# wittiness and provocation



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

It's easy to observe in discussions of lots of things -- including classical music -- that people enjoy making witty, provocative statements.

What I want to know is, why?

And to what extent do we construct -- whether that construction is conscious or semi-conscious or completely unconscious -- our tastes intending to enable ourselves to make such statements?

(Perhaps none of us are eager to admit that we've "constructed" our tastes in any way, but maybe you can make sense of the idea anyway. To take the global case, if I perceive that someone who I admire likes classical music, that could nudge me toward liking it myself. That is, I could -- consciously or semi-consciously or even completely unconsciously -- fashion my tastes so as to make myself more like that admirable person. If the idea that you yourself have done anything like this makes you too uncomfortable, perhaps you can at least concede that _some people out there in the world_ have done things like this: they've managed, for example, to like the music that the cool kids like.) 

To save us from excessive abstraction, let's take one completely hypothetical example. Let's say we were to overhear a stranger in a coffee shop telling someone, "Bach could compose circles around Haydn even with half his counterpoint tied behind his back."

The question I'm curious about is not whether the comment is true. For the purposes of this thread, it doesn't matter whether the comment is true. What matters is that the person who makes the comment intends it to be witty and provocative.

This thread is asking what the appeal of comments like that are to the person who makes them, and whether that appeal is actually so strong that at least some people will fashion their tastes in such a way as to enable themselves to say such things.

Edit: Actually, I want to ask one more set of questions: Do you believe that witty, provocative comments like that are valuable? If so, are they more valuable than humility? And are they so valuable that we ought to aim to have the kinds of tastes that enable such comments? Would aiming simply to understand what other people like or dislike about something (like classical music) be admirably humble or would it be cowardly?


----------



## Flamme (Dec 30, 2012)

I never in a million years would think that ppl can get so passionate and salty about CLASSICAL music b4 I joined this 4um...I think its actually quite a good thing...I learn so much from discussions.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

I have no problem with witty remarks like that - and if I think they're ridiculous, I can easily shrug and move on.

For some reason, I have much more problems with members who think (and state) that their opinions are absolute truths. I have a handful of them on ignore, but of course other members quote them so I still see that bovine excrement.


----------



## Ekim the Insubordinate (May 24, 2015)

That's a good question. For example, why would someone choose to tell someone they are the "moral equivalent of a murderer?"

I'm curious of the answer.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba (Oct 15, 2018)

This thread is not about music . Or will it be instructional in how to make writing about
music graceful and lyrical ?


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Wit and provocation have many different sources. I tend to give smart aleck answers to badly phrased questions, or ones that I personally consider not worth asking. But often append a smiley face because I never intend to offend -- I'm not that kind of person --but do have that kind of sense of humor. When I make a provocative statement -- like "There's more genius in Boris Godunov than in all of Wagner put together" or "The Eroica may be the greatest symphony ever written" -- I'm obviously expressing a taste preference more than any objective truth, which is both unproveable and flies in the face of the opinions of many respectable people. There is the underlying truth of my own listening preference, plus a puckish attempt to get a rise out of people, but in a fun and not-meant-be-combative way. Others' motives may differ.


----------



## BlackAdderLXX (Apr 18, 2020)

Flamme said:


> I never in a million years would think that ppl can get so passionate and salty about CLASSICAL music b4 I joined this 4um...I think its actually quite a good thing...I learn so much from discussions.


Oh man, this.

I don't particularly mind the comments. Sometimes they're embedded in a series of informative posts. Many times they are informative as to the nature of the individual making the comments. I recognize that everyone, including myself is influenced by the opinions of others. That said, I try to identify those who use manipulative and definitive statements and hold their opinions for further scrutiny before I will consider what they're saying to have merit. Stating emphatically what you like or don't like is one thing, but [composer/performer] is objectively [better/worse] than [composer/performer] statements don't particularly interest me.

EDIT: when people are obviously just screwing around though, I love it.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I think people tend to defend their taste and make certain judgments and comparisons. Like this one guy who thought Beethoven was below Henze, Carter, and Patterson. Those that hate Beethoven tend to quote this one part of Bernstein's lecture, which I see more of an illustration than literal assessment. Then in the theory section, there is one that likes to skate around on thin ice, and look for rabbits in hats.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I am not sure that I constructed my taste. I think it has been with me since I was in my early teens. Of course, the composers and music I have discovered since then came later but I think the taste that informed my liking or not of a piece or a performance is the same taste that I found in myself when I was so young and inexperienced.

