[Philidor]

I don't know. This might be the first time I've heard of either of them.

So I think you are out of (serious) discussion about such things as a "canon of CM", since these works are undoubted masterworks of their time. (Qed.)

Would you agree?

There are works that everyone would agree on, such as Beethoven's 3rd, 5th, and 9th Symphonies, Handel's Water Music, Bach's WTC, Mozart's Jupiter Symphony, Holst's The Planets, Stravinsky's The Rite of Spring.

Maybe there could be some majority in the claimed group for decision of membership to the canon, that these works are within. But the spectre from Bach to Stravinsky seems to be a little narrow from my point of view, what do you think?

 

[Philidor]

"Canon of CM" is maybe something like quantum mechanics ... everyone thinks that it exists, but the more precise you're asking, the worse the answers are ...

 

[pianozach]

So I think you are out of (serious) discussion about such things as a "canon of CM", since these works are undoubted masterworks of their time. (Qed.)

Would you agree?

No. Don't be an elitist. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here.

You say they are masterworks of their time, and that may well be true. Simply being a masterwork doesn't make it "canonical". It also doesn't mean that YOU get to decide WHO gets to discuss the concept of "canon". In fact, it appears that most folks here are arguing with you rather than agreeing with you.

Or, to be even more specific, YOU are simply disagreeing with everyone that has something to say about the subject.

But you're asking about what qualifies a work to be considered "canon", when there is no widely regarded specific definition of what qualifies a work to be canon.

I'm not in charge of the Canon.

I think the question you're asking was answered early on in the thread: TO EACH THEIR OWN.

You can have YOUR canon, I can have mine, and everyone else has theirs.

 

[Philidor]

But you're really trying to get people to defend this nebulous 'canon', when it's just a catch-all phrase meant to convey a sense of all the really important works and important composers.

"Composers" are members of the canon? I thought that we are talking about works. Ok ...

Simply being a masterwork doesn't make it "canonical".

What else then? Turnover in USD? Total shares value?

YOU are simply disagreeing with everyone that has something to say about the subject.

"Everyone" is way to far to describe the few honourable members of the discussion. It is a cheap trick in social media to claim " ... and everyone is thinking the same way as I do:" (To my experience it is mostly wrong if someone argues like this, and it can be a sign of a lack of arguments ad rem.)

But you're asking about what qualifies a work to be considered "canon", when there is no widely regarded specific definition of what qualifies a work to be canon.

So what are we talking about?

 

[Philidor]

I get to the opinion that if we wanted to discuss the existence of ruxytovers, we needed to define what a ruxytover is or is supposed to be.

(Of course we could also discuss the meaning of the word "existence", in the direction of Kant, Hegel, Kierkegaard or even Sartre.)

 

[pianozach]

"Composers" are members of the canon? I thought that we are talking about works. Ok ...

Yes, the discussion has included composers. At least two other commenters have recently mentioned this.

I think you're just trolling now.

 

[Forster]

Of course how people enjoy music, and what they enjoy, is subjective. But there are objective canons that have developed over centuries by which we can gain a measure of agreement.

Returning to the post that opened the rabbit hole down which the discussion has fallen, I disagree with Steatopygous that there are "objective canons". Philidor's refusal to accept that there exists a concept of an imprecisely defined body of works is just perverse. I suggest that we withdraw from the rabbit hole and return to the OP's main topic about hypocrisy....(!)

 

[Philidor]

It is similar to the discussion on the existence of black holes in astrophysics.

According to Einstein's equations it was possible that black holes exist. However, nobody had seen one.

So people started to list properties of (then hypothetical) black holes and which phenomena should occur if they existed.

Then the phenomena could be observed in a way that delivered strong evidence for the existence of black holes.

At this point it was clearly more reasonable to assume the existence of black holes than denying their existence.

Could we get thus far with the hypothetical "canon of CM"?

 

[Philidor]

I suggest that we withdraw from the rabbit hole and return to the OP's main topic about hypocrisy....(!)

We are fully right at the centre of the OP's main topic.

The existence of a canon for CM is just hypocrisy.

Why is Mozart's "Don Giovanni" better than Cavalli's "La calisto"? And what exactly means "better"?

(For this statement I assumed that a majority of the decision committee for CM canon membership decided that Mozarts "Don Giovanni" was member of the hypothetical canon whereas Cavalli's "La calisto" was not. - I hope that I understood the honourable supporters of the concept of a CM canon correctly when making this assumption.)

