Classical Music Forum banner
1141 - 1160 of 1192 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,370 Posts
In regards to the topic, it makes no difference that judgments about the sound quality of a musical piece are opinions and not facts.

In science, there are hard, tangible, objective methods scientists use to identify and quantify creativity, imagination, and intelligence in subjects. Musical craftmanship is no exception. It is not necessary to even hear a single note to determine whether a musical piece was put together intelligently or creatively. The audible enjoyment factor is ancillary to its merits that are measurable.

My uncle who is an engineer often speaks of being able to tell good design from poor design in engineering. There are objective ways of identifying it. He never refers to anyone’s opinion on what it looks like. The construction of music is no different. Whether you like how it sounds or not, we can identify the merits of its craftmanship through objective means.
Inevitably, there are those who will come back and say (and I will save them the trouble) that the merits of craftsmanship are a subjective construct. But, as always, they will ignore or dismiss the fact that the CP era, over decades and centuries laid the groundwork for what is considered excellence in composing (that music).

Originality, ingenuity and other signs of skill that indicate the innate musical intelligence of a Beethoven that managed to attract such a broad audience of listeners and experts during the early, mid, latter CP period and to this day demands recognition. When I watch live performances of his concertos and symphonies, I am in awe at how he came up with such things as the originality of the use of the woodwinds in concert with the strings without reminding of predecessor composers. No composer has quite matched the extent of originality across the broad categories of sonatas, trios, quartets, concertos and symphonies. And some want to dismiss it as subjective polling popularity?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,452 Posts
Inevitably, there are those who will come back and say (and I will save them the trouble) that the merits of craftsmanship are a subjective construct. But, as always, they will ignore or dismiss the fact that the CP era, over decades and centuries laid the groundwork for what is considered excellence in composing (that music).

Originality, ingenuity and other signs of skill that indicate the innate musical intelligence of a Beethoven that managed to attract such a broad audience of listeners and experts during the early, mid, latter CP period and to this day demands recognition. When I watch live performances of his concertos and symphonies, I am in awe at how he came up with such things as the originality of the use of the woodwinds in concert with the strings without reminding of predecessor composers. No composer has quite matched the extent of originality across the broad categories of sonatas, trios, quartets, concertos and symphonies. And some want to dismiss it as subjective polling popularity?
Yes, but I think they're looking for something they like,

and not originality or craftsmanship or the advancement of the art using the effectiveness from the historical rise of dissonance. They can't be blamed. It sounds arcane to some people.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,963 Posts
In regards to the topic, it makes no difference that judgments about the sound quality of a musical piece are opinions and not facts.

In science, there are hard, tangible, objective methods scientists use to identify and quantify creativity, imagination, and intelligence in subjects. Musical craftmanship is no exception. It is not necessary to even hear a single note to determine whether a musical piece was put together intelligently or creatively. The audible enjoyment factor is ancillary to its merits that are measurable.

My uncle who is an engineer often speaks of being able to tell good design from poor design in engineering. There are objective ways of identifying it. He never refers to anyone’s opinion on what it looks like. The construction of music is no different. Whether you like how it sounds or not, we can identify the merits of its craftmanship through objective means.
I do not agree that science has found objective ways to measure creativity, imagination, and intelligence. The data gathered is objective but what is being measured may have little or no relevance to the stated goals of the research. Lie detectors, IQ tests, puzzle boxes only measure what the design of the test measures--GSR, speed with which a puzzle is solved, answers to test questions,etc.

I also, for similar reasons, dispute your analogy between engineering and music--we are talking apples vs. oranges here--there is no similarity between good engineering and musical composition. A bridge is either well-engineered and will not fall into the gorge or it will. A musical composition will be interpreted, evaluated, liked, disliked in many different ways by many individuals.
 