As for provocative comments, I have no problem with them - if aimed at me they can be a spur to a good debate - and I greatly enjoy the funny ones. Of course, I strongly dislike the personal and I can't imagine what makes some feel it is OK to launch a personal attack on another poster. His/her ideas and taste - that's OK - but not her/his nature, please!

There are certain types of post and certain types of taste that have me itching to respond with provocation. Sometimes I resist the itch. One thing that gets me is when someone states that x or y is the best when the evidence is that they do not know enough of the alternatives to make that judgment. But at the same time I know the feeling - you hear something wonderful and feel it must be the best - and it is often the case that "the one I am listening to at the moment is the one I love best".

On the subject of believing my views and taste are true and anyone who disagrees with me must be wrong (something Art Rock dislikes - see #3), I do try to use words like "favourite" rather than "the best" but probably do not always succeed. My taste has been with me for so long (and came to me as discovery rather than construction, I believe) that I do find it hard to think of it as wrong! It can be wrongly applied but that's a different matter. Taste for me is not so much about what I like and what I don't like. It is much more about _relative _value. So, for example, it seems self-evident to me that Beethoven's symphonies are much greater than Mendelssohn's - even though I know that not everyone agrees with me! This is not to say that I don't like Mendelssohn so much (although I mostly don't) as to say "let's be clear about how his achievement measures up to Beethoven's.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Wit and provokation are often a sign of impatience with incompatible views, sometimes more warranted, sometimes less, which of course depends on whether I am the one writing them 

The construction part is something I have no experience with, so I can't comment on that.

The one thing that I am more sure of than of anything else is that where two people argue, at least one is wrong.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

science said:


> The question I'm curious about is not whether the comment is true. For the purposes of this thread, it doesn't matter whether the comment is true. What matters is that the person who makes the comment intends it to be witty and provocative.


My reaction to a provocative comment is likely to be partly based not on whether the comment is true but on whether there's some sort of truth in there.
Just to take MarkW's comment:


MarkW said:


> When I make a provocative statement -- like "There's more genius in Boris Godunov than in all of Wagner put together" or "The Eroica may be the greatest symphony ever written" -- I'm obviously expressing a taste preference more than any objective truth, which is both unproveable and flies in the face of the opinions of many respectable people.


To me, the statement about the Eroica doesn't seem provocative, simply because I know that a lot of people do see it as one of the greatest symphonies ever written. Whereas the comment about Boris Godunov - well, that would depend on context. Is the speaker simply looking for an excuse to dismiss a composer they dislike? I'm not interested. Are they in the process of making an argument that there's a lot more in Boris Godunov than Mussorgsky is given credit for? Well, if there's an actual case being put forward, then yes, it's still provocative but at least it's provoking thought rather than outrage.



science said:


> And to what extent do we construct -- whether that construction is conscious or semi-conscious or completely unconscious -- our tastes intending to enable ourselves to make such statements?


I would note that since I started visiting TC, I've consciously constructed _what I think about my taste_ partly as a reaction to the pompous opinionators. Every dogmatic statement of opinion as if it were objective fact just makes me even less concerned that my tastes aren't what they "should" be.


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

"Better be a witty fool than a foolish wit." ~ Bill Shakey*


Punnery and wit are the chromatic spice notes in a sea of diatonic conversation. (In keeping with a musical idea in this thread.) Removing them could be a slippery slope. What would be next? Thirds and sixths? Shall we return to Ars Nova conversation? 



*Oops, sorry, I think I violated the thread's Prime Directive.


----------



## BlackAdderLXX (Apr 18, 2020)

Fabulin said:


> Wit and provokation are often a sign of impatience with incompatible views, sometimes more warranted, sometimes less, *which of course depends on whether I am the one writing them*


Yes, this is key.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

Phil loves classical said:


> I think people tend to defend their taste and make certain judgments and comparisons. Like this one guy who thought Beethoven was below Henze, Carter, and Patterson.* Those that hate Beethoven tend to quote this one part of Bernstein's lecture*, which I see more of an illustration than literal assessment. Then in the theory section, there is one that likes to skate around on thin ice, and look for rabbits in hats.


Bernstein was actually praising Beethoven in the highest way possible.


----------



## apricissimus (May 15, 2013)

When I see a new-ish thread that has made it to 30 or more pages, I just know that it has devolved into a flame war of some type.

