walt Disney contributed to that:






Dukas:






Well...

I suppose you know everyone...I suppose you like some...I suppose maybe you dislike some...

BUT BE SURE THAT THESE BECAME LIGHT CLASSICS even if some are great pieces...but this kind of music is music accessible to anybody....

I hope you will enjoy the pieces I attached here.

Synthesis:

*LIGHT MUSIC DOESN'T MEAN BAD MUSIC! * It is music became popular because its language is easy and catchy...You are not used to the word catchy for classical music, eh? Well....Music is music! And 5th and 9th symphonies by Beethoven are equivalent to Michael Jackson songs in the 90's....believe it or not! They are catchy!!!!!

Voilà my theory!

Sincerely

Martin


----------



## Aksel (Dec 3, 2010)

What? Popular classical music is light music? To say that because a composition has a tune that is easily remembered is, in my opinion, not enough to equal so-called "light" music. Pieces like Beethoven's 5th and 9th are well known, I do not dispute that, but that does not make them especially "light". Other than the opening motif, do you know anyone not very interested in classical music that know the rest of Beethoven 5? Or Beethoven 9 other than the choral section?

For me, light music is a rather recent phenomenon (I use recent rather loosely), originating in the last half of the nineteenth century with short pieces that often are humorous and less serious in tone than other classical works. I do agree that pieces such as Mozart's Eine kleine Nachtmusik and similar pieces are light music, but it didn't really evolve as a genre until a century later.

There's even a Wikipedia article on it. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_music


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

*More...*





 (newer)





 (1935






Ene the title here: A corny concerto!!!!!!!






NOTHING IS CORNY PER SE
EVERYTHING CAN BECOME CORNY BECAUSE "Trop écouté" (too listened).

First step: you are unknown
Second step: you become popular
Third step: you become too popular
Forth step: too popular, people start avoiding you
Fifth step: you become unpopular
Sixth step: you withdraw
Seventh step: you become unknown and happy again.

LOL

:lol:

Martin


----------



## Head_case (Feb 5, 2010)

and there is a complete genre known as 'British light music' too!

I find light classical music inoffensive...just as most MOR (middle of the road) music is inoffensive. Unless I'm in a particularly grumpy; curmudgeonly; miserly kind of mood - Aramis will know what I'm talking about  - then I find it hard to get offended by most kinds of 'light music'. 

Maybe romantic music should not be confused with 'light music', just as solo piano music played in lilting chords is not 'light music', any more than 'childrens' music' like Debussy's Childrens' Corner, nor 'baroque music' (the famous Air in G string which became more famous for the cigar advert comes to mind). In the British sense of light music, it was indeed connected with the end of the romantic era, and a view to pleasureable seaside (think Georges Seurat-like Sundays by Brighton pier) as well as light relief from the heavier melancholy of more desperately drunk or suicidal romantic composers. I guess they are connected in some way to the 'memento' encore of programmed pieces, however tend to be programmed with less seriousness, and more 'lightness' of compositional skill. In that respect, 'light music' operated somewhere in the new technological era of radio broadcasting as well pulling in a broader audience than classical music originally had been cast for. 'Classical film music' is another extension of this kind of lighter compositional writing - aimed to support a cinematographic visual. 

Now popular tv 'light music' like anything on MTV....t.v....adverts...all of that really riles me! Muzak reinvented for modernity


----------



## Head_case (Feb 5, 2010)

Myaskovsky - all those cartoons are fabulous! Brings back old memories


----------



## Falstaft (Mar 27, 2010)

Martin, I understand that defining terms is your own prerogative, but why would you choose the term "light" instead of "popular"? The word "light" as it's usually used when referring to culture has strong connotations of being frivolous, shallow, undemanding, casual, easily digestible, insubstantial, trivial, etc. As in classical music-"lite." This initial equivocation is why we were skeptical of your choice of LvB 5, 9 -- which may be (over)exposed but certainly not frivolous, shallow, and so on. For you, "light" is not, as you emphatically clarify, not a judgment of aesthetic worth or even complexity. So what is it?

Perhaps we could clarify or re-frame the subject of the thread. Is what you're asking whether one person or another finds "popular" classical music anathema? Particularly by virtue of "excessive" over-promotion? Or is there a more nuanced connection you'd like to tease out between lightness (as defined in its more familiar sense by, for example, by askel's wikipedia page) and popularity? If _The Nutcracker_ were discovered as an obscure unheard work by an unknown, unperformed composer, would you evaluate it differently? If _Moses und Aron_ reached the top 25 billboard hits, would you break out in a allergic rash whenever hearing it?


----------



## TWhite (Feb 23, 2010)

Martin:

If you mean by 'light' music like the vonSuppe overtures, Strauss (or Waldteufel, for that matter) Waltzes or Polkas, then no; I don't mind them at all. They serve their purpose--and yes, Strauss Waltzes in their ORIGINAL form are extremely danceable, if you've ever learned the Viennese Waltz (which is not an easy dance to do at all, LOL!). And they remind me of good Austrian pastry and champagne, which is not a BAD thing, IMO. And in the same vein, I always enjoy Offenbach, it's sweet and just a little 'giddy'. And I suppose you could mix Delibes into the mix--his ballet music has always been very enjoyable for me to listen to--especially "Sylvia", and I've accompanied his little art song "Maids of Cadiz" and both the singer and myself have had a good time with it. 