 

[Philidor]

I think you're just trolling now.

May I reject such offensive statement?

I would be glad if you made a statement ad rem.

 

[Forster]

We are fully right at the centre of the OP's main topic.

The existence of a canon for CM is just hypocrisy.

Why is Mozart's "Don Giovanni" better than Cavalli's "La calisto"? And what exactly means "better"?

(For this statement I assumed that a majority of the decision committee for CM canon membership decided that Mozarts "Don Giovanni" was member of the hypothetical canon whereas Cavalli's "La calisto" was not. - I hope that I understood the honourable supporters of the concept of a CM canon correctly when making this assumption.)

Do stop saying "we". You and I are not in the same place at all.

 

[pianozach]

May I reject such offensive statement?

I would be glad if you made a statement ad rem.

Oh, that's right. The OP stated that everyone here are hypocrites: "I often notice some kind of hypocrisy vibe, especially here on forum". Calipso went on to give several examples of why we're hypocrites.

I reject the original subject matter proposal. We're not being hypocritical.

I've even addressed the matter of "ranking" one work to another in the The Beginner's Guide thread - it went something like this . . . how can one compare The Four Seasons to The Brandenburg Concertos and say which is better? How does one rank Ave Maria against Night on Bald Mountain. What's better; Beethoven's 5th symphony or Dvorak's 9th Symphony?

Works exist, and do not compete with each other. They ARE. And they are what they are.

 

[Philidor]

I've even addressed the matter of "ranking" one work to another in the The Beginner's Guide thread - it went something like this . . . how can one compare The Four Seasons to The Brandenburg Concertos and say which is better? How does one rank Ave Maria against Night on Bald Mountain. What's better; Beethoven's 5th symphony or Dvorak's 9th Symphony?

Works exist, and do not compete with each other. They ARE. And they are what they are.

We fully agree on this point.

But what does this mean to a hypothetical canon which states that not all animals works are equal? There are works in the canon and works outside the canon.

How does this go together with the statement "works do not compete with each other"?

 

[pianozach]

We fully agree on this point.

But what does this mean to a hypothetical canon which states that not all animals works are equal? There are works in the canon and works outside the canon.

How does this go together with the statement "works do not compete with each other"?

We fully agree on this point.

But what does this mean to a hypothetical canon which states that not all animals works are equal? There are works in the canon and works outside the canon.

How does this go together with the statement "works do not compete with each other"?

Wellington's Victory

Discuss.

 

[Forster]

We are fully right at the centre of the OP's main topic.

The OP did not make a cogent case for the hypocrisy they claimed is to be found here at TC, which depended on the idea that the members who said that pop and classical are equal are also the same members who say that there is a hierarchy of classical greats.

Calipso did not show that these two groups of people are the same. Therefore, no hypocrisy has been proven.

The case for or against is not dependent on whether there is a classical canon.

 

[Philidor]

Wellington's Victory

Discuss.

What do you want to be discussed?

The musical quality or the popularity? (Popularity at which time? The piece was immediately popular after its premiere and Beethoven earned a lot of money with it ... )

 

[Chilham]

I read somewhere that you can "Describe" the canon, but you can't "Prescribe" the canon.

I'm good with that.

 

[Forster]

I read somewhere that you can "Describe" the canon, but you can't "Prescribe" the canon.

I'm good with that.

I read that too, just this morning, here...

You can’t change the canon…or can you?

Musicologist Linda Shaver-Gleason finds articles about classical music that contain debunked myths and cliché descriptions.

notanothermusichistorycliche.blogspot.com

There isn’t an official list of works that are in the canon. It’s something that we can describe but not prescribe; there are lists of works that are performed most often by orchestras, or people’s opinions of works that “everyone should know,” but there’s no regulatory body deciding which pieces are admitted to the canon.

 

[Philidor]

Conductors like Bernstein, Haitink, Solti and Abbado definitively changed something.

By their commitment, the crowd's view on Mahler changed from the former quasi-canonical judgement "Kapellmeistermusik" to something that marked more or less the peak of listener's attractivity.

(Haitink had some Mahler tradition by Mengelberg in Amsterdam.)

 

[4chamberedklavier]

All I know of cannons is that they're big guns on wheels