Why most people dont like Classical Music

[Peter]

Originally posted by Amalie:

Well Peter, I think the point here goes back to the postings that I made some months ago about the Romantic movement.

Whether or not Beethoven was a Romantic, we can argue either way I suppose, but surely what is indisputable is that Beethoven's works for all their great intellectual brilliance are marked surely by an overwhelming and in music terms quite novel, volcanic force of emotion and exhaulted feeling. The enlightenment thinkers were suspicious of feeling, were they not? what T.S.Eliot called, 'undisciplined squads of emotion' and preferred dispassionate and rather cold reasoning to hot passion, and I don't think on this analysis we can call Beethoven and enlightenment advocate, sure Fidelio is about freedom but it is all pretty undefined isn't it. Man gets out of prison, everything is ok. The enlightenment thinkers were passionate about political programmes and I think Beethoven was smart enough to realize that, a. this was not his forte,
b. it could be treacherous ground for a composer, I mean look at Wagner, started off as virtually an anarchist manning the baracades, wrote manifestos almost like Marx, and then became a Plutocrat, and fell in love with money and power, Beethoven was clever enough but perhaps also niave enough to keep his political yearnings, which even today we don't really know a true definition of to the vaguest of aspirations for human brotherhood, freedom etc.
An interesting question is what composer would be regarded as an enlightenment type of musician. Haydn? perhaps because there is always at least in the music of his that I have heard is subordination of the emotion to the rational working out of musical harmony, scale, tone, structure etc, the creation is fantastic!

Hmm you rather skirted round that one Amalie - Schiller most definitely shared the ideals of the Enlightenment and these are personified in the Ode to Joy - a work Beethoven admired throughout his life and of course eventually set to sublime music. Why would he have done that if he was out of sympathy with such views? I think your interpretation of Fidelio is rather simplistic - the work is symbolic of freedom over tyranny, a product of the ideals (not the reality!) of the Revolution that Beethoven supported. Haydn and Mozart were both composers who also had sympathies with the Enlightenment and their music was influenced by it, indeed it inspired their greatest works, The Creation and the Magic Flute so surely on those grounds alone you must concede some good came out of it?

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Amalie]

Originally posted by Peter:
Hmm you rather skirted round that one Amalie - Schiller most definitely shared the ideals of the Enlightenment and these are personified in the Ode to Joy - a work Beethoven admired throughout his life and of course eventually set to sublime music. Why would he have done that if he was out of sympathy with such views? I think your interpretation of Fidelio is rather simplistic - the work is symbolic of freedom over tyranny, a product of the ideals (not the reality!) of the Revolution that Beethoven supported. Haydn and Mozart were both composers who also had sympathies with the Enlightenment and their music was influenced by it, indeed it inspired their greatest works, The Creation and the Magic Flute so surely on those grounds alone you must concede some good came out of it?

Dear Peter, I am not sure that you are aware, but there is a problem about Schiller's 'Ode to Joy, about how it was written and published and how Beethoven used it, or a version of it. There was a brilliant programme I wish I had taped a couple of years ago given by a professor on radio 3, all about Schillers 'Ode to Joy' which unfortunately I can only remember the outlines of now, but I can assure you that it is not the classic enlightenment piece you think it is, I will try and contact radio 3 and see whether I can get a copy of it so we can download it. It is all about all the revisions to it . It is a complex subject. The Romans of course had a very advanced view of human rights but that scarcely put it into practice but it was this legacy that lived on in Europe.
As I said earlier, the problem with the enlightenment had a darker political programme, I don't know whether Beethoven symphathized with these ideals or not, he was an artist not a political philosopher. Yes, Fidelio, as we all well know is about freedom from state tyranny, but the politicians would say, what happens next at the point where Beethoven leaves off, and that is where the difficulties lies.
Enlightenment was really a reaction to what was perceived as religious obscuranticsm, the true inheritors of that tradition I think were really the founding fathers of the US.
In Europe as I said earlier, I think it lead to an unfortunate, to say the lease, obsession with blue prints for designing the so called ideas society, communism in particular. It should not be forgotten the Lenin and Marx firmly believed that the enlightenment had discovered the so called laws of history, and that it would be a fairly straight forward matter for these enlightened individuals to bring there scientific insights to the ignorant masses in a new credo of progress reason and univesal equality, with of course the corollary that anyone who was perverse enough not to believe could either be marginalized or shot. Personally I believe far more in human dignity and nobility as Beethoven did rather than some sort of abstract ideal of human rights.
I actuall think that whatever advances were made in this area however, were more due to industrialization rather than the enlightened frame of mind.
Industrialization created new markets and a wider concern with human needs previosly uncatered for. It also created the material pre-conditions neccessary for human rights, if you will, ie. clean water supplies, electricity, improving health/hygiene.
As much as I am interested in this subject, I am afraid I don't get much time to think during the working week. Forgive me, but I don't mean to be skirting around the
subject. I have enjoyed putting my viewpoint up for discussion, but perhaps I have said more than enough anyway.