I will admit to not being a Gilbert and Sullivan fan, I don't think I could whistle a G&S tune if my life depended on it, and I can certainly survive without the miniature tone poems of Albert Ketelby--both "In a Persian Market" and "In a Monastery Garden" can send me right up the wall three measures in to either one of them. For that kind of "light Classical", I can have a much better time with Leroy Anderson. 

I certainly don't mind listening when a more 'serious' composer decides to have a fling at Classical 'Pop', though. For instance I love the Brahms' Hungarian Dances, or the Dvorak Slavonic Dances--for me they were rather serious attempts at transcribing authentic Eastern European folk-music into the concert hall--even if the Brahms' dances are more influenced by Gypsy music than authentic Hungarian folk tunes. So I don't mind at all when a 'great' composer decides to relax a bit and go 'light'. It lets me know that they're realistic enough at their profession to try and cater to a larger audience. 

Ask almost any pianist---Beethoven's "Rage Over The Lost Penny" might be Beethoven having a joke on everyone, but it's still a HANDFUL to perform well, LOL!

As to works such as Richard Addinsell's "Warsaw Concerto" and Rosza's "Spellbound Concerto", well all I can say is that they were originally written as film scores--Addinsell's for DANGEROUS MOONLIGHT and Rosza's for SPELLBOUND, so I don't really consider them 'Classical' in the broader sense--except as 'classic' film music, which for me is a whole other category. "Warsaw" is definitely too much undigested Rachmaninov, and "Spellbound" is WAY too connected to one of my favorite Hitchcock films to even be considered as 'light classical.' It's just good movie music. 

Tom


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I do understand the tendency to avoid what is popular. I know of some people in the progressive rock crowd for instance who think that if an album sells more than ten thousand copies it's rubbish.

Back in the early 1980's I became interested in Celtic music. Few people around me had even heard of such a thing at the time, and even fewer knew how to pronounce the word. There was something within the music that seemed to speak directly to my soul and even led me to wonder if there were such a thing as genetic memory. Then that genre became more popular. appearing in movie soundtracks (Last of the Mohicans) and TV specials (The Celtic Women). Though I still enjoy the music, it did lose much of its charm for me after it became more popular.

I don't know what causes this esoteric drive in some of us, but I am grateful I have it only to a small extent. I would hate to think I'd miss out on hearing Beethoven's Piano Sonata No. 14, op. 27 / 2 just because a lot of fringe-classical fans think the first movement is beautiful and call it "Moonlight." It _is_ beautiful. So what? I'm supposed to listen to Schoenberg the rest of my life now?


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

myaskovsky2002 said:


> Do you like them: (a) a lot, (b)enough, (c)not very much, (d)not at all, (e)you hate them.


I like "light" (non-profound) music, but if light classics refers to big classics, then C

I may be one of the only people on this forum that doesn't like some of the most major composers, such as Beethoven, Mozart and Bach, all at once. I'll never say I hate them, because that's not true. But I just don't care to listen to their music for _fun_. I don't like to eat my classical vegetables.  I already practice them like everyday on my flute, I don't need more!


----------



## Head_case (Feb 5, 2010)

That's a good point. 

I rarely ever listen to Bach...but since I like performing Bach on the flute!

I wonder whether professional artists who perform Bach listen to light music?


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

*i don't think I am a linguistic*


```
For me, light music is a rather recent phenomenon (I use recent rather loosely), originating in the last half of the nineteenth century with short pieces that often are humorous and less serious in tone than other classical works. I do agree that pieces such as Mozart's Eine kleine Nachtmusik and similar pieces are light music, but it didn't really evolve as a genre until a century later.

There's even a Wikipedia article on it. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_music
```
About Wikipedia's definition, please consider that Wikipedia is written like people like you and me...

But Popular or light music...I see not very well the distiction...except that you cannot say that Rossini's overture of William tell is popular (popular music is Beatles, etc)...Then I would say in terms of POPULARITY that, light classics are classical works became popular.... But classical music becoming popular cannot be called popular music!

LOL

Just a question of name, you see..

Well, I don't like easy classical music as I don't like easy popular music...and I DON'T LIKE PHILIPPE GLASS EITHER!

I don't like corny or cheezy stuff! I hate Danielle Steel!

I like Mystery as I said before....

Good night

Martin


----------



## Rasa (Apr 23, 2009)

I mostly object to their presentation: gaudy tv-orchestras, melodramatic cd-box artwork.

But a lot of the pieces that get mentioned in this thread are actually masterpieces, and I do include the Strauss walzes in that.


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

*Dear Rasa*

As I said before (like 20 times)....Every work can BECOME a light classic or POPULAR IF and only IF:

- the work is simple
- can be whistled with no effort
- it is catchy
- accessible

add whatever you want "what is the secret for a tune to become popular?"

The work could be enormous...it becomes a "tune"....so popular as Michale Jackson, not the same value, I have to agree but it becomes EVIDENT...I like this word....

EVIDENT...you don't analize this music...It is like eating every day "canard à l'orange", you get used to it and you don't want to eat it so often...You have listened to it too many times...you say "that's enough", try with our waltzes...Maybe you started with classical music a few years ago. I listened to this waltzes when I was 3 or 4!!!!!

