Joined
·
6,070 Posts
When I first saw the title of this OP, my first thought was (given the 2 past l-o-n-g threads): clickbait. The above confirms it (to me anyway). What can possibly be said here that hasn’t been in those preceding threads?
Posts by DaveM
1 - 20 of 121 Posts
Joined
·
6,070 Posts
Well, the motive is obvious and IMO disingenuous so yes, I’ll pass on it. Nice try with the gaslighting though.Strange Magic said:
Joined
·
6,070 Posts
We interrupt this program for an important news flash: The ex-husband of a good friend of my wife was the actor who played that ape/hominid. He was carefully picked for the part and was listed fairly high up in the movie credits. He was also a close friend of John Lennon and Yoko Ono. Now back to your regular programming.
Joined
·
6,070 Posts
You have been someone promoting the ‘everything is subjective’ position. Why are you now using various arguments inferring ‘objectivity’ to promote the above? And btw, you know darn well that Mozart doesn’t hold the position he does because of simplistic popularity.
And please stop asking questions of everybody else. If you have considerable convincing evidence that von Beecke is just as accomplished as Mozart, then spit it out.
Joined
·
6,070 Posts
Perhaps I’m misunderstanding. Let’s just say I find his posts increasingly obscure lately. For instance, he seems to be promoting Michael Haydn as being objectively at a par with Mozart et al. Or, at least that’s how I read it.
Joined
·
6,070 Posts
Then, on what basis have you been promoting him as unfairly positioned behind other composers? You sure made it sound like you were presenting an objective argument, otherwise why post after post on the subject if it was really just off the top of your head?
Joined
·
6,070 Posts
When I see these kinds of responses, my response is ‘they don’t know their Mozart’. ‘Creaminess, sugar sweet, fluffy’: very profound criticism! (In keeping with the OP).hammeredklavier said:
Btw, your response to dissident above infers objective evidence that Michael Haydn’s position was due to those factors mentioned and not due to inferiority of his music.
Joined
·
6,070 Posts
IMO, one can’t prevent a convincing argument promoting one artist over another based on pure subjectivity. If the evaluation and comparison of composers is based totally on individual subjectivity then no argument can possibly stand up suggesting that one composer should have had a different standing relative to others. In short, you can’t have it both ways.
In the arts, some artists excel above others and objective reasons for it are not hard to find otherwise all artists might as well be called amateurs. Not considering Mozart and Beethoven, with a few others, to be at the summit of the CP era of western CM is at the very least an affectation.
In the arts, some artists excel above others and objective reasons for it are not hard to find otherwise all artists might as well be called amateurs. Not considering Mozart and Beethoven, with a few others, to be at the summit of the CP era of western CM is at the very least an affectation.
Joined
·
6,070 Posts
I don’t think you understand what objectivity is because you rail against objectivity on the one hand while at the same time suggesting that people are not educated enough about a subject you are promoting. If evaluating composers is entirely subjective then one’s uneducated position is as worthwhile as your (alleged) educated position. Likewise, if all evaluations are subjective then you should have no problem with unabashed idolatry.
Joined
·
6,070 Posts
Of course it does. As you would have it, pure subjectivity at the heart of all evaluations implies that all evaluations are equal. If they are not, then something objective is in play.
Joined
·
6,070 Posts
That’s their individual subjective opinion. Other subjective opinions may be different. Collectively, if all the subjective opinions have equal value then all works of art are equal. The only thing that can change this dynamic is objectivity. For the life of me, I don’t know how anybody, especially those claiming experience in the world of CM, can stick with this total subjective position and ignore the obvious weakness in evaluating composers and their works. It diminishes the accomplishments of those that have made the genre what it is.
When it comes to individual composers and their works, I have subjective preferences, but they don’t interfere with my ability to recognize objective evidence of the accomplishments of composers and their works that may place them above composers and their works that I prefer. All this talk about polls, popularity and idolatry indicates that some people can’t comprehend the fact that there is more to recognizing accomplishments in the arts than just ‘I like’.
Joined
·
6,070 Posts
Why do those three deserve the popularity?
Joined
·
6,070 Posts
Okay, so the popularity of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven is nothing more than that comparable to works appearing in/on most ‘classical-light’ playlists or DVDs. Likewise, to understand the popularity of the works of The Beatles, one need look no further than ‘Yummy, Yummy, Yummy (I’ve got love in my Tummy)’ and ‘I’m Henry the Eighth I Am’. Got it.
Joined
·
6,070 Posts
Unfortunately, his main message is not making the implied point above. It is aimed particularly at Mozart and the like with terms such as idolatry and quotes such as ‘creaminess’ and ‘sugary sweet’ from various people, one of which has declared the baroque and classical era ‘lame’. It strikes me that, ironically, to find profound discussions of CM, one will have to look elsewhere than in a thread on ‘Profundity’.
Joined
·
6,070 Posts
Well, you seem to be making a case for there being objective reasons why Beethoven and Wagner reign above Michael Haydn and Meyerbeer, respectively, and God bless you for it.
Joined
·
6,070 Posts
Here‘s my main message:
In the arts, once, for whatever reason, a blueprint or foundation for what attracts a sizable number of people, with all their various individual subjective persuasions, has been created, then there can be objective reasons why certain artists excel above others. Thus, in the CP era, we have blueprints including the sonata form with a theme and the development of a theme, orchestration with particular instruments that individually were developed and improved, solo compositions for piano, violin, cello etc., each with characteristics attractive to those drawn to the genre.
Thus we have a scenario under which one can see objective reasons why the works of Bach, Beethoven and Mozart stood out. This can be particular excellence in the various subsets of symphonies, concertos, sonatas, opera (Mozart and Beethoven, though opera not so much for the latter) or in one particular subset such as opera (Wagner). Of course, it’s a little more complex than that.
Joined
·
6,070 Posts
Well I can’t prove that if I had been trained on the piano at an earlier age I might have been a world-reknown pianist either so, again, your point escapes me.hammeredklavier said:
Bottom line: These kinds of hypotheticals prove or even suggest absolutely nothing.
Joined
·
6,070 Posts
You wouldn’t know it from most of your posts. Perhaps it would help if you revisited/mentioned that from time to time. Also, considering that this is a classical music forum and that the CP era music continues to be the life-blood of the genre and without it, this forum might not even exist, perhaps a term somewhat more profound than ‘a cluster’ might be more appropriate.
1 - 20 of 121 Posts