Amalie.


[This message has been edited by Amalie (edited September 30, 2003).]

[Peter]

Originally posted by Amalie:
Dear Peter, I am not sure that you are aware, but there is a problem about Schiller's 'Ode to Joy, about how it was written and published and how Beethoven used it, or a version of it. There was a brilliant programme I wish I had taped a couple of years ago given by a professor on radio 3, all about Schillers 'Ode to Joy' which unfortunately I can only remember the outlines of now, but I can assure you that it is not the classic enlightenment piece you think it is, I will try and contact radio 3 and see whether I can get a copy of it so we can download it. It is all about all the revisions to it . It is a complex subject. The Romans of course had a very advanced view of human rights but that scarcely put it into practice but it was this legacy that lived on in Europe.
As I said earlier, the problem with the enlightenment had a darker political programme, I don't know whether Beethoven symphathized with these ideals or not, he was an artist not a political philosopher. Yes, Fidelio, as we all well know is about freedom from state tyranny, but the politicians would say, what happens next at the point where Beethoven leaves off, and that is where the difficulties lies.
Enlightenment was really a reaction to what was perceived as religious obscuranticsm, the true inheritors of that tradition I think were really the founding fathers of the US.
In Europe as I said earlier, I think it lead to an unfortunate, to say the lease, obsession with blue prints for designing the so called ideas society, communism in particular. It should not be forgotten the Lenin and Marx firmly believed that the enlightenment had discovered the so called laws of history, and that it would be a fairly straight forward matter for these enlightened individuals to bring there scientific insights to the ignorant masses in a new credo of progress reason and univesal equality, with of course the corollary that anyone who was perverse enough not to believe could either be marginalized or shot. Personally I believe far more in human dignity and nobility as Beethoven did rather than some sort of abstract ideal of human rights.
I actuall think that whatever advances were made in this area however, were more due to industrialization rather than the enlightened frame of mind.
Industrialization created new markets and a wider concern with human needs previosly uncatered for. It also created the material pre-conditions neccessary for human rights, if you will, ie. clean water supplies, electricity, improving health/hygiene.
As much as I am interested in this subject, I am afraid I don't get much time to think during the working week. Forgive me, but I don't mean to be skirting around the
subject. I have enjoyed putting my viewpoint up for discussion, but perhaps I have said more than enough anyway.

Amalie.


[This message has been edited by Amalie (edited September 30, 2003).]

Well you can argue about the Ode to Joy (I think it's sentiments are quite clear), what cannot be disputed however is that Schiller was a passionate advocate of the Enlightenment as was the Weimar intellectual circle. The ideals of the Enlightenment were freedom of thought and reason, religious tolerance - yes the philosophies particularly of Rousseau were twisted in a perverted interpretation by future dictators to suit their own ends, but Rousseau would have been horrified by Stalinist Russia. The enlightenment though wasn't about one man, there were others such as Locke, Montesquieu and though they didn't all agree on how to go about it they shared the same basic values and desire to improve the conditions of men.

The true legacy of the Enlightenment is the reforms such as the abolition of slavery, better rights for workers, pensions for the elderly, reform of a corrupt electoral system, a National health service and ultimately votes for women. Yes the Industrial Revolution played a part, but it also caused many hardships and it was only gradually that conditions were improved. The true dark political forces were those who surpressed truth, imprisoned those who dared question them and the establishment which fought tooth and nail to prevent these reforms from happening.