·
Read Only
Joined
·
2,024 Posts
Inevitably, there are those who will come back and say (and I will save them the trouble) that the merits of craftsmanship are a subjective construct. ...
Which is why this is all pointless. No matter what, the subjectivist zealots are going to cling to their objective truth that it's all subjective.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,740 Posts
I wonder, is my subjectivity objectively subjective? Is the objective nature of the physical world only an illusion created by our subjective minds which can only make sense of things when objectifying that which exists only when perceived by the mind? Is my cat alive when I'm not looking at it? If I don't put my socks on, are they actually socks when they just lie in my drawer?
 

·
Read Only
Joined
·
2,024 Posts
I wonder, is my subjectivity objectively subjective? Is the objective nature of the physical world only an illusion created by our subjective minds which can only make sense of things when objectifying that which exists only when perceived by the mind? Is my cat alive when I'm not looking at it? If I don't put my socks on, are they actually socks when they just lie in my drawer?
I have a fear that each question there will bring forth a multi-paragraph screed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,963 Posts
I said that people who don't know what a fugue is are not credible judges of fugal writing, just as illiterates are not good literary critics. The issue of agreement with me or anyone else didn't come up. You seem to be having trouble following this argument(?)
They are perfectly credible judges as to how a fugue makes someone who doesn't know what a fugue is makes them feel. You may then ask "why should we care about what someone who doesn't know what a fugue is thinks about a fugue?" The simple response is thus: if the argument is that music is one of the arts that is capable of bypassing our intellectual barriers and reaching straight into and affecting our emotions and aesthetic responses then any music that's capable of doing that should be able to do that for anyone regardless of their knowledge or ignorance of any of the music's technical qualities. People who don't know what counterpoint is have been quite receptive to, eg, Handel's Hallelujah! Chorus, and many of Bach's most famous fugues, so obviously this CAN happen.

The problem is you (like so many) are wanting to talk about judging what a fugue is based on some intellectual, theoretical ideal that completely divorces it from what, IMO, music's core purpose should be, which is the stirring of emotions and aesthetic responses. If a fugue is capable of doing that, then it's a "good fugue," if a fugue isn't capable of doing that, then it's a "bad fugue." As I said elsewhere, if I wanted to appreciate a fugue for its "inexorable logic" I'd rather go study great chess games. That's not what I value in music, nor is it for most people.

This is not, I want to stress, an indictment against learning and understanding music. I understand what fugues are. I can follow a fugue in its multiple voices and harmonic movement. It's simply that if the fugue doesn't MOVE me I'm not going to just admire its logic and pretend like it's "good" because I have some intellectual justification when it's not making me feel anything; and people who are completely ignorant of fugues are capable of knowing how they make them feel as good as I am or as good as the most serious Bach scholar is.

Music is different than literature. All of literature's emotional, dramatic, and aesthetic impact requires as a prerequisite the intellectual understanding of the language it's written in. Music isn't like this. People can delight in sound and patterns of sound and all its aesthetic, dramatic, tonal, etc. potential without understanding one iota of theory. Further, music theory should be descriptive, not prescriptive: a way of saying "here's what composers/artists do and how they do it," with the understanding that people care about this because what they do moves them. The moment music theory moves from that to "this is what should be done" something has gone wrong or, at the very least, that "should" should always be tethered to the goal of making music that moves people, which, it must be said, changes from time to time, place to place, person to person, and genre/style to genre/style.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,963 Posts
It does sound condescending to say that people who don't appreciate what the objectivists are saying will probably never get it unless they put in a lot of work and read some books about musical analysis. It is a sad fact.
What about those of us who've done this and STILL don't agree with what the objectivists are saying, like myself? My problem with the objectivists isn't that I haven't read books on musical analysis, it's that I've also read a lot of other books on philosophy and understand that being an expert on objective things doesn't make one an expert on subjective judgments; and that the kind of "objective judgments" they're mostly talking about is just having a respect for others' subjective judgments (which is a respect they only selectively choose to have).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,963 Posts
In science, there are hard, tangible, objective methods scientists use to identify and quantify creativity, imagination, and intelligence in subjects. Musical craftmanship is no exception.
Big claims. At least I assume by "quantifying... intelligence" you mean IQ, so sure, to whatever extent we can say IQ correlates to intelligence. The rest I'd like to see evidence for.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,963 Posts
I'd take exception to one thing here. Similarities of artistic judgment can be explained by the nature of the art itself and by the similarities in the mental and physical constitution of human beings. If your "subjectivities" is meant to encompass the full range of what that implies, then OK, but I'm not sure that it really does.
Yes, we’re in agreement here. Subjectivity includes everything that relates to an individual including their mental and physical constitution.

