Brahms 1st as Beethovens 10th

[King Stephen]

Originally posted by Rod:
On the other hand I have little time for those who seem to like every composer and wish to be taken seriously. Discernment comes with maturity!

Rod, I would be more inclined to believe that
people who seek out and enjoy a 'lot' of composers have little time to worry about who takes them seriously. I could care less what anyone thinks about the music or composers that fill my life. The decision rest solely with me. To be truthful I have no time to be concerned if I am in good standing with people who don't like nor agree with my assessment of classical music. Why can't music be enjoyed just for the sake of music instead of worrying what the composer was thinking or what kind of a mood was he in when he composed or how smart or how great he was? To me all this is irrelevant, what it all comes done to is the 'tune', do you like or dislike it. If this believe is true then composers of so called mediocrity do have much to contribute to the classical realm. I am sure if you searched you would find many pleasant works of the not so great composers that would appeal to you. By the way, I have never met anyone who likes every composer.....Not even close.

[Amalie]

Rod makes a valid point in so far as he refers to poor recordings of some of Beethoven's minor works. I am sure we lose a lot by that. The genius of Beethoven minifested itself in the smallest cameos and on the largest canvasses.
However, if anyone were to say to me that Sibelius 7th symphony, Britten's Sea Interludes from Peter Grimes and Brahm's violin concerto were not almost self consciously great pieces of music,that immeasurably enrich the human experience, I think I would have to question that persons openness to the wider classical tastes. Surely no one on this site would dream of taking anything away from Beethoven who always consistently offers us fresh and insightful ways of looking at both his unbelievable fruitful output, but also his unique and precious view of the world and the universe.
It is just that there are other great composer, I agree, not absolutely on his level who could be but very great men nevertheless who have rich offerings.

------------------
~ Unsterbliche Geliebte ~

[This message has been edited by Amalie (edited 10-28-2004).]

[Peter]

Originally posted by Rod:
If i find something not to my taste it is not closed minded, i've spent too many hours assessing the other stuff. I've heard it and to my ears this stuff just isn't as good, it's as simple as that.

I have already explained my acceptance of the relative quality of B's own works, but it never comes to my mind when i listen, it's not important. This subtlety of this point is obviously not understood here.

It is understood and for you of course your stance is right, but you cannot conclude that others who enjoy a broader range are not discerning and not to be taken seriously as was your original point, they simply have a different perspective. If the relevant quality of Beethoven's own works is not an issue for you then surely the same criteria should be applied to other composers in relation to Beethoven.



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

[Big D]

Dear beloved friends: When I used the term "goons" and "stink", I simply had no idea what I was about to cause. I did not mean to imply that I hated all other composers outside of Beethoven: I only meant to write that I did not like a lot of the later 19th century composers who, in my opinion, simply copied the style of B. As a matter of fact, I listen to many composers outside of B, even those from the 20th century, such as Prokofiev and Stravinsky.
My point in writing was to say that I did not mean to offend anyone by my comments and am sorry if I did so. I was only trying to generate debate. I promise not to use "shock words" such as "goon" or "stink" again!

Much Love,
Big D

------------------


[This message has been edited by Big D (edited 10-29-2004).]

[Haffner]

Originally posted by King Stephen:

Rod, I would be more inclined to believe that
people who seek out and enjoy a 'lot' of composers have little time to worry about who takes them seriously. I could care less what anyone thinks about the music or composers that fill my life. The decision rest solely with me. To be truthful I have no time to be concerned if I am in good standing with people who don't like nor agree with my assessment of classical music. Why can't music be enjoyed just for the sake of music instead of worrying what the composer was thinking or what kind of a mood was he in when he composed or how smart or how great he was? To me all this is irrelevant, what it all comes done to is the 'tune', do you like or dislike it. If this believe is true then composers of so called mediocrity do have much to contribute to the classical realm. I am sure if you searched you would find many pleasant works of the not so great composers that would appeal to you. By the way, I have never met anyone who likes every composer.....Not even close.

[/B]

This argument irks me even more than Rod's does. I am sorry but this has always upset me because with this, it makes the enjoyment and appreciation of the 20th century impossible. There is far more to music than how it sounds! If we live by this then we all become musical idiots. In the past, the great composer's music would have sounded harsh to ears not used to hearing such sounds and thus, if everyone thought like this then, which most did, Beethoven would have starved to death for lack of work. If people of this persuasion think it was foolish of individuals of the past to dismiss the music of Beethoven as crude, or harsh, you shouldn't, because you are doing the same thing to the great composers alive today.