It doesn't matter what the subject matter is. All Internet forums display this kind of behavior. It has something to do with the impersonal nature of the interaction (talking through screens, with relative anonymity). These "witty" and provacative statements that the OP is talking about are often the spark that ignites the kindling. I think it's wiser to be a bit more prudent in what one says online. Learned from experience (on other forums, not this one). I've wasted too many hours in pointless arguments that only served to make me upset over some trifle.


----------



## Ekim the Insubordinate (May 24, 2015)

I think some people just like to be provocative because they enjoy trolling, and their wittiness is mostly in their own heads. Nobody is really as witty as they imagine themselves to be.


----------



## Flamme (Dec 30, 2012)

Its always a ''conservatices vs liberals'' battle...Even if some ''conservatives'' are in political sense liberals and vice versa...


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

When it comes to the entirely subjective subject of music and art--what to like, "why" to like it; where _de gustibus non est disputandum_ reigns, then I try to (only) celebrate with others our shared tastes, loves, enthusiasms. People will need to do a massive search of TC past posts to find examples of me knocking others' choices in music. Others certainly are free to praise or to deride at will, but they then would be wise to consider how their remarks are being received and interpreted. Politics, etc. are entirely different fields in their real consequences as policies on real people.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

People engage in the kind of conversational style you're describing because it's a lot more enjoyable than uninterrupted plodding earnestness, I think.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

isorhythm said:


> People engage in the kind of conversational style you're describing because it's a lot more enjoyable than uninterrupted plodding earnestness, I think.


Yes. It's understandable that we want to be witty and dazzling. We admire people who are, and we desire to be what we admire.

I wonder if we let that desire affect our tastes in music. I suspect we do.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

science said:


> Yes. It's understandable that we want to be witty and dazzling. We admire people who are, and we desire to be what we admire.
> 
> I wonder if we let that desire affect our tastes in music. I suspect we do.


If it does, I suspect it pushes us toward contrarian tastes and opinions rather than widely accepted ones, since they get more attention.

I also suspect the effect is more about playing up contrarian tastes, rather than creating them. I personally don't enjoy most of Schumann's music so I guess I could make a whole thing of saying Schumann was a terrible composer, couldn't hold a candle to Bellini, etc. I don't actually believe this.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

science said:


> Yes. It's understandable that we want to be witty and dazzling. We admire people who are, and we desire to be what we admire.
> 
> *I wonder if we let that desire affect our tastes in music*. I suspect we do.


Sounds like some sort of opiate brainwashing and indoctrination.


----------



## Ekim the Insubordinate (May 24, 2015)

I think the anonymity of the internet also drives people to be more bold than they would be in person. In person, they may still try to be witty (more than likely failing, but it comes across better in person) with less provocation. On here, since there is little consequence to being provocative, lambs become lions.


----------



## Dima (Oct 3, 2016)

I "like much" when I talk about unknown composition or composer, people interrupt me and expertly say: "What the hell you are talking, don't you know there are better compositions/composers?"


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

I think meta discussions like this are good to have. It helps establish the culture of a forum, and can serve to bring people together.

I'm still pretty new here, although I lurked for months before registering and posting. I've been active, but the truth is I'm still getting my bearings. How much snark is acceptable, which posters act like knobheads, etc.

There are a couple things worth remembering if we wish to maximize the productivity of discussion, in my opinion. Disclaimer: I do not claim to be perfect at any of this, but I try.

First, tone in text only on a forum is very hard to discern accurately. I recently allowed myself to be mildly provoked by someone meant to be joking that to me came across as mocking. All is well in that case; I think we worked it out. But that leads me to the next point.

Second, we should try to give each other the benefit of the doubt. One of the worst things to do, in terms of encouraging productive discussion, is to presume ignorance on the part of someone who disagrees with you. "Oh, well, you know, Karajan is fine, I guess, but only because you've never heard Pispott Q. Jakhasz with the Podunkton Symphony Radio Philharmonic in a 1947 semaphore broadcast, only released in Japan in a limited pressing on reel-to-reel, never released on CD. Believe me, that performance makes Karajan sound like moldy sodden rubbish!" Those kinds of comments are never useful, except in jest.

Third, we should try to really "listen" to what others write. It's said that truly listening means being willing to be changed by the other person. The doesn't necessarily mean one _will_ be changed, or even necessarily should be, just that they're willing to be. Digging in one's heels and refusing to listen to or consider an alternative point of view, and simply repeating the original comment over and over, without consideration of what else was said, inevitably drags a discussion into the mud.