Is "poll-type" a term in epistemology? 😉 It really needs to go. It trivializes everything. Pollsters are looking for numbers, not meaning. I don't give a rodent's tail about how many people "like" Brahms, any more than I care whether anyone thinks Tchaikovsky is a "greater" composer. I'm interested in the quality of an artist's impact on the world, not merely the quantity of it. I'm sure you know that and agree, but the triviality of the polling image doesn't steer our thinking that way.
I think trivializing is often a consequence of objectively looking at anything. If we take a large enough “objective” view of humanity we are just one of millions of species existing on a tiny planet that’s but a speck within a galaxy that’s but a grain of sand within a universe whose life span is barely the blink-of-an-eye within its history. This objective view may be trivializing to the importance of humanity and it may conflict with how important we perceive ourselves to be, but it’s also true. It’s also true that BOTH perspectives can co-exist, that it’s perfectly fine that we are important to ourselves, but unimportant in the biggest picture of the universe.

So if “polling” seems trivializing to you, that’s partly the intended effect because it’s showing that what you describe about art impacting the most people at the highest level is, on an objective level, simply quantifying how many like certain art, how many were influenced by it, how they were influenced by it, etc. It’s the kind of data that you can get from polling.

I'm not focused on anyone's "subjectivities." I'm focused on recognizing and respecting the exceptional powers of extraordinary artists. An important power (but not the only important one) is the ability to make work capable of resonating strongly enough with basic elements of human consciousness to not only appeal to but shape people's "subjectivities" and cultures, and not only in the moment but enduringly. Given the constant emphasis subjectivists place on the differences between individual human "subjectivities," they should readily admit that the ability of an artist to achieve widespread, sometimes almost unanimous acclaim across space and time is a remarkable thing, and is not something to be accounted for except by reference to some very fundamental aspects of the human organism and human experience.
All I’m saying is that part of “recognizing and respecting the exceptional powers of extraordinary artists” is in recognizing the role that our (both yours as an individual and ours as a species) subjectivities plays in this. As I confirmed in my last post, none of us subjectivists (I don’t think) are denying that some artists have made works that resonate strongly with common elements of human consciousness, shape those consciousnesses and cultures, and do so in an enduring way. These are, indeed, all objective facts, but we can speak about these facts without making them the only determining factor for what is considered great.

I have my own hierarchy for pleasure, but not for greatness. I don't assume that my favorite things are the "greatest" things. That just degrades language.
AFAICT, the “hierarchies for greatness” is nothing but the aggregate of many people’s hierarchies of pleasure. If insert any widely-considered-to-be-great composer here didn’t rank high on many people’s “hierarchy of pleasure” then they also wouldn’t be considered great. I’ve made this point before, but nothing that is considered great is something nobody likes. Plus, the way you’re describing greatness here still just seems like the recognition of and respect for the wealth of subjectivities that like (again “like” as “any positive feeling”) something.

Why is this a "sticking point"?
Because if we recognize that the things you’re describing, like tonality, are widely accepted because of the nature of our subjectivities, then we must also accept that there’s no way to declare that tonality is better than, say, atonality except by appealing to those same subjectivities… and if we have subjectivities that prefer atonality, and some that prefer tonality, neither is or can be right or wrong.