We live in the most close-minded society in history; new works cannot be performed because all the stupid public wants to hear is the music of the past! Yes, it is great music, but if you do not open your minds and your hearts then this generation will produce no great composers, or artists for that matter! This is the greatest tragedy that could ever occur; does anyone want to be remembered as the generation whose great artists were Britney Spears and 50 Cent?

It sickens me that the best selling authors today are Tom Clancy and Stephen King, such trash deserves to not be spoken of! Though it may be entertaining, Western civilization (at least in North America) has become so preoccupied with entertainment that they no longer care for art. Thus "popular" music, which is of no value other than that of entertainment, has essentially obliterated serious music. But no one seems to understand this and worse, no one seems to care. All they want is a nice tune! They could care less about enlightenment, about making themselves better human beings or at least this is how it appears.

Art is what makes life worth living, it teaches us what it is to be alive and helps us to understand both ourselves and our place in the universe. I applaud everyone who appreciates and loves art of the past but if you are stuck in the past, then this generation will have nothing to show for itself. How will we be viewed as a culture in several hundred years? Nothing of any value is popular and why, because 90% of the world conforms to the life motto of ignorance is bliss. They do not want to think because it is easier not to and how this outrages and saddens me! To think that I am devoting myself to the arts, and now, at age 18, already I realize my existence, no matter how meaningful my creations, will be of little meaning to anyone because of the fickle, watered down world in which I live!

Serious music now makes up 3.5% of the music industry's profits (again, this is in the cultural hell that is North America) and most of this is people buying Mozart and Beethoven, and people who want music to sooth them. I wonder how much of the music industry's profit is made up of modern serious music; my guess would be not even one one-thousandth of a percent. And this idea of liking music for a tune is to blame.

Yes music is entertaining, I as everyone in the world listen with a somewhat indifferent ear occasionally looking only for "tunefulness" but when this is all one does, they do not love music, they do it a great injustice. Everyone has their passions and if art is not one I suppose that is fine but to degrade art by seeking its entertainment value only offends me, it offends me more than anything on earth.

My apologies to King Stephen because this is not directed at you. I do not know you personally but this has been coming to the forefront in my life lately and thus I said what I felt I had to say concerning that which I believe should be of great concern to all human beings. I see the intelligence in your argument concerning Rod's views (which I do not understand but though they seem to be sincere I cannot argue with them) and you should not consider yourself grouped along with the ignorant masses I am discussing.

[atserriotserri]

My humble point of view:

Regarding 20th century "serious" music: I'm sorry Haffner, but wouldn't be that cathegorical. We're humans, we work, we have families, hobbies .... and we must sleep. That is, we have limited time to listen to music. When one has money on his hand to buy a record to fulfill his intellectual, emotional needs or both, the decision is based on one's budget, musical background and prudence. How many people newly interested in classical music or finding time now to listen carefully are around the world simultanously thinking in a record store... Why try a novel composer that perhaps will not satisfy me when I can buy a record from a famous & renowned interpreter playing works from one of the most respected composers of the history of music?? Or how many people attracted by classical music are thinking.... Why buy something new when I can enhance my knowledge of one of my admired composers buying some minor works that may discover me some treasures, or another performance of one of my beloved pieces??? Or (as me)... first bach, then chopin, mozart, beethoven, rachmaninov & tchaikovski..... then we'll see. I positively know that I'm missing thousands of hours of great music, but honestly, I tend to play safe and focus on the hundreds of hours of music from composers that I like and still haven't listened at. The more music I listen, the more fronts I have opened and the more curious I am the more composers I want to learn about, but the time to dedicate is the same (or less). Sometimes I found myself leaving a record of a piece I didn't know and buying instead a record of another version of a piece I was listening at that time and liked it, to see the differences of the performances, to try to define some performer's style, to see how different people approach to the same partiture...

We have easy access now to many sources of culture, speaking just about music, each day passes, the more records are available specially on classical music (labels like naxos are reducing its catalogue on one side but editing historical performances, the remastering "fever" has good side effects....).

The focusing on entertainment hasn't obliterated classical music, under my point of view. The kid you could consider the sillier or with worse taste on earth when he's 19 years old perhaps has listened more music than the average elder man in XVII century. Better or worse music, is another issue and I guess I won't argue with you about that.

[Peter]

Originally posted by Haffner:

This argument irks me even more than Rod's does. I am sorry but this has always upset me because with this, it makes the enjoyment and appreciation of the 20th century impossible. There is far more to music than how it sounds! If we live by this then we all become musical idiots. In the past, the great composer's music would have sounded harsh to ears not used to hearing such sounds and thus, if everyone thought like this then, which most did, Beethoven would have starved to death for lack of work. If people of this persuasion think it was foolish of individuals of the past to dismiss the music of Beethoven as crude, or harsh, you shouldn't, because you are doing the same thing to the great composers alive today.

