Classical Music Forum banner
1 - 20 of 121 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
6,070 Posts
My Post #19 from the original thead.........

I'm not at all sure the the noun "profundity" can be applied to music, in an attempt to categorize it. It seems best to reserve the terms "profound, profundity" to truly illuminating, penetrating insights or discoveries that pierce through a jumble of seemingly isolated and discrete facts about reality and reveal to us an underlying deep truth that knits together many disparate facts into a unity. Examples would be the Theories (using the term as scientists use it) of Special and General Relativity, Evolution by Natural Selection, Plate Tectonics, and many recently verified discoveries in astronomy and cosmology. These are profound. There are areas of mathematics that are profound, and doubtless others will bring forth other examples. But Music? Art? We find ourselves back again in a forest of tautologies and of competing definitions and of opinions about who was great, what was great, or deep or profound...
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?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
6,070 Posts
DaveM, we can count on you always to question the motives and attitudes of other posters and posts. You are free to pass on this thread, and thus bury it in the oblivion you think it deserves.
Strange Magic said:
But Music? Art? We find ourselves back again in a forest of tautologies and of competing definitions and of opinions about who was great, what was great, or deep or profound.
Well, the motive is obvious and IMO disingenuous so yes, I’ll pass on it. Nice try with the gaslighting though.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
6,070 Posts
..A great metaphor for this process is the opening Dawn of Man segment in 2001: A Space Odyssey where the hominids first encounter the monolith. Many react in fearful, hostile anger; but one of them tentatively approaches it and reaches out to touch it. In the book it explicitly states this encounter transformed the hominid that touched it so that they could understand how to use tools; but in the film it's more implicit, as the hominid that touches it later approaches the bone of a dead animal, we see a flash-cut of the monolith, and they figure out how to use the bone as a weapon to defend themselves against predators and to hunt prey..
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.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
6,070 Posts
Sorry, but your beloved Charlatan Rosen can be shown to be wrong in various things objective-argumentation.79894/page-25 (look through pages 24~26). "Experts" are also fans of things; just cause they studied history and theory it doesn't mean they make objectively better aesthetic judgments.
On the contrary - every 18th century composer kept the "rules of good taste", so it's even harder to determine objectively what was trash and what was gold from that time.
Sure, let's say objective artistic hierarchies do exist. But just cause they exist, how does it automatically lead to the conclusion; "Mozart is objectively on a higher plain than von Beecke"? This is something you have to prove separately from the "existence of artistic hierarchies".
Try to answer; "Why isn't von Beecke mentioned alongside Mozart?". All you can do is to repeat "Because Mozart is more popular today" in cleverly different wordings.
Again, Mozart's style of harmony was once perceived to be undesirable. Just cause people who held those views in Mozart's time are now dead, it doesn't mean they don't matter anymore objectively. Is greatness absolute and unchanging?

Try to answer this: "Why isn't any artist from the period 1000~1700 considered to be as profound as Bach, Mozart, Beethoven? Was it a "dark age" of European music?"
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.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
6,070 Posts
Perhaps I'm wrong/misreading him, but I think he was entertaining the hypothetical of objectivity to investigate the logical coherency of that position. So he's saying that even if we assume objective hierarchies exist this doesn't mean you've actually proven Mozart is objectively better than any other composer, especially when one is just offering different variations on him being more popular (I assume most here wouldn't accept popularity as the standard for judging objective betterness).
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.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
6,070 Posts
Have I argued that as an objective fact? If so, where have I done that specifically?
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?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
6,070 Posts
hammeredklavier said:
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 goodfor 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."
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).

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.
 

· Registered
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.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
6,070 Posts
In the 18th and 19th centuries, Schubert, Bruckner, Weber, etc, thought that Michael Haydn was unmatchable in liturgical music and songs; (with all things such as variety, quantity, quality considered). Mozart wrote some masterpieces in his Salzburg years, (including a sketchy requiem in his late years), in this field. Try moving outside of boundaries of idolatry and you'll see a lot more than you do now.