This has been the (or at least my) sticking point all along, and it bears repeating: anything that is rooted in our subjectivity can only be true in relation to that subjectivity, and the moment that our subjectivities differ there is no way to declare which is right or wrong except in relation to the subjectivities that think it. This is very different than matters of objective fact, like what is wrong with a car, whether the Earth is flat, etc. This distinction is very important and is, IMO, at the heart of this whole debate.

I can't see what point is being made by the foregoing paragraphs. It just looks like a rehash of "different people like different things and have different opinions about the same things," on the way to saying that that somehow "proves" that nothing is inherently good, bad, superior or inferior. Hammeredklavier has been hammering away at that klavier for quite a while. It seems intended to prove something, but it doesn't.
The point is the same is above. I still don’t understand how you think your view (I won’t call it the “objectivist” view) accounts for this difference. At most you’ve been saying that, eg, most people prefer tonality because of the nature of our subjectivities… but, again, how is that not just a poll. “Most people prefer tonality, so tonality is objectively better?” How does that even make sense?

Also, when you say that you haven’t known people with more than a peripheral interest in atonal music you have to be joking. You mean those composers who’ve devoted their lives to composing atonal music have no more than a peripheral interest in it? Hell, I’ve flat-out seen some posters around here saying their primary interest in CM is modern-and-later composers who are primarily atonal. Hell, my best friend on the old IMDb forum largely preferred the atonal composers and didn’t care much for any of the tonal composers outside of Wagner.

So the artistic experience that tells us that an artist has coherently exploited, through the symbolic vocabulary of his art, basic patterns of human thought, perception, feeling and activity, not to mention cosmic forces external to our human organisms but impinging on us and affecting us in profound ways, offers us nothing more significant than a "postive feeling"? And we're back to ice cream, along with polls?
Again, you seem to be frustrated by the fact that objective analysis doesn’t conform with your very poetic ways of phrasing things that reflect how you subjectively feel about them; but, yes, at the end of all that poetic language about what an artist supposedly does is the subjectivity that has a positive feeling towards whatever has been done, and without the positive feeling nobody would give a rat’s patootie about the rest of it.

A thorough misunderstanding. Aesthetic excellence is not "something art actually embodies in its structure." It is, rather, the successful deployment of structure to embody something. It's deploying the structural components of an artistic "language" in such a way as to make an object coherent to the mind. There are other kinds and markers of excellence in art, but it's with the kind we call specifically aesthetic that I've been concerned.There are other kinds of values which art can embody to attain greater distinction and deserve praise, but that's another, much wider conversation. No point in going there when we can't even get straight what we're discussing now.
Not really a misunderstanding as I did get that’s what you meant; but by art embodying something you think that is synonymous with also embodying excellence, yes? I mean, you don’t merely think that the notion of art embodying something is subjective, nor that this embodiment is merely subjectively excellent, do you? I have not gotten that impression from your posts. If you’re trying to say that art can embody something and that is objective, but that the evaluation of that embodiment is only subjectively excellent, then we don’t really have much of an issue.

I don't consider that a point, or question, that needs debating, and i've never debated it. Of course "excellence" is not a thing, or an aspect of objects as objects, the way "shape" is a thing or an aspect of things. Excellence is an attribution justified by the recognition of something done well.
I’m glad we can at least agree on the former, but with the latter I still question how you think this “justified by the recognition of something done well” actually happens, and the extent to which it is dependent upon human subjectivities (both individual and collective), and the extent to which we can declare any of this true independent of those subjectivities.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,963 Posts
No I can't prove it wrong in the exact same way I can prove "the Earth is flat" is wrong. I never made that claim. If by subjective you mean mind-dependant, then yes, it is only wrong according to mind-dependant things. However, I would argue it is wrong according to rational principles, in much the same way I would argue murder is wrong. I'm just repeating the same thing ad nauseum here.
Sorry if you feel you’re repeating yourself too much, but sometimes repetition is necessary to distinguish exactly where the agreements/disagreements are. OK, so I understand you don’t think it’s true in the mind-independent way, but in the based-on-the-agreement-of-axiomatic-assumptions way. My only issue here would be in determining what those axiomatic assumptions are and the degree to which we actually agree on them. Further, would you agree that, just as in the “chess rules” example, if there are disagreements over which axioms to start from there is no way to declare one set “better” than the other, nor any judgments that based on those differing axioms?