What do you think about Christmas music...can you see a comparison with light classics? I do.

Happy new year!

Martin


----------



## Frasier (Mar 10, 2007)

myaskovsky2002 said:


> Well...Me I AM!!!!!!!
> 
> What are light classics for you?
> 
> ...


If you're talking about the genre "light music" (it was predominantly a British genre though the US and Europe got on the wagon a bit), it started out as music for radio between time checks and news bulletins when radio was "The Light Programme" and "The Home Service", before "pop music" took over in the late 1960s. Was also used in films until the mid-70s.

Yes, it's trivial but when you consider the elite pop music in Vienna 2.5 centuries ago, was it better? Frankly I'd sooner listen to a disc of assorted British light music compositions with their interesting and varied harmonies and effects than boring old Haydn and earlier Mozart with their formulaic CPP stuff.

If you're talking about light classics proper (that is, they'd be suitable for a concert containing more serious works) possibly they're just for entertainment.


----------



## Rasa (Apr 23, 2009)

> EVIDENT...you don't analize this music...It is like eating every day "canard à l'orange", you get used to it and you don't want to eat it so often...You have listened to it too many times...you say "that's enough", try with our waltzes...Maybe you started with classical music a few years ago. I listened to this waltzes when I was 3 or 4!!!!!


Very nice argument.... I obviously know nothing about classical music, therefor anything I say is invalid? Too much inference for my tastes.

Reversing the argument, I could say that you don't know how to appreciate Strauss Waltzes because you haven't taken a careful analitical listen to them, that would surely reveal their subtleties


----------



## Yoshi (Jul 15, 2009)

The 9th and 5th symphony light? Really? 
Remember that the 9th symphony doesn't equal the 'Ode to Joy' and the 5th symphony isn't just 8 notes. They are much more complex.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Yes, it's trivial but when you consider the elite pop music in Vienna 2.5 centuries ago, was it better? Frankly I'd sooner listen to a disc of assorted British light music compositions with their interesting and varied harmonies and effects than boring old Haydn and earlier Mozart with their formulaic CPP stuff.

It probably wouldn't matter what you listen to if you honestly can't tell pop music from the serious compositions of the classical era and believe Haydn and Mozart to be nothing more than formulaic compositions. The popular music of Vienna 250 years ago was not Haydn and Mozart but rather the simple folk music played in the pubs and taverns and such. Mozart was no more the popular music of the day than Fragonard were the popular arts of the time. They were only "popular" with an elite audience... mostly made up of the wealthy.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

There's a certain pretension in declaring that one only listens to "serious" music. Ultimately we listen to the music we listen to because it brings us pleasure. I cannot imagine living upon a musical diet comprised solely of _Lehar, Johann Strauss, The Nutcracker,_ Offenbach, etc... but neither could I imagine listening only to Wagner, Schoenberg, Gesualdo, and Scelsi. I don't imagine that listening to and finding pleasure in Strauss, Lehar, and Offenbach... or even Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington, and Elmore James will compromise my taste, nor do I need to reject anything lacking the complexity and profundity of Bach's St. Matthew Passion in order to impress others as one who only listens to "serious" music.

:tiphat:


----------



## Head_case (Feb 5, 2010)

> There's a certain pretension in declaring that one only listens to "serious" music. Ultimately we listen to the music we listen to because it brings us pleasure.


That's not quite correct. Only the Hedonists, in their purity of thought, conceived that engaging in a pursuit, ultimately led to pleasure, whether that be in sport; listening to music; art; or warfare, because 'we did it because we enjoyed it' - only the Hedonists really ever conceived such a narrow paradigm.

Pleasure is but one mere facet of experience; in music, it is one mere facet of experience. The Aristotelian view of catharsis ~ that is the outpouring of an intrinsically 'psyche' experience, is another. So in music, we can indeed listen to music for pleasure (as in 'light entertainment'). Equally, we can listen for the connection which it brings to the suffering soul (as in the concept of the romantic movement). There are many other modes of engagement with music.

I wonder what those who listen to 'serious' music, are supposed to be pretending to be? 

Next time I check into HMV, I may ask the beleaguered counterstaff why they have an 'easy listening' section but no 'serious listening' section 

As much as I find indifference towards the light music of commercial culture, the intense artistry of folk music is something I find very compelling - whether that be in classical music or popular folk music. This lady - a graduate from the Berkeley School of Music and virtuoso flute player makes such music:

http://www.suzanneteng.com/

She is at home playing Bach and classical standards, as well as performing ethnic world flute transcriptions, placing neither on a pedestal above one another.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

That's not quite correct. Only the Hedonists, in their purity of thought, conceived that engaging in a pursuit, ultimately led to pleasure, whether that be in sport; listening to music; art; or warfare, because 'we did it because we enjoyed it' - only the Hedonists really ever conceived such a narrow paradigm. 

Such Hedonists would include Oscar Wilde, Baudelaire, Walter Pater, Theophile Gautier, and endless others... myself included. Those who argued the cause of _art pour l'art_ recognized that it is upon aesthetic merits that a work of art is valued... and survives (or not)... and not upon external values such as theology, philosophy, sociology, etc...

Pleasure is but one mere facet of experience; in music, it is one mere facet of experience. The Aristotelian view of catharsis ~ that is the outpouring of an intrinsically 'psyche' experience, is another.