"I'm not interested in delving deeper into 18th century Classicism. I'm just interested in what's popular today" should not be passed as "insight" in these matters.
I guess there's no point discussing X with people who've listened to X's music only a couple of hours.
They just don't know, but pretend to know the stuff. If given tests, they won't pass any of them. Relying on received wisdom is all they can do.
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.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
6,070 Posts
Nope. What it means is that someone reacts to a piece of music positively or negatively. In essence they create their own "canon" of works/composers. Obviously they do not think all works are equal.
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’.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
6,070 Posts
No one in this thread has said or implied that Bach, Mozart, Beethoven don't deserve the popularity they enjoy today. Even if a person gets strong heart-wrenching feelings (and even weep) from listening to the rondo from the Posthorn serenade, he can still be embarrassed to tell people around him who would respond; "You still listen to this music? Holy.. Do you keep a powdered wig in your closet?" "Wow.. this pleasant.. pleasant stuff.. Real men shouldn't be moved by this."
Why do those three deserve the popularity?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
6,070 Posts
What do you think about
Pachelbel - Canon In D Major. Best version. (uploaded on Jan 26, 2008)
74,073,931 views youtube.com/watch?v=NlprozGcs80
Canon in D (Pachelbel's Canon) - Cello & Piano [BEST WEDDING VERSION] (uploaded on Jun 18, 2019)
58,403,735 views youtube.com/watch?v=Ptk_1Dc2iPY
Trans-Siberian Orchestra - Christmas Canon (Official Music Video) [HD] (uploaded on Oct 26, 2009)
39,869,806 views youtube.com/watch?v=4cP26ndrmtg
Pachelbel - Canon in D (Best Piano Version) (uploaded on Jun 4, 2011)
38,556,817 views youtube.com/watch?v=rNsgHMklBW0
pachelbel's Canon in D--Soothing music(the best version) (uploaded on Jul 3, 2007)
33,533,820 views youtube.com/watch?v=hOA-2hl1Vbc
Canon In D | Pachelbel's Canon | 1 Hour Version (uploaded on Apr 26, 2013)
25,641,997 views youtube.com/watch?v=qVn2YGvIv0w
and there are more...
(+there are also rock versions like "Canon Rock - Jerry C cover by Laura Lace", which has over 100 million views)

Air - Johann Sebastian Bach (uploaded on Jan 25, 2010)
74,878,302 views youtube.com/watch?v=rrVDATvUitA
バッハ「G線上のアリア」 Bach "Air on G String"
23,939,523 views youtube.com/watch?v=thQWqRDZj7E
David Garrett - AIR (Johann Sebastian Bach). (uploaded on Oct 14, 2011)
12,066,292 views youtube.com/watch?v=x1ByRGNIpFA
Bach, Air ("on the G string", string orchestra) (uploaded on Feb 26, 2009)
10,505,531 views youtube.com/watch?v=E2j-frfK-yg
(only 4 videos with 10mil+ views and that's it.)
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.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
6,070 Posts
I agree with hammered's implied point that some things aren't necessarily more popular because they are "the best", but I think people should be careful to go overboard with the idea and conclude that no popular work has "earned" its popularity or that no work of art can be better (in some respects) than others (not saying that this is what Hammered believes, but this is for our dear audience who might get the wrong idea)
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’.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
6,070 Posts
I don't believe this is what is being asserted - or, at least this is not what I believe.

An assertation that - oh, I dunno - Michael Haydn has had as much impact on the development of Western music, or as much repute as Beethoven is just factually wrong. That is the objective fact that is "in play". I think the subjective view does not state that an assertation that Michael Haydn was a "more major" composer than Beethoven is valid. Instead, the amount someone decides that they care about this fact when evaluating music is the question of subjective preference.

Lemme put it this way. If someone says Meyerbeer was a better composer than Wagner I'd put it down to personal preference. If someone said "Meyerbeer is a better composer than Wagner because his work is more enduringly popular" I'd ask what he's smoking.
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. :)
 

· Registered
Joined
·
6,070 Posts
Here's my main message:
Things can be and have qualities to be popular, but whether or not they're popular because they're superficially appealing, sentimental, or over the top, or have attractive concepts (eg. "avantgardists of their time", "tortured artists", "musical philosophers", "masters of universal laws of complexity/simplicity") etc, still depends on how each one of us perceives them.
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.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
6,070 Posts
hammeredklavier said:
Unless you can prove "if they had their prime years around that time, they would have done things just as good or even better", it's essentially a useless debate in terms of "objective profundity" or whatever.
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.

Bottom line: These kinds of hypotheticals prove or even suggest absolutely nothing.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
6,070 Posts
If by "objective reasons":, you mean a consensus within a cluster, then, yes, it is an objective fact that the consensus' criteria have been met (when they have). No problem with that; in fact it is at the heart of my observations about the establishment of greatness, profundity, whatever, in the arts..
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
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top