Joined
·
6,247 Posts
Why would I? Raising Michael Haydn’s star is your objective, not mine.
What is "Profundity"?--Revisited!
601 - 620 of 1661 Posts
The question of whether or not the archetype of the romantic heroic genius rewards "bad" behaviors actually has been discussed quite a bit, though I'm thinking of venues beyond this forum. Certainly a bit of arrogance that one knows better than the experts can be a personality trait that leads one to say, revolutionize art.
In less romanticized terms, however, the question has been whether we allow this archetype to influence people to ignore behaviors we might otherwise find reprehensible- it got raised quite a bit in the aftermath of James Levine.
Joined
·
9,923 Posts
Developing the bomb was a political decision. Scientists alerted the US and UK governments that a bomb could be developed and that Germany had the brainpower to develop it and maybe the will. Many of the scientists working on the bomb felt it should not be used or should not have been used. I have examined the Japanese plans to fight literally to the death of everyone in Japan. It makes for chilling reading. Death before dishonor (surrender). Science I believe either could or does study the neurology, brain chemistry, psychology of The True Believer, the fanatic, the zombies of total conviction.
So no, science didn't have anything to say about it. The point still stands.
Yeah well this isn't really about "bad behaviors" or "romantic heroes" though.
Joined
·
6,247 Posts
Translation: Expertise, formal education and experience count for nothing, inexperienced opinions on the aesthetics of music are on a par with experienced opinions and the accomplishments of Bach, Mozart and Beethoven have no objective basis. Got it.
That poll thread was instructive, because when people disagreed with the results, the first instinct was not to ask why experienced composers apparently revere certain composers, it was to speculate on what ideological faults and biases the composers were suffering from. One common complaint is that they were inherently biased as "contemporary composers" - in other words, attacking their credentials in order to maintain a view that credentials matter, but not these credentials.
And beyond that, I've seen people- for instance - have their formal education in music dismissed in discussions under the rationale that formal education in music now consists of modernist indoctrination.
I'm not saying that formal education, expertise and the like matter for nothing. I'm saying that when it comes down to it, few practice what they preach when they disagree with experts. Of course one can simultaneously value expertise while disagreeing with expert consensus in certain cases - there's absolutely nothing wrong with saying "everyone says this composer is great, but I've heard his music over and over again and I hate it". What I find disingenuous is the practice where when one disagrees with someone "credentialed", instead of just saying that their personal tastes prevent them from admiring music that the critical consensus values, all-too-often the instinct is instead to try to attack and dismiss credentials in order to maintain the fiction that the experts all agree with one's own tastes.
Joined
·
9,923 Posts
I begin to wonder about your point here. The use of deadly gas was and is a political decision. Many other much more common gases could have been used for the purpose intended, like carbon monoxide or shutting off the air supply altogether. Science is not the Great Enemy. You are alive, likely, because of science. It's a tool to find out about the world around us, like a hammer that can help build or maim.
Joined
·
16,613 Posts
I dunno; I enjoy reading books by scholars about a period or composer. Their expertise is enlightening. I am after the information, not validation of my own taste. Music history is a fact; certain composers have had more of an impact than other composers.
Trying to say why is difficult. It is not simply that they wrote better music than their peers.
Joined
·
9,923 Posts
PLEASE someday post something fully thought out and perhaps original. The mynah bird of this thread.
Joined
·
9,923 Posts
Scientists had much to say about it. You can read about them. Do you think hammers should be banned?
There are absolutely fields where expertise is valuable. Fields of formal study such as music theory, history, musicology, philosophy, etc. I'd certainly believe a credentialed biographer over a clickbait article when it comes to factual details on the life of Handel. Even some cases in terms of aesthetic evaluation - If someone who's listened to only four symphonies in their life says "Beethoven 9 has to be the best symphony ever", it'd be reasonable to politely suggest that they listen to more music to see if there's anything else that strikes them as being as good (more about not making hasty generalizations than any formal expertise, really).
To an extent it does even influence the music I listen to- I'll admit to that. After all, I doubt many classical listeners, say, go to the Naxos database and pick a composer at random, rather than start with acclaimed works - at least until we've reached the stage of listening where we've more or less exhausted the standard rep and want to find unusual and overlooked works. If all sorts of experts tell me a composer I resist was important, revolutionary, impactful etc- I tend to give them more effort and more chances than, say, if I listen to an unknown work and find it repelling. Maybe this is a fault.
Joined
·
6,247 Posts
‘Experienced composers’ with what experience other than being contemporary composers? We see polls here all the time where those responding insist on replying with entries that are contrary to the purpose of the poll or whose responses wreak with subjective ‘I like’ when the poll was intended to represent something more objective.
Now if you think that objectivity in polls having to do with CP era CM is impossible and if you are enamored with the accuracy of that poll you keep to referring to then we occupy different universes.
Joined
·
9,923 Posts
Everyone's opinion is valid and authentic. You are free as a bird to disagree with the choices of others and they are free to dismiss your choices I think I hear Milton Babbitt's footsteps approaching and perhaps the enjoyment of CM could become, not a cult because cults are always seeking new recruits, but rather a sect, which are generally closed to new members. I am not in the sect, and am glad of it.
I actually kind of remember a funny story- Morton Feldman, who taught composition, graded a student's work poorly - when the student protested that he should listen to the work a few times to "get" it, he said something like - "You're 19 years old and you want me to listen to your composition twice?"
Which is kind of a jerk thing to say, but it has a point. I think a lot of listeners give more latitude and "trust" to composers that they know are lauded, or at least ones they trust to make music that they find rewarding in the long term, and perhaps it can cause us to quickly dismiss obscurities when we'd otherwise stick with it and see if it strikes us later.
Joined
·
16,613 Posts
You seem to be expecting a different response to polls, i.e. one based on objective criteria. But you admit that most polls exhibit an entirely subjective response. This might cause a different person to reflect on their original premise.
Like I said - the first instinct for multiple people was to attack the credentials and speculate on bias. At almost no point did someone say "hmm, experienced composers clearly value the work of Varese and rate Ravel higher than most layman listeners might" and perhaps contemplate exploring a composer they might not be familiar with, or speculate on whether Ravel's style has a new relevance to contemporary composition. Closed-mindedness.
And like I said, this is not an isolated case of credentials being attacked when the conclusion does not fit ones taste.
Joined
·
9,923 Posts
I hold that the best course of action--one which I strive always to follow--is to assert that one is not part of the intended audience for certain musics; it's a kind way of saying the music does not interest me. I also ignore critics as to instructing me what is good/bad but occasionally I do read them out of plain curiosity. It's when posters use critics and experts as a substitute for original thought and opinion and personal valuation in an effort to support often after the fact the pieces they like. I dismiss no one's credentials; I just don't pay any attention. The music is for me and what I choose to make of it.
I have a passing layman's interest in musicology so I'm drawn to music which was considered particularly impactful or groundbreaking, which is why I love both Beethoven and Steve Reich. I think a lot of people also take the view that - if a lot of people, including experts like a given work, it's probably worth listening to because it's likely to bring them enjoyment, under the rationale that their own tastes are likely to overlap with the listener consensus at least a good amount of the time.
As with so much, it really depends on what one hopes to get out of music, and what listening habits one finds enjoyable.
601 - 620 of 1661 Posts