Of course Aristotle was not an artist... any more than Plato (who valued art only as a means of reinforcing other values) so we might feel free to ignore his interpretation. Or we might look at Burke's _Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful_ and find that he recognizes that your catharsis... the expression or fear and horror and other feelings beyond the merely "beautiful" are in the context of art still "pleasurable". In other words... there is an aesthetic pleasure to be found in witnessing the tragedy of the deaths in _King Lear_ (safely removed as we are), just as there is a pleasure found in the frightening experience of a roller-coaster ride.

I wonder what those who listen to 'serious' music, are supposed to be pretending to be?

Again, its fine to listen to "serious" music... but why the assumption that music that is less "serious" (entertaining, lacking in the tragic element, simple... not to say simple-minded) is inherently better... or that one should be ashamed of taking pleasure in Lehar or Offenbach or any such thing?

As much as I find indifference towards the light music of commercial culture, the intense artistry of folk music is something I find very compelling - whether that be in classical music or popular folk music.

Philip Glass suggested that the only difference between "classical music" or "art music" and popular music (whether this takes the form of classical, jazz, R&B, Folk, etc...) is that the composers in what is termed "classical music" are often inventing a new musical language, where the others are employing an existing language. Glass goes on to admit that this is in no way a value judgments, acknowledging that some of the innovations of Varese or Stockhausen or himself have been put to better use by popular musicians.

Ultimately, its comes down to the artistic merit of the music on an individual basis. On one hand we have Louis Armstrong and Miles Davis while on the other we have Kenny G. Within the realm of classical music there are surely endless mediocre or less-than-mediocre talents for each and every Bach or Mozart.


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

well...I think you are more stubborn than I am, I am also hedonist...I like more complicated music indeed...I also like non trivial litterature, non trivial movies...I consider myself as a non trivial guy...
I won't discuss anymore, you are right, you are so right! Beethoven and all that is great, Schönberg, Berg...is puah!!!!!!!

I am puah! It is ok.

I will go to sleep.

Bonne nuit!

Martin


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

Weston said:


> I do understand the tendency to avoid what is popular. I know of some people in the progressive rock crowd for instance who think that if an album sells more than ten thousand copies it's rubbish.


:lol: Yes, I think that everyone of us knows people like that. But I can't take them seriously because to them the music itself is not important. They just like to stick their noses up into the air and pretend that they know something more than the rest of us. Back in the 1980's I used to be a salesperson in a record shop and sometimes it happened that someone bought an album of some obscure band that they claimed to love. As soon as that album was a hit those guys seemed to forget what they had said about it before and it was all of a sudden rubbish while some other obscure band was so much better. I mean, really.  I have more respect for the opinion of a twelve year old schoolboy with a crush on Britney Spears because at least he's honest about what he likes and doesn't like.



> Back in the early 1980's I became interested in Celtic music. Few people around me had even heard of such a thing at the time, and even fewer knew how to pronounce the word. There was something within the music that seemed to speak directly to my soul and even led me to wonder if there were such a thing as genetic memory. Then that genre became more popular. appearing in movie soundtracks (Last of the Mohicans) and TV specials (The Celtic Women). Though I still enjoy the music, it did lose much of its charm for me after it became more popular.
> 
> I don't know what causes this esoteric drive in some of us, but I am grateful I have it only to a small extent. I would hate to think I'd miss out on hearing Beethoven's Piano Sonata No. 14, op. 27 / 2 just because a lot of fringe-classical fans think the first movement is beautiful and call it "Moonlight." It _is_ beautiful. So what? I'm supposed to listen to Schoenberg the rest of my life now?


I probably don't have many redeeming qualities, but if there is one that I DO have it's a complete lack of that esoteric drive you're talking about. I would be absolutely delighted if they sold as many copies of the moonlight sonata as of Michael Jackson's Thriller.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

I don't avoid what is popular. But though I'll listen to it I'll still judge it on my own terms. Also with classical music it tends to be something which has been popular for quite a long while and so is often not just something that is popular through just being in fashion recently.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> it is upon aesthetic merits that a work of art is valued... and survives (or not)... and not upon external values such as theology, philosophy, sociology, etc...


Because the Bible is such a pleasant read.


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

You are confusing 'light classical' music with music that is simply over-exposed. Beethoven 5 and 9 'light classical' music? I really think not. Over exposed (well, only a few bars of each if we're honest)? Yes, certainly.

Without a clearer (and less ridiculous) definition of 'light classical', I really have nothing else to contribute at this stage.


----------



## Rasa (Apr 23, 2009)

Claydermann, Einaudi, Tiersen is what I would put in the genre.


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

Rasa said:


> Claydermann, Einaudi, Tiersen is what I would put in the genre.


I would contest strongly that the music of the above people is not classical music at all - but instrumental pop.


----------



## Rasa (Apr 23, 2009)

Well, when presented to John Doe in the street, he'll say: hey it's classical and it's not as boring as I think classical is.

What i ment to imply is that most of these overexposed classics as dicussed in this thread have their merits as serious compositions, and that maybe we perceive them as light classic only because of the amount of rehash we've heard of those pieces (or fragments of them).


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

Rasa said:


> Well, when presented to John Doe in the street, he'll say: hey it's classical and it's not as boring as I think classical is.


For some, ANYTHING played on a piano is 'classical'. Doesn't mean we shouldn't put them straight, however.