I already explained why I'm arguing against the restrictiveness because I feel it implies absurd things about the definition itself.
I’m not sure what absurd things you think it implies except the notion that the definition of truth can’t be true in the way other true things are. I don’t think that’s an absurdity, I just don’t think language can be true in that way.

If I had a good definition of truth, I'd be a famous philosopher, not a TC member. As I have already stated, I don't mean "mind-independently" true, maybe "rational basis" would be a better term.
OK, but then how do you build from the rational basis (I assume based on axiomatic assumptions) to what the student realizes being true? I think I have an intuitive idea of what you might mean, but I don’t want to assume.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,603 Posts
Originality, ingenuity and other signs of skill that indicate the innate musical intelligence
I see what you're saying, but different composers were "innovative", "influential", "inventive" with different things, under different circumstances. It's something we can't objectively measure quantitatively or qualitatively in various cases.

"Chopin continued to express, in both words and deeds, his admiration for Hummel. For example, on December 10, 1842, five years after Hummel's death, Chopin would proclaim that Hummel was one of the "masters we all recognize." It is noteworthy that the only other names on Chopin's list were Mozart and Beethoven. Chopin also showed his high regard by using so many of Hummel's works to teach his students, as his pupil Adolf Gutmann recalled: "Chopin held that Clementi's Gradus ad Parnassum, Bach's pianoforte fugues, and Hummel's compositions were the key to pianoforte-playing, and he considered a training in these composers a fit preparation for his own works. The two great pianists were also in complete agreement on many aspects of playing the keyboard. One was fingering, a matter of great importance to Chopin, who wrote in his own unfinished piano method "everything is a matter of knowing good fingering."

"William Mason, one of Liszt's American pupils, tells us in his book Touch and Technic (1889) that Liszt considered a "two-finger exercise" by Hummel to be the source of his technique. The exercise consisted of playing a scale with two fingers, alternating accented and unaccented notes and using an elastic touch by pulling the fingers in towards the palm. Liszt's high opinion of Hummel as an artist and as a man never diminished. It is evident in a letter he wrote to Weimar's Grand Duke Carl Alexander in 1860, reminding his employer that "he should be proud to create works that resemble [Hummel's]."

"Schubert must have been delighted to finally have personal contact with the composer of music he had known and admired for more than a decade. One of the works that Schubert knew quite well was Hummel's Septet in D minor, op. 74, his most popular chamber music composition. Schubert, in fact, used the quintet version of this work as the model for his famous Trout Quintet. The solo piano music that Schubert composed between 1816 and his death in 1828 also reveals the strong influence of Hummel's brilliant, virtuosic style of piano writing, culminating in the last three piano sonatas (D. 958-60). Schubert intended to dedicate these works to Hummel but died before they were published."

"the young Schumann, the aspiring virtuoso pianist studying with Friedrich Wieck in Leipzig in 1829, desperately wanted to become Hummel's student. Despite repeated attempts, he never realized this goal, but Hummel would remain Schumann's idol through-out his student years. He was also his role model, as we read in Schumann's letter to his mother of 15 May 1831: "I can have only four goals: Kapellmeister, music teacher, virtuoso and composer. With Hummel, for example, all of these are combined." Schumann's diary also tells us that he practiced Hummel's Clavierschule with a devotion bordering on obsession, once even writing that he planned to play all the exercises in succession. He maintained a lasting admiration for a select group of Hummel's works, such as the piano concertos in A minor and B minor, the Septet in D minor, op. 74, and the Piano Sonata in F-sharp minor, op. 81. The F-sharp minor sonata had a particularly significant impact on Schumann's early piano compositions, as can be seen by the striking similarity of the examples below (Fig. 1). Schumann acknowledged his admiration for Hummel's F-sharp minor sonata in his Neue Zeitschrift für Musik of April 26, 1839, predicting, "this sonata will alone immortalize his name.""