Fourth, we should always remember _de gustibus non est disputandum_. Concerning taste there is no dispute. No one's opinion about music is ever an objective truth, widely held or not, justified or not. Furtwängler is not objectively the greatest conductor who ever lived.

Anyway, my two bits. If there is anyone here I have not yet offended, I humbly apologize.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

How about witty and provocative music?


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

Ethereality said:


> How about witty and provocative music?


Now we're talking. My suggestion: Prokofiev's _Lt. Kijé_.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Hey! This sounds like one of my threads! :lol:


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

A related question; do people that have a person as their avatar look like said person? A reason someone would want to be provocative or witty would be to try to emulate someone else.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Dima said:


> I "like much" when I talk about unknown composition or composer, people interrupt me and expertly say: "What the hell you are talking, don't you know there are better compositions/composers?"


Yeah, but in these threads of "greatest composition/composer of all time EVAH!" and you get answers like Stockhausen or Takemitsu or Scriabin it's pretty safe to say that it indicates either provocation or a fairly narrow frame of reference. Of course such threads are pointless anyway. We all know it's Bach. :lol:


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

isorhythm said:


> If it does, I suspect it pushes us toward contrarian tastes and opinions rather than widely accepted ones, since they get more attention.
> 
> I also suspect the effect is more about playing up contrarian tastes, rather than creating them. I personally don't enjoy most of Schumann's music so I guess I could make a whole thing of saying Schumann was a terrible composer, couldn't hold a candle to Bellini, etc. I don't actually believe this.


Yes, I think this is the thing, and I think it's common.

We all want to have an identity, to be unique in some way, so we -- perhaps not fully consciously -- look for ways to distinguish our own tastes and opinions from what we perceive as "widely accepted" tastes and opinions.

In other words, the widely expected thing to do is to try to defy the widely accepted tastes and opinions.

I wonder about the viruses of a meta-contrarian position: defying the expectation that I will create my own dashingly unique tastes and opinions, I will seek to align my tastes and opinions as closely as possible to those already widely accepted.

How about that? Is that too anti-social to work?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Knorf said:


> If there is anyone here I have not yet offended, I humbly apologize.


I see what you did there....


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

I've been around here since 2010 (my 10th year anniversary this December!) Allow me to share an observation:

All threads on Talk Classical, given enough time, devolve into either a political spat, how John Cage et al. is not a real composer, or how Wagner is responsible for the holocaust, with varying amounts of provocation and wittiness along the course of getting there.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Couchie said:


> ...how Wagner is responsible for the holocaust, ...


More recently I think it was Bach's St. Matthew Passion that bore that blame. Well, actually it was St. Matthew via Bach, or was it Bach via St. Matthew...


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

Funny how most participants in this thread talk about the subject in the third person, as if it doesn't concern them.

I admit readily, I am an offender, as I got punished by the TC 'court' (in brackets, as this 'court' rules without hearing or even notifying the accused party, pretty scary). 

First of all, I am not much different in real life than I am here. So, I don't think I am compensating. But hey, I cannot be my own judge. 

I think that this forum is still pretty decent for an anonymous internet forum. Of course, there is only a relatively small group of members actively engaging on the 'battlefield of open threads'. Most are watching from the side, but obviously following what is going on pretty closely. 

My view is that there are quite some established residents here. But new members keep coming in that disturb the hierarchy, as they don't know the style of discussion or just bring their own style with them. This of course is ongoing, as TC is an open society, not a gated community. There is a continuous movement going on and the social balance is adjusted all the time. The majority here is not in their teens and continuous change is not always easy to deal with. When age comes with an amount of self-righteousness, culture clashes are to be expected. 

90% of what we discuss over here, is just taste and personal opinions. And there is this funny TC rule that you can't become personal. But when strong personal opinions are being contested, it is often taken very personal. Quite some fanboys around here. This is where things are going wrong. When it is OK to be personally insulted and to be silently reported and punished for your counteraction, without a chance to explain, there is something seriously wrong. 

I generally like it here very much, my CM taste is being refined. Thanks to TC, I am now the proud owner of a serious Pettersson and Henze CD collection. And I self-studied about Wagner's influence on current political views  

I sometimes think how it would be to have these chats here in the foyer of a concert hall, with all of us in person. Would it be different? I think so. In the meantime, TC is our little hideaway, where we can endlessly discuss our great joined pastime, which we cannot do at home, as our families would likely throw us out after a week.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba (Oct 15, 2018)

NLAdriaan said:


> I sometimes think how it would be to have these chats here in the foyer of a concert hall, with all of us in person. Would it be different? I think so.