----------



## Rasa (Apr 23, 2009)

Nah, leave them be. They'll slow us down.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Because the Bible is such a pleasant read.

It seems that a great many within the field of literature might actually agree. Read only as a work of literature it is commonly regarded along side Shakespeare, Homer, Goethe, Tolstoy, Dante, and a few other towering works.


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

Hmm… Apparently, if you listen to The Ride Of The Valkyries for long enough it becomes a disco tune.


----------



## Head_case (Feb 5, 2010)

> > That's not quite correct. Only the Hedonists, in their purity of thought, conceived that engaging in a pursuit, ultimately led to pleasure, whether that be in sport; listening to music; art; or warfare, because 'we did it because we enjoyed it' - only the Hedonists really ever conceived such a narrow paradigm.
> 
> 
> Such Hedonists would include Oscar Wilde, Baudelaire, Walter Pater, Theophile Gautier, and endless others... myself included. Those who argued the cause of art pour l'art recognized that it is upon aesthetic merits that a work of art is valued... and survives (or not)... and not upon external values such as theology, philosophy, sociology, etc...


Hmmm. You could possibly be correct in referencing Wilde, Gaultier, and other reverential homosexuals in the world of aesthetics - I know little about them. However the inclusion of Baudelaire seems suspect in that list.

Here's why I'm wondering if it is.

Baudelaire's construct of 'l'art pour l'art' and later reified as the 'en soi' vs 'pour soi' or things in-itself or for-itself of the phenomenological world, still hold that the very value which can be attributed to art - is a aesthetic value - not a moral value, and as such, cannot be morally judged (except incorrectly). The very value of the Baudelairean aesthetic, was indifferent to the moral values of the Hedonists (pleasure, being one of its greatest principles in whichever pursuit).

In Baudelaire's concept, it is not pleasure which is the greatest principle: pleasure is suspended, whether indifferently or purposefully - it is 'art - the drive to craft art, or in the case of the painter of everyday life - to be an artist - not to seek pleasure from it; nor to see pain from being (an artist) and parade it in public like charlatans would. In justification of this view, when it comes to Baudelaire's concept of evil, in 'les Fleurs du Mal' - evil cannot be perverted into an explanation. There is no attempt to explain 'evil'. The moral code is confounded in the very nature of what flowers and grows - and the expression of evil which finds its root in this very natural allegorical construct. Fused organically in his potent poetic style of merging the concrete earthly things [tangible flowers] , with the abstract metaphysical ones [evil]', Baudelaire's writings demonstrate l'art pour l'art' - that act of integrity, of shifting through the soil and excavating words, to dig up meaning in an organic effort - as a fundamental act of the artist - not some mere byproduct of 'artistry' in pursuit of 'pleasure'. Pleasure is the effervescence or byproduct from such an act of artistic integrity; to reverse the order of things, is indeed perverse, in that an 'artist' who pursues self-pleasure foremost rather than l'art pour l'art, holds little of that integrity which defines the Baudelaire stance.

There is no 'pleasure' which Baudelaire tells us, drives him to write as such. There is no 'evil' or 'suffering', derived an artistic pleasure (i.e. there is no Hedonistic principle here). Such an attempt at a hedonistic explanation only ever amounts to justifying Sadism, in a poor attempt to explain impulses imperfectly using a pre-Freudian model. To put crudely - an artist 'enjoys' suffering for his art: this crude distortion, has nothing to do with Baudelaire's more profound and banal expression of 'L'art pour l'art (which did not originate with him in any case).

Cast yet another way - the artistic merit of a work (and life - like Baudelaire's) , is irreducible to the explanations of the pleasure (self-seeking) principle, or of the thanatos (suffering/pain/death) principle: that is - art in the Baudelairean model, can not be explained by simplistic appeal to the senses through 'what makes you happy'. Similarly, it cannot be explained by the romantic overdrive of melancholy and yearning for expressing suffering - nor can art be explained by 'what makes you sad'.

Ultimately, the catchphrase 'art pour l'art' goes through a linguistic decay, unless it is grounded contextually. It is precisely 'Art - for the existential act of crafting art' as a justification; not 'Art for enjoyment' (as the hedonists would have it).

Whether you or anyone else chooses to ignore Aristotle or Plato, on account of not fitting into the modern concept of what an artist should be, is another matter. Reductionistic explanations like Burke's attempts, do little to penetrate the sublime or beautiful - in such instances - you would be better off reading Etienne Gilsons' "The Arts of the Beautiful", rather than subscribing to a modern reductionistic framework which has never attempted to apprehend and experience art as it is intended; merely analyse and explain it.

There is indeed aesthetic pleasure found in sad and happy things; yet to confuse aesthetic pleasure, with human sadness and grief; to confuse it further, by doing away with it altogether in a detachment of human empathy - by appealing to theoretical constructs - is not the hallmark of the artistic endeavour.


----------



## KJohnson (Dec 31, 2010)

A lot of profound music sounds "light" to the ear. So that's a matter of definition. But if some music is less deep, it does cause allergies, especially if you are forced to listen to it (Border's Books store, Shopping malls, etc.)