"Schubert, Schumann, Liszt, and Chopin - these emblematic symbols of the Romantic era are indeed indebted to Hummel. The same can be said for many other 19th-century composers, including César Franck, who graduated as a prize-winning pianist from the Paris Conservatoire by playing Hummel's music. Some critics have even found similarities between Hummel's F-sharp minor sonata and the Piano Sonata in F-sharp minor, op. 2, of Brahms. Hummel the Classicist, Hummel the Romantic - both descriptions are correct. His life spanned two eras, and so did his music."

-excerpts from "Hummel and the Romantics" by Mark Kroll
I also mentioned that Bruckner was avidly interested in F.J. Aumann's liturgical music, avidly revised the instrumentation and studied the counterpoint and the "colored harmony", in Sankt Florian.
"In Sankt Florian, most of the repertoire consisted of the music of Michael Haydn, Johann Georg Albrechtsberger and Franz Joseph Aumann." (wiki/Anton_Bruckner#Organist_in_Sankt_Florian)
With this in mind, I'll address dissident's question, which I missed some time ago:

What does it say about the influence of Michael Haydn, beyond Schubert's weeping at his grave?
Consider, for instance:
"The numerous settings of liturgical texts in German, the secular German part-songs and Lieder, together with his expanding sphere of influence as a teacher of composition in the 1790s, place Michael Haydn in a position of importance in the early history of both German sacred music and German song. One of his students Georg Schinn (1768-1833), left Salzburg in 1808 to take a position in the Munich Hofkapelle, where Michael Haydn's Latin and German sacred music was performed frequently throughout the 19th century." <Michael Haydn and "The Haydn Tradition:" A Study of Attribution, Chronology, and Source Transmission / Dwight C. Blazin / P.28>

Why assume that, if Beethoven was in Haydn's position, Beethoven would have influenced Mozart and Weber (who wrote some of his early dramatic works under Haydn's supervision) the same way Haydn did? No matter how highly you regard Beethoven, he wasn't the one who wrote watch?v=I-TeHK-bVvU in 1769.

"According to contemporary reports, instead of the usual Baroque scenery, in the subsidiary piece the theatre was made up »in the manner of an alpine hut. On one side there was a waterfall, on the other a high mountain cliff. In the morning and evening sunlight [...] one could see the cattle up on the Alpine pastures.« Haydn's Wedding on the Alpine Pasture was no doubt a pioneering work for the Salzburg Theatre. The individual arias and instrumental movements together with the entire singspiel were adapted by Haydn himself and other composers and - as witness numerous copies of the work - were soon in wide distribution in the abbeys of Kremsmünster and Seitenstetten or being taken further afield by the boatsmen who plied the waters of the Salzach river at Laufen." (an excerpt from the program notes for Brunner's recording of Die Hochzeit auf der Alm MH107)