There is little doubt in my mind as to Beethoven's position on this - his admiration for Goethe, Schiller, Kant and Napoleon - his interest in Eastern religions and philosophies, his love of Nature, his frequent and open opposition to oppresive Viennese laws (which would have had anyone else in jail) were all well in tune with Enlightenment thinking.

------------------
'Man know thyself'



[This message has been edited by Peter (edited October 01, 2003).]

[Chaszz]

Originally posted by Peter:
Well you can argue about the Ode to Joy (I think it's sentiments are quite clear), what cannot be disputed however is that Schiller was a passionate advocate of the Enlightenment as was the Weimar intellectual circle. The ideals of the Enlightenment were freedom of thought and reason, religious tolerance - this is the complete opposite of Lenin and later dictatorships which are a perversion of those ideals - to say the Enlightenment led to that is as nonsensical as to say Wagner led to Nazi Germany and the Holocaust (though perhaps there is more justification in that argument). The true legacy of the Enlightenment is the liberal reforms (which believing in human dignity you obviously agree with) such as the abolition of slavery, better rights for workers, pensions for the elderly, reform of a corrupt electoral system, a National health service and ultimately votes for women. Yes the Industrial Revolution played a part, but it caused many hardships and it was only gradually that conditions were improved, by Liberal rather than conservative reforms. The true dark political forces were those who surpressed truth, imprisoned those who dared question them and the establishment which fought tooth and nail to prevent these reforms from happening.

There is no doubt as to Beethoven's position on this - his admiration for Goethe, Schiller, Kant and Napoleon - his interest in Eastern religions and philosophies, his love of Nature, his frequent and open opposition to oppresive Viennese laws (which would have had anyone else in jail) were all well in tune with Enlightenment thinking.

Peter, you are undoubtedly right in seeing the real benefits of the Enlightenment in the ideals of the modern democratic state. However, several historians I have read agree that Communism in the Soviet Union also ultimately developed out of the Enlightenment in the way Amalie descibes. It was a perverse development, no doubt, but the ideas originated in the 18th centruy notion that reason could be applied to human affairs as well as to scientific investigation. Unfortunately taken to its logical extreme and perverted, this resulted in the horrors of Stalinism.

Likewise some historians see in Hitler the twisted outcome of Romanticism. In both cases the originators of the ideas would have rejected in horror the perverted results that came about long after their deaths.

As I said earlier in the thread, I think many human achievements are double-edged swords, and we have to hope that people are wise enough to make the better choices with whatever power they are given to wield.

Chaszz


[This message has been edited by Chaszz (edited October 01, 2003).]

[Peter]

Originally posted by Chaszz:
Peter, you are undoubtedly right in seeing the real benefits of the Enlightenment in the ideals of the modern democratic state. However, several historians I have read agree that Communism in the Soviet Union also ultimately developed out of the Enlightenment in the way Amalie descibes. It was a perverse development, no doubt, but the ideas originated in the 18th centruy notion that reason could be applied to human affairs as well as to scientific investigation. Unfortunately taken to its logical extreme and perverted, this resulted in the horrors of Stalinism.

Likewise some historians see in Hitler the twisted outcome of Romanticism. In both cases the originators of the ideas would have rejected in horror the perverted results that came about long after their deaths.

As I said earlier in the thread, I think many human achievements are double-edged swords, and we have to hope that people are wise enough to make the better choices with whatever power they are given to wield.

Chaszz


[This message has been edited by Chaszz (edited October 01, 2003).]

Yes Chaszz I have ackowledged that 20th century dictators saw something particularly in Rousseau to justify their behaviour. The same happened with Wagner and Hitler. Rousseau was ambiguous and is open to interpretation in more ways than one, but he was only one of many figures of the Enlightenment and as I said previously would have been appalled by Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany. I agree with your double edged sword point - Amalie mentioned the Industrial Revolution as bringing great benefits, yes but you only have to read Dickens to see at what a price. You could also argue that it was a prime cause of 2 world wars, so there is no end to this historical blame game!
Each age has to deal with the problems and injustices of its own era and this is why the Enlightenment was necessary at that time.

------------------
'Man know thyself'



[This message has been edited by Peter (edited October 01, 2003).]