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

ыв высшош ысчярыф чягчыгф яыфпсмыязсшчы ччщфыфчш

Ьфрчффш


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

myaskovsky2002 said:


> ыв высшош ысчярыф чягчыгф яыфпсмыязсшчы ччщфыфчш
> 
> Ьфрчффш


Oh really! I didn't know! Yeah, me too.

By the way myaskovsky2002, I can't compete with you anymore for number of posts, you're gonna beat me soon  or I must start talking incessantly!


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Hmmm. You could possibly be correct in referencing Wilde, Gaultier, and other reverential homosexuals in the world of aesthetics - I know little about them. However the inclusion of Baudelaire seems suspect in that list.

So you dismiss the ideas of some of the greatest writers and critics... who formed the very foundation of Modernism... based upon homophobia? Theophile Gautier, by the way, was not a homosexual. Indeed, his writings often display a definite heterosexual eroticism. Wilde was bi-sexual (having been married). Pater was homosexual. Proust probably bisexual... as were Verlaine and Rimbaud. Of course Aristotle, Socrates, and Plato may all have been homosexual or bi-sexual. What this adds up to, I'm not sure is at all relevant to their work or theories.

Baudelaire's construct of 'l'art pour l'art' and later reified as the 'en soi' vs 'pour soi' or things in-itself or for-itself of the phenomenological world, still hold that the very value which can be attributed to art - is a aesthetic value - not a moral value, and as such, cannot be morally judged (except incorrectly). The very value of the Baudelairean aesthetic, was indifferent to the moral values of the Hedonists (pleasure, being one of its greatest principles in whichever pursuit).

Baudelaire's dedicated his masterwork, Les Fleurs du Mal, to Theophile Gautier:

"To the impeccable poet...
Theophile Gautier...
I dedicate these sickly flowers."

Gautier is largely credited with coining the term _art pour l'art_. The concept of art _pour l'art_ was a rejection of the use of external (non-art) values in the judgment of art. Science, it was argued, should not be judged upon moral, theological, or sociological grounds. Art, is was suggested, should be judged in the same manner. The measure of all art was aesthetics... how good or bad was it as art? This means of approaching art is commonly referred to as Formalism. Arguing that Baudelaire valued "Art" or "Aesthetics" vs Wilde's "Beauty" is simply playing with semantics. The concept is the same... the value of art is found in the pleasure it evokes as a result of its formal artistic elements... whether we call this "beauty", sublimity", "aesthetic pleasure", or "formalist aesthetics" (ala later Modernists). The idea is the same in that all assert that the value of art is to be found in its merits as art... and not in its expression of morals, theology, social issues, etc... or in "self-expression".

This construct of art goes against the social construct of art in which a work of art is valued as a result of its expression of the proper theological, religious, social, economic, political values. By the social construct of art (argued by Plato) a work of art is a failure if it conveys the wrong message in political/social.religious/economic/etc... terms. Walter Pater can be dismissed because he's gay. Goya's achievements can be challenged one day because they convey dangerous political ideas. Wagner can be demoted because he is antisemitic and Hitler liked his music.

A third construct in judging art is that of "self expression". Begining with the Romantics and carrying over through Van Gogh, the German Expressionists, the Abstract Expressionists, and into poets such as Ginsberg, Kerouac, and Sylvia Plath, the expressionist construct argues that the goal of art is "self expression". It was not "beauty" or aesthetics or Formal brilliance and innovation that mattered, but rather sincerity in expressing the artist's feelings and thoughts. The reality is that this construct often falls into self-indulgence and as Wilde suggests the worst art is often quite sincere. The poetic ramblings of a teenage girl in her diary in sincere... but usually not good art. A baby crying perfectly conveys his or her feelings... but again this is not exactly good art.

Wilde argues that "To reveal art and conceal the artist is art's aim." He continues to suggest that "There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all." Baudelaire would agree with this, producing poems of great aesthetic/formal beauty which confront "ugly" subject matter: death... even the rotting carcass on the road... or even the "ugliness" or "blandness" of modern life. Ultimately, again, the measure of the failure of such work lies in the aesthetic pleasure one may take in spite of the subject. Again, the concept of pleasure in art pour l'art/formalism is not limited to the hedonistic pleasure evoked by pretty images, pleasant themes, agreeable sensations, and cheerful ideas.

Wilde continues to state "The artist can express everything. Vice and virtue are to the artist materials for an art." In no way does this negate the external subject matter... but it argues that the subject matter does not make or break the work of art. A work of art does not become "great" simply because the artist has elected to employ a "serious" or "profound" subject or theme such as death or loss or political/social inequalities. Yet this is commonly the thinking of many younger people who assume that Mozart or Haydn are lightweight because they don't employ a lot of heavy sturm und drang bombast and heavy minor keys.


----------



## TresPicos (Mar 21, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Because the Bible is such a pleasant read.
> 
> It seems that a great many within the field of literature might actually agree. Read only as a work of literature it is commonly regarded along side Shakespeare, Homer, Goethe, Tolstoy, Dante, and a few other towering works.


I doubt that.

Commonly regarded by biased Christians, perhaps.

The Bible might be towering in importance, but as literature... not so much.


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

The King James Version is certainly highly regarded as literature!


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

> Oh really! I didn't know! Yeah, me too.
> 
> By the way myaskovsky2002, I can't compete with you anymore for number of posts, you're gonna beat me soon or I must start talking incessantly!


Buf!