Today, we are shoved in our throats, the dogma; "it was all about Bach, Mozart, Beethoven. They were the ones who did everything (pretty much)". But if we were educated from youth to be more open to free-thinking; for example, "Aumann could have been influential in ways Mozart wasn't", —our way to view classical music history could have been different.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,603 Posts
the subjectivist zealots are going to cling to their objective truth that it's all subjective.
My arguments are more subtle than that. I'll explain with another example. Anyone can honestly think that, for instance; "Of course Mozart is damn good; it's just that all (the advantage) he has over his contemporaries is creaminess, which is good for all of us for sure", —having both an objective sense of seeing things ("Mozart is good"), and a subjective opinion ("it's all creaminess") at the same time.
Captainnumber36: "his sugar gets too sweet after a while."
Xisten267: "everything too happy, pretty and fluffy in his music,"
Woodduck: "Don't feel bad. It isn't you. I sensed that about him from the start and have kept my distance. I find him a useful companion when I'm in the mood for skittles, but the scatology is wearing after a while."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,370 Posts
I see what you're saying, but different composers were "innovative", "influential", "inventive" with different things. It's something we can't objectively measure quantitatively or qualitatively in many cases.
Oh, I think in many cases we can. We‘ve had the benefit of centuries of experience by a broad cross-section to make comparisons and the result is an obvious consistency in the judgment of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven et al over the ages. Not to mention the benefit of recordings where for a century people have been able to listen to all sorts of works by what were already considered the great composers inspecting and dissecting the nuances of their creations in a way never before possible.

Why assume that, if Beethoven was in Haydn's position, Beethoven would have influenced Mozart and Weber (who wrote some of his early dramatic works under Haydn's supervision) the same way Haydn did? No matter how outstanding you consider Beethoven, he wasn't the one who wrote watch?v=I-TeHK-bVvU in 1769.
Why assume that hypothetical at all? It makes no sense. Beethoven wasn’t the one who wrote the Goldberg Variations or the B-minor Mass either. So what? Beethoven‘s record of influence on composers going forward stands on its own. That’s all that matters.

Today, we are shoved in our throats, the dogma; "it was all about Bach, Mozart, Beethoven. They were the ones who did everything (pretty much)". But if we were educated from youth to free-think; for example, "Aumann could have been influential in ways Mozart wasn't", —our way to view classical music history could have been different.
I don’t know why you’re so troubled by this. You’re assuming the possibility of things that have, at best, limited supporting evidence. It seems like a lot of unnecessary musical masochism. :)
 

·
Read Only
Joined
·
2,024 Posts
hammeredklavier said:
Today, we are shoved in our throats, the dogma; "it was all about Bach, Mozart, Beethoven. They were the ones who did everything (pretty much)".
Who exactly is shoving those three down your throat? In my case nobody really did. My piano teacher was more a Chopin and Liszt fan. I get the feeling that you define the consensus that those 3 are "the greatest" as shoving them down your throat. You're free to listen to whatever music you want. Don't get mad at people if they don't agree with your offbeat evaluations.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,386 Posts
I was at the Konzerthaus in Berlin tonight and I saw busts of Dessau, Eisler, Lortzing, and Zelter, but none of Liszt or Chopin.

Also no Verdi or Vivaldi.

I might have to build my own venue so that I can dictate the figures to whom we must pay homage!
 

·
Read Only
Joined
·
2,024 Posts
I was at the Konzerthaus in Berlin tonight and I saw busts of Dessau, Eisler, Lortzing, and Zelter, but none of Liszt or Chopin.

Also no Verdi or Vivaldi.

I might have to build my own venue so that I can dictate the figures to whom we must pay homage!
I'd bet the Big Three are there. The rest are negotiable. :ROFLMAO:
Have you visited forums or websites of other music genres, looked at their debates on subjectivity vs. objectivity, and seen which side dominates? Maybe we're the barking dogs and the rest of the world is the caravan. I'm just asking.
It really doesn't bother me that much, hammeredklavier. If you think Bach and Beethoven are overrated and you absolutely adore Michael Haydn, that is fine with me. What seems to stir up the anger is a statement like "Bach/Beethoven/Mozart is the greatest". The anger and streams of purple prose that brings forth usually indicate some unbridgeable philosophical difference that has little to do with actual music. It doesn't matter to me which are the dogs and which is the caravan. I love the music I love.
 
1141 - 1160 of 1192 Posts
Top