[Sophia]

I didn't have time to read all of the replies but I really feel the need to say something: how naive can you be, thinking that slavery doesnt exist in the modern age, in this age. What do you think immigrants and refugees do when they finally manage to escape from the dictatorships in which they were born in? They reach a country, a "civilised" one, they become (most of them) illegal aliens, and they finally become slaves: they work for peanuts,they have no insurance, they die in factory accidents, every bit of their existence is exploited by the ones who DO have the money and the power.

There IS slavery. It's right outside your door. You just have to open your eyes and see that there is no such thing as democracy and that we are all living in a world of cruel injustice and exploitation. My point is that it's not just happening in "3rd world countries", as we conveniently like to call them, but in our own "western civilisation" (you know, the one we are so proud of).

That's all from me....for now.

[Chaszz]

Originally posted by Sophia:
I didn't have time to read all of the replies but I really feel the need to say something: how naive can you be, thinking that slavery doesnt exist in the modern age, in this age. What do you think immigrants and refugees do when they finally manage to escape from the dictatorships in which they were born in? They reach a country, a "civilised" one, they become (most of them) illegal aliens, and they finally become slaves: they work for peanuts,they have no insurance, they die in factory accidents, every bit of their existence is exploited by the ones who DO have the money and the power.

There IS slavery. It's right outside your door. You just have to open your eyes and see that there is no such thing as democracy and that we are all living in a world of cruel injustice and exploitation. My point is that it's not just happening in "3rd world countries", as we conveniently like to call them, but in our own "western civilisation" (you know, the one we are so proud of).

That's all from me....for now.

Why then have so many come to the US and why do they continue to come? To be exploited as slaves? For all the injustice and inequality in the western world, immigrants are still streaming here and into Europe. Millions of immigrants to the US have lifted themselves and their children into dignity, comfort and acceptance into the fabric of this country thru dedication and hard work. If this weren't true, they wouldn't be still coming here in droves.

Chaszz

[Sophia]

Chazz, there is no point in saying this but I will: apparently the situation in the countries that accept inflows o refugees is better than the situation of the countries from which they flee. But that doesn't mean that the situation in general is good! What I said before IS true, whether you want to belive it or not. They just have nowhere else to go, and nothing else to do than accept the fact that they are been used and exploited, because the alternative would probably be more hunger or even death (when it comes to political refugees) in their own country.

This injustice is real, I didn't make it up. Where I live people die almost every week in worker accidents, and of course no one (absolutely no one) is prosecuted or convicted for these "accidents", because most of the people who die are immigrants, and they are not worth anything, right?
Sophia

[Peter]

Originally posted by Sophia:
I didn't have time to read all of the replies but I really feel the need to say something: how naive can you be, thinking that slavery doesnt exist in the modern age, in this age. What do you think immigrants and refugees do when they finally manage to escape from the dictatorships in which they were born in? They reach a country, a "civilised" one, they become (most of them) illegal aliens, and they finally become slaves: they work for peanuts,they have no insurance, they die in factory accidents, every bit of their existence is exploited by the ones who DO have the money and the power.

There IS slavery. It's right outside your door. You just have to open your eyes and see that there is no such thing as democracy and that we are all living in a world of cruel injustice and exploitation. My point is that it's not just happening in "3rd world countries", as we conveniently like to call them, but in our own "western civilisation" (you know, the one we are so proud of).

That's all from me....for now.

Yes Sophia I agree and have made this point that slavery still exists, but I'm trying to keep this debate in the context of Beethoven and the historical social background. No one is claiming the world is utopia today, far from it and I'm sure Amalie and I are in complete agreement on that! Admittedly we have gone off at tangents and ended up in the 20th century but only as a means of looking at the consequences of the enlightenment. To Amalie I'd say thanks for making this a lively debate and even though we disagree on this one, it has been very interesting looking at this aspect.

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Amalie]

Originally posted by Peter:
Well you can argue about the Ode to Joy (I think it's sentiments are quite clear), what cannot be disputed however is that Schiller was a passionate advocate of the Enlightenment as was the Weimar intellectual circle. The ideals of the Enlightenment were freedom of thought and reason, religious tolerance - yes the philosophies particularly of Rousseau were twisted in a perverted interpretation by future dictators to suit their own ends, but Rousseau would have been horrified by Stalinist Russia. The enlightenment though wasn't about one man, there were others such as Locke, Montesquieu and though they didn't all agree on how to go about it they shared the same basic values and desire to improve the conditions of men.