I have read all the French writers you are mentionning in French (Théophile Gautier, Beudelaire, Balzac, Guy de Maupassant, Alphonse Daudet but also many Russians...(in Spanish)... Reading French guys in French is not at all the same. I love Beaudelaire poems...I loved also Le capitaine Fracasse, Mademoiselle du Maupin, le roman de la momie (T. Gautier).

Martin writes too much...maybe I have a lot to say because I am old....I am so old....

Happy new year.

Martin


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

The Bible might be towering in importance, but as literature... not so much

You don't know much about literature then, do you? The _Bible_ is commonly placed along the works of Dante, Homer, Virgil, Shakespeare, Goethe, as well as the _Shanameh_, the _Mahabharata_, the _1001 Arabian Nights_ and a scant few other works as one of the towering achievements of literature... regardless of its stature as a "sacred" text. Nearly any major university offers frequent courses upon the "Bible as Literature". The Bible continues to influence many of the greatest writers... even those who are in no way religious. Samuel Beckett proclaimed that the Bible was the only book he read. Kafka, Beckett, T.S. Eliot, J.L. Borges, Geoffrey Hill, William Faulkner, and endless other Modern/Contemporary writers have built works explicitly upon Biblical narratives and themes. Dante's _Comedia_ and Shakespeare's plays are the only two bodies of Western literature to rival the Bible in sheer volume of literary criticism and commentary (and I am speaking solely of literary commentary, not theological/religious commentaries). The notion that the Bible is not all that important as literature is as absurd as the suggestion that J.S. Bach isn't all that important to music.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

The King James Version is certainly highly regarded as literature!

The King James Bible and its predecessors in English including the John Wycliff Bible but more importantly the William Tyndale Bible along with Shakespeare... and arguably the essays of Francis Bacon are commonly seen as the most important contributions to the development of "Modern" English. The King James Bible is undoubtedly the best complete translation of the Bible into English. Early poets recognized, however, that while the King James translation was written in exquisite prose (some Jewish scholars admit that in places the King James English is better than the original Hebrew) it fell short in the poetic passages... especially the Psalms. Translations of the Psalms were made by many of the greatest English poets including Chaucer, Wyatt, Coleridge, Milton, Marvell, Christopher Smart, Sidney and his sister, the Countess of Pembroke, etc... Further excellent translations have been made by modern poets, as well as the writer/poet/scholar, Robert Alter, who has also translated other major portions of the Hebrew Bible. Stephen MItchell has made a brilliant translation (with commentaries) on the _Book of Job_, while Chana and Ariel Bloch have brilliantly translated the _Song of Songs_ (or Song of Solomon) with commentaries by both Robert Alter and Stephen Mitchell. Harold Bloom, one of the leading English language critics has written extensively upon the Bible and the King James translation, especially in his book, _The Book of J_.


----------



## TresPicos (Mar 21, 2009)

On topic:

I'm allergic to over-played music, but maybe that music doesn't become over-played until I get allergic... Both Eine Kleine Nachtmusik and Beethoven's 5th symphony could be considered over-played, but I'm only allergic to EKN. Maybe because it's more over-played, or maybe because it's more trivial. Beethoven's 5th might have a trivial and over-played beginning, but the rest of it is still pretty fresh.

Maybe allergic is not the best term either. In the case of EKN, I feel more "immune". EKN does not cause an allergic reaction. It causes no reaction whatsoever. The brain just treats it as background noise, like the sound from my computer fan.

Off topic:



StlukesguildOhio said:


> The Bible might be towering in importance, but as literature... not so much
> 
> You don't know much about literature then, do you? The _Bible_ is commonly placed along the works of Dante, Homer, Virgil, Shakespeare, Goethe, as well as the _Shanameh_, the _Mahabharata_, the _1001 Arabian Nights_ and a scant few other works as one of the towering achievements of literature... regardless of its stature as a "sacred" text. Nearly any major university offers frequent courses upon the "Bible as Literature". The Bible continues to influence many of the greatest writers... even those who are in no way religious. Samuel Beckett proclaimed that the Bible was the only book he read. Kafka, Beckett, T.S. Eliot, J.L. Borges, Geoffrey Hill, William Faulkner, and endless other Modern/Contemporary writers have built works explicitly upon Biblical narratives and themes. Dante's _Comedia_ and Shakespeare's plays are the only two bodies of Western literature to rival the Bible in sheer volume of literary criticism and commentary (and I am speaking solely of literary commentary, not theological/religious commentaries). The notion that the Bible is not all that important as literature is as absurd as the suggestion that J.S. Bach isn't all that important to music.


Maybe I didn't express myself clearly enough. I agree that the Bible is towering in importance, since it has affected so many areas of Western civilization and culture. And literature is, of course, one of those areas. So, as a work of literature, the Bible is extremely important. But that doesn't automatically mean that the Bible is good, well-written literature in itself. And many of those who do think it is good literature are probably biased by its overall importance and by their own Christian faith.


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

But why would someone's Christian faith make them biased to a _particular translation_ of the Bible?


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

*I don't want to*

I don't want to speak about religion here.