I've attended such a forum gathering . It's too weird , some people are shocked with reality . So I just sat down easy , played a flute song for them and then quietly left . Music is quite enough of reality .


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

I'd rather have a contentious forum than one full of passive-aggressives operating under an enforced "let's all be super sugary nice" mindset. If you see what you feel in your gut to be ******, as in the situation I mentioned above, it's OK to call it out AND you can be civil in doing so. Ad hominem always just means "I got nothin'."


----------



## Flamme (Dec 30, 2012)

Couchie said:


> I've been around here since 2010 (my 10th year anniversary this December!) Allow me to share an observation:
> 
> All threads on Talk Classical, given enough time, devolve into either a political spat, how John Cage et al. is not a real composer, or how Wagner is responsible for the holocaust, with varying amounts of provocation and wittiness along the course of getting there.


Couchie is a 4um legend and an unofficial chronicler of of this 4um...:trp:


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Since I am neither a provocateur of wit nor a witty provocateur, I remain silent on this matter of "wittiness and provocation." 

I will, however, if I can provoke such wit, respond with wisdom and authority such as I can muster to the following: "Bach could compose circles around Haydn even with half his counterpoint tied behind his back."

I seek a single clarification first, though.... Please, tell me, whose counterpoint is being restrained behind whose back here: Bach's or Haydn's? I do wrestle so with squinting modifiers such as that sentence's "his".


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

NLAdriaan said:


> I sometimes think how it would be to have these chats here in the foyer of a concert hall, with all of us in person. Would it be different? I think so. In the meantime, TC is our little hideaway, where we can endlessly discuss our great joined pastime, which we cannot do at home, as our families would likely throw us out after a week.


I won't respond very much to your other complaint, because I haven't witnessed anyone getting "punished," but this is a private message board with volunteer moderators. There is zero presumption of due process beyond the fair mindedness or lack thereof of the moderators. That this board is remarkably civil and friendly, but very freely outspoken, with the mods seemingly unnoticed or behind the scenes, suggests to me that they're very good.

Having said that, the censoring of "foul" language seems absurd to me.

Would the conversation be different in a foyer of a concert hall? Probably. And it would be different yet in a pub. Actually, I'd love to get together with the lot of you in a pub for some friendly and passionate discussion and debates about Classical music! Does this board ever organize such things?

But, yes, this is an enclave, and a pretty wonderful one. A bit dangerous to my bank account, though.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Couchie said:


> I've been around here since 2010 (my 10th year anniversary this December!) Allow me to share an observation:
> 
> All threads on Talk Classical, given enough time, devolve into either a political spat, how John Cage et al. is not a real composer, or how Wagner is responsible for the holocaust, with varying amounts of provocation and wittiness along the course of getting there.





Flamme said:


> Couchie is a 4um legend and an unofficial chronicler of of this 4um...:trp:


Okay, Flamme …. But, couldn't you have said this same thing about Couchie _and_ bring in something about how, say, John Cage is not a real composer or how Wagner is responsible for the holocaust. Wouldn't that have been so much more … pertinent? You know, in other words, provocational and witty?


----------



## ZeR0 (Apr 7, 2020)

Interesting questions and discussions in this thread. I think the reason why some people choose to be witty and/or provocative is to catch people off guard while attempting to say something substantive in an entertaining or humorous way. I do think if someone has constructed their taste in a particular way only to enable them to say something witty and/or provocative than that can be problematic in the sense of genuineness. In such cases the comment would then appear to be said chiefly for the purpose of making oneself appear different than others in order to gain attention.

As for your other questions, I think that the aforementioned comments can have value, but only if they come from a place of genuineness. To use your example ("Bach could compose circles around Haydn even with half his counterpoint tied behind his back."), the commenter appears to be saying that Bach was an excellent composer due in part to his use of counterpoint. So, (whether one agrees with the value judgments given to Bach and Haydn) this is a substantive comment that could then be used to start a conversation about Bach's use of counterpoint. Also, of course sometimes even though a comment may not have substantive value, it could have entertainment value, even if only on the level of it caused you to chuckle.

As for myself, I try to avoid making provocative and/or witty comments because, firstly, I don't think I'm a particularly provocative or witty person to begin with, and secondly, I like to try and express myself in the most concrete way possible, so as to be easily understood which will allow for easier communication. Provocative and witty comments have their place of course, but they're not for me.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba (Oct 15, 2018)

ZeRO : provocative not witty


----------

