I agree that the appreciation of Mozart (or Beethoven, or Bach for that matter) is a very strong discourse that has built up during the centuries and has been boosted during the last 50 years by TV and cinema. That doesn't mean that there should not exist people who appreciate and love the music of the composers mentioned above. But then at the end of the day maybe we should question the sheer existance of the appreciation of classical music.Originally Posted by Tapkaara
Last edited by muxamed; Feb-24-2010 at 10:15.
"This is truly one of the happiest days of my life", after you read a bunch of people's/strangers' dislike for Mozart's music in a public internet discussion forum.You need to get a life.
I haven't seen such a behavior on this forum. The strongest bullys here seem to be those who are into romanticism and late romanticism.
Well said jhar26, without Mozart I probably wouldn´t have been here today, I can see why he can be considered overrated by others than me, but I won´t complain about peoples music taste even though it may not include my dear Mozart.Since I can't think for myself I still consider Mozart the greatest of all composers.
I don't think I have seen that either. I mean, those people can speak harshly about classical-era or modern music, but I don't see them attacking fans of those music really.
Chortle, chortle."This is truly one of the happiest days of my life", after you read a bunch of people's/strangers' dislike for Mozart's music in a public internet discussion forum.
That's what I meant tooI guess I exaggerated when I used the word "bully".
I'm sorry, but what? I think that is what makes him so pretentious! It puts all of the focus on the composer. You can't truly replicate concept music as it is conceived. It's all streamers and ribbons! That is pretentious!
Concept music is the worst stuff out there - because, simple, it isn't music.
B.M. Music Theory - University of Connecticut
M.M. Music Theory - College-Conservatory of Music at the University of Cincinnati (in process)
My Soundclick Page - feel free to browse my compositions I post up there
Chopin bores me to tears... His music sounds empty, pointless. Even the great second piano sonata does absolutely nothing to me. There are some etudes I can listen too, but overall I steer far away from him.
Also, I find his his piano concerti to be the worst in the whole 'genre'.
Wagner was a victim of his own ego; truly a legend in his own mind. I know it is heresy, but if I were general manager of an opera company I would put on the Ring, but cut Walkure, Siegfried and Gotterdammerung down to about two hours each. How many times does one have to listen to Wotan or Brunnhilde tell the background story over and over and over again, usually to not very interesting music.
Wagner was a great composer, but an awful librettist who suffered from inflammation of the ego.
Last edited by Ilych; Feb-24-2010 at 16:31.
But no, see, that's actually the complete opposite of what John Cage was all about. He was interested in freeing music from the composer.
Pretentious doesn't mean "experimental music I don't like"
Pretentious doesn't mean "experimental music I don't understand"
People too often use this word as a negative value judgement to criticize music.
Art, by definition, contains pretense. Art without pretense is called "life".
I don't think you really understand what I'm saying at all. The point is, he is one of a very set few composers who tried to liberate music from the composer, but by doing so, put all of the focus on the composer, because it is only his concept that could truly represent the conceptual music he envisioned! Therefore, the whole concept music is simply not worth the recreation because it's worth is only as the composer envisions - and not otherwise.
That, by definition, is pretentious.
Trust me, I do not mean pretentious to mean "experimental music I don't understand." I certainly understand what he's trying to do and as a composer/theorist myself, it's simply worthless to me. The point of 4'33 is not for me to admire, but rather the composer to admire the concept of silence. It was Cage's idea to capture that moment in time when the work was first performed. That was his concept. Any repetitions of such is simply worthless, especially to the audience. Hence, why I don't like it. What does a performance of 4'33 do to the audience now and these days? It's hardly revolutionary now. It's been done - there's no point in doing it again. But people hardly ever understand that. (And I hate to make the point with 4'33, but it best fits my whole ideology behind concept music.)
With that said, Cage does have some "bright" moments. His sonatas for prepared piano are OK. But then again, you have to weigh the whole mentality of actually preparing a piano for performance - and the reason it hardly ever gets performed is because it's impractical. So - as far as I'm concerned, Cage's music is quite close to the bottom of the list for me.
B.M. Music Theory - University of Connecticut
M.M. Music Theory - College-Conservatory of Music at the University of Cincinnati (in process)
My Soundclick Page - feel free to browse my compositions I post up there
Good point. Not entirely truth, but still. I disagree that he was terrible librettist, but he indeed wrote some unnecessary music. For example Tristans loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong monologue in last act of Tristan und Isolde where he talks about some place in which he have been while unconscious. It even uses a motive that appeared in first act in completely diffrent context. It clearly has no musicial point.
Shockingly, I completely disagree.
The skill Wagner had in synthesizing often completely unrelated mythological, quasi-historical, philosophical and socio-political elements into a cohesive three-act drama is incredibly impressive. His libretti deal successfully in archetypes and other universal attributes of the human psyche, and while they may be unsuccessful as pure poetry, as structures to build music around and to allow the music to offer insights and comment on the action alongside the actual words, they are some of the most successful I've read. In fact, because he wrote his own libretti and composed the music, I find his works have integration all the way down, that few others have, because everything is a product of the same creative impulse and the same creative mind.
As for the length and so-called repetition in his works...personally I'm completely captivated by them from beginning to end, I'm in no hurry for them to finish, and don't mind the restating of past events. The thing about Wagner is that he took over from the dramatists of the ancient Greeks the presentation of a story not from the beginning, but at a point close to the climax. So while not much outward "action" is taking place, a lot of psychological development is happening in and between characters. Usually what happens when Brünnhilde or Wotan are "telling a background story over and over" is quite more subtle than just that: the characters are digesting their experiences, reconciling with past reality, and making profound insights. They are seeing the same story differently, you could say. I find these passages to be some of the most fascinating in The Ring.
Of course there will be those who find his dramatic presentation boring, and to them it just seems characters are droning on about things that have already happened, with nothing else taking place. These are auditors whom, alas, the music does not speak, and for whom this form of drama must therefore be the least accessible of any.
Last edited by Poppin' Fresh; Feb-24-2010 at 17:55.
Posting Permissions
185Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