Politics and religion somewhere else, please! The bible is wonderful so is each religious book...Personally I am here in order to speak about music, not about religion.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH
MERCI BEAUCOUP
GRAZIE TANTE
DANKE SCHÖN
KITOSS
БОЛШОЕ СПАСИБО
GRACIAS
ARIGATO
TAK

:tiphat:

Martin


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Maybe I didn't express myself clearly enough. I agree that the Bible is towering in importance, since it has affected so many areas of Western civilization and culture. And literature is, of course, one of those areas. So, as a work of literature, the Bible is extremely important. But that doesn't automatically mean that the Bible is good, well-written literature in itself. And many of those who do think it is good literature are probably biased by its overall importance and by their own Christian faith.

How is it being biased that nearly every major University offers courses on the Bible as literature... as literature as separate from the Bible as theology (which is also offered by most major universities)? How is it biased that Harold Bloom, one of the leading literary critics writing in English would devote so much time to discussions of the Bible as literature is spite of being an admitted secular atheist Jew? How is it that Samuel Beckett, in spite of his secular, existential (and quite likely atheist) views could claim that the Bible was the only book he read?

The Bible is a difficult and unique work for the simple reason that it is not a single book written by a single author, but rather it is a compendium of writings by different writers... some of which are fragmentary, and some of which have been marred by the interpolation of later material added by Hebrew scholars and editors. Reading the Bible as literature usually demands the aid of various commentaries and criticism. First one will do well to be acquainted with the documentary hypothesis also called the Wellhausen hypothesis which breaks the Pentateuch (or Five Books of Moses) into 5 major distinct authors. The best guides to the Hebrew Bible would include the poet/scholar Robert Alter's _Five Books of Moses, The Book of Psalms, The David Story, and The Wisdom Books_. Richard Elliott Friedman's The Hidden Book in the Bible reconstructs a single grand narrative beginning the _Genisis/Exodus_ narratives commonly ascribed to the so-called J-author and combining them with the Saul/David/Solomon narrative commonly ascribed to the so-called S-writer or Court Historian. These commentaries help to filter out later additions made by theologians and priests who the intention of turning the early Biblical narratives into a sacred text through the addition of Hebrew laws, lists of who begat whom, and through attempts to edit aspects of the narratives found unfavorable theologically.

Most of the other books of the Bible (_Psalms, Job, The Song of Solomon, Jonah, Isaiah, and the whole of the New Testament_) did not undergo such radical editing and as a result these books can usually be read in a straight linear manner.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I don't want to speak about religion here.

Whose talking religion... I'm discussing literature... and if you aren't interested you need not participate. How hard is that?


----------



## TresPicos (Mar 21, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> ...


I won't continue this discussion here.

Sorry, myaskovsky, for polluting your thread.


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

*anonymous litterature*


```
The Bible is a difficult and unique work for the simple reason that it is not a single book written by a single author, but rather it is a compendium of writings by different writers... some of which are fragmentary, and some of which have been marred by the interpolation of later material added by Hebrew scholars and editors. Reading the
```
I'm sorry I am so ignorant that I thought you were speaking about religion...The Bible is the kind of litterature people used to follow as a religion (you can't deny that)....Speak rather about Carmen (Propère Mérimée)...or War and peace (Tolstoi) a Novella and a large novel....Just stories without "followers" ....This is JUST litterature, the bible is not JUST litterature...it speaks about "a-way-of-living". Am I wrong? I am bored by the way.

If you want to speak about all that stuff, *create another threat*...you'll have many followers or faithful...other than just readers....Are you a Jehova member?

Please just music,

Thanks

Martin


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I'm sorry I am so ignorant that I thought you were speaking about religion...The Bible is the kind of litterature people used to follow as a religion (you can't deny that)....Speak rather about Carmen (Propère Mérimée)...or War and peace (Tolstoi) a Novella and a large novel....Just stories without "followers" ....This is JUST litterature, the bible is not JUST litterature...it speaks about "a-way-of-living". Am I wrong?

And were not Plato's _Republic_, Lao-tse's _Tao te ching_, Seneca's essays, Thomas More's _Utopia,_ Francis Bacon's essays, Rousseau's _Confessions_, Emerson's essays, Neruda's _Canto Genera_l, and endless other literary works created with intentions that went beyond the merely literary? Or perhaps you imagine that Bach had no religious/spiritual intentions in his music or that Shostakovitch and Prokofiev did not ever display nationalism intentions in their music... that it was all pure art? This does not prevent us from judging the work of art purely upon artistic merits.

I am bored by the way.

So why continue the discussion?

If you want to speak about all that stuff, create another threat...you'll have many followers or faithful...other than just readers....Are you a Jehova member?

What makes you think that my goal is proselytizing for the church? Again, I only replied to a rather ignorant comment about the Bible's merit as literature. My own religious beliefs (probably best described as agnostic) have nothing to do with the debate. The fact that I am a long-term bibliophile with more than a little background in the field of literature does, and I would have probably replied the same had someone declared that Dante or Shakespeare were minor writers.

But certainly... let's return to the original question, for the Bible is not a light classic in terms of literature or music.


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

> But certainly... let's return to the original question, for the Bible is not a light classic in terms of literature or music


.

I'd never dare to say that! My son is a Philosophy teacher and asked for Christmas complete Plato...I don't like that for me but he loves Plato. I like very much Théophile Gautier or Boris Vian or Pushin or Philippa Gregory or Sidney Sheldon...or harry Potter....etc...LOL

But *now* I'm speaking about music, I think this is not a literature group....but a music group.


----------