The true legacy of the Enlightenment is the reforms such as the abolition of slavery, better rights for workers, pensions for the elderly, reform of a corrupt electoral system, a National health service and ultimately votes for women. Yes the Industrial Revolution played a part, but it also caused many hardships and it was only gradually that conditions were improved. The true dark political forces were those who surpressed truth, imprisoned those who dared question them and the establishment which fought tooth and nail to prevent these reforms from happening.

There is little doubt in my mind as to Beethoven's position on this - his admiration for Goethe, Schiller, Kant and Napoleon - his interest in Eastern religions and philosophies, his love of Nature, his frequent and open opposition to oppresive Viennese laws (which would have had anyone else in jail) were all well in tune with Enlightenment thinking.

Thankyou for that Peter,I know what you are saying, but I would resist the idea that Beethoven was a member of any movement. In many ways surely his views were common place and he was very much a traditional male figure of that age. I hate to say this, but I think we have to admit that our dearest Ludwig was really politicaly quite naive, but then why shouldn't he be, I know he took an intelligent interest but that was not his job, he had enough to do being the greatest musical genius of all time.
Certainly I think, he became aware later in life of the dangers of enlightenment blueprint for society, and making him a fully paid up member of the, right on, political wing of Mr. Blair's moderernization movement is a bit wide of the mark. It is true, as you rightly say that he protested against certain restrictive practices in Vienna, but again and I wouldn't emphasize this too much, Beethoven liked money, and he liked the security it brought and he was far from being an outright critic of the ancien regime, who's bread of course he lived by, and he was far from being alienated from their morals or way of life. Indeed did he not accept the nobility of the aristocracy, like Archduke Rudolph, who was a close personal friend, so we can't put Ludwig in a neat box, yes there is the soaring vision of a better world in the 9th symphony, but I would not extrapolate from that, other than a great genius vision of a generally better world for mankind, which we would all agree with.
The problem with enlightenment rights is that they frequently forgot the 'duty' bit with disasterous conscequences which are now only unfolding in modern society.



[This message has been edited by Amalie (edited October 01, 2003).]

[Peter]

Originally posted by Amalie:
Thankyou for that Peter,I know what you are saying, but I would resist the idea that Beethoven was a member of any movement. In many ways surely his views were common place and he was very much a traditional male figure of that age. I hate to say this, but I think we have to admit that our dearest Ludwig was really politicaly quite naive, but then why shouldn't he be, I know he took an intelligent interest but that was not his job, he had enough to do being the greatest musical genius of all time.
Certainly I think, he became aware later in life of the dangers of enlightenment blueprint for society, and making him a fully paid up member of the, right on, political wing of Mr. Blair's moderernization movement is a bit wide of the mark. It is true, as you rightly say that he protested against certain restrictive practices in Vienna, but again and I wouldn't emphasize this too much, Beethoven liked money, and he liked the security it brought and he was far from being an outright critic of the ancien regime, who's bread of course he lived by, and he was far from being alienated from their morals or way of life. Indeed did he not accept the nobility of the aristocracy, like Archduke Rudolph, who was a close personal friend, so we can't put Ludwig in a neat box, yes there is the soaring vision of a better world in the 9th symphony, but I would not extrapolate from that, other than a great genius vision of a generally better world for mankind, which we would all agree with.
The problem with enlightenment rights is that they frequently forgot the 'duty' bit with disasterous conscequences which are now only unfolding in modern society.

[This message has been edited by Amalie (edited October 01, 2003).]

Well I can assure you I am no Blairite! I fully accept that our politically correct society negates personal responsibility and the lack of spiritual awareness, but I do not lay the blame at the door of the Enlightenment. Many of the reforms that came about were necessary and would not have happened without it. Even leading figures of the Enlightenment were not full critics of the ancien regime - they were quite happy for the aristocratic system to remain in place but they wanted a more liberal, tolerant attitude in society especially in regard to justice which was extremely harsh at the time. Beethoven was known to admire the English parliamentary system of government which was more enlightened than the rest of Europe (not saying much!). I think I'll let Beethoven have the last words on this topic: "To do good
wherever we can, to love liberty above all things, and never to
deny truth though it be at the throne itself."



------------------
'Man know thyself'