We live in the most close-minded society in history; new works cannot be performed because all the stupid public wants to hear is the music of the past! Yes, it is great music, but if you do not open your minds and your hearts then this generation will produce no great composers, or artists for that matter! This is the greatest tragedy that could ever occur; does anyone want to be remembered as the generation whose great artists were Britney Spears and 50 Cent?

It sickens me that the best selling authors today are Tom Clancy and Stephen King, such trash deserves to not be spoken of! Though it may be entertaining, Western civilization (at least in North America) has become so preoccupied with entertainment that they no longer care for art. Thus "popular" music, which is of no value other than that of entertainment, has essentially obliterated serious music. But no one seems to understand this and worse, no one seems to care. All they want is a nice tune! They could care less about enlightenment, about making themselves better human beings or at least this is how it appears.

Art is what makes life worth living, it teaches us what it is to be alive and helps us to understand both ourselves and our place in the universe. I applaud everyone who appreciates and loves art of the past but if you are stuck in the past, then this generation will have nothing to show for itself. How will we be viewed as a culture in several hundred years? Nothing of any value is popular and why, because 90% of the world conforms to the life motto of ignorance is bliss. They do not want to think because it is easier not to and how this outrages and saddens me! To think that I am devoting myself to the arts, and now, at age 18, already I realize my existence, no matter how meaningful my creations, will be of little meaning to anyone because of the fickle, watered down world in which I live!

Serious music now makes up 3.5% of the music industry's profits (again, this is in the cultural hell that is North America) and most of this is people buying Mozart and Beethoven, and people who want music to sooth them. I wonder how much of the music industry's profit is made up of modern serious music; my guess would be not even one one-thousandth of a percent. And this idea of liking music for a tune is to blame.

Yes music is entertaining, I as everyone in the world listen with a somewhat indifferent ear occasionally looking only for "tunefulness" but when this is all one does, they do not love music, they do it a great injustice. Everyone has their passions and if art is not one I suppose that is fine but to degrade art by seeking its entertainment value only offends me, it offends me more than anything on earth.

My apologies to King Stephen because this is not directed at you. I do not know you personally but this has been coming to the forefront in my life lately and thus I said what I felt I had to say concerning that which I believe should be of great concern to all human beings. I see the intelligence in your argument concerning Rod's views (which I do not understand but though they seem to be sincere I cannot argue with them) and you should not consider yourself grouped along with the ignorant masses I am discussing.

You're missing one very crucial point - in Beethoven's day there was a great demand for new music, people were not interested much in the past. Today the opposite is true and you have to ask why? It is not enough to insult the public as being stupid - the music of Schoenberg has been around for a century but still it has not succeeded in being loved as Beethoven is. Could it be that the composers of today are at fault, that they are failing in their duty to inspire people, that they are over-intellectual at the price of the spiritual? When Beethoven died he didn't have to wait to be discovered, 30,000 people attended his funeral, his was a househod name throughout Europe and probably the united states as well - he is of course loved today by millions, and why? because he speaks to us directly and because his message is timeless. Modern composers need to learn how to communicate like that then perhaps we will see a new renaissance in the arts.

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

[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 10-29-2004).]

[Gurn Blanston]

Originally posted by Haffner:
...it makes the enjoyment and appreciation of the 20th century impossible. There is far more to music than how it sounds... [/B]

Haffner,
I have always respected your opinions, they have been thoughtful and interesting. However, I have to draw the line at this. No, there is NOT a lot more to music than how it sounds. And when you bemoan the demise of respect for 20th century conposers, the attitude that they project is exactly as you have stated, and it is wrong, wrong, wrong. It is patently obvious that a large majority (note well, I am NOT saying all) of composers since the last turn of the century have been totally unconcerned with how music sounds. They are making "art", after all, it is the structure, man, not the sound! Well, that is absurd. It is self-inflating overestimation of worth. Do you think there is not a reason why the public have rejected this dross? The public aren';t idiots, as much as the art world would like to think so. The public doesn't buy Elliot Carter's inane ramblings any more than they did the blank canvas being called a painting of a blizzard. Music, as much as it may repel some to be classified as such, is an entertainment. If it fails to entertain then it has failed and will be rejected. It is not the public that has failed here, it is the "artist". I am not arguing for a rebirth of the Classical Era here, that would be equally absurd. But the values inherent in that era, and the subsequent Romantic era, of entertaining people with lovely sounds placed in unique juxtaposition, IS somethign that could be returned to, it is only a value system, and a darned fine one.




------------------
Regards,
Gurn
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That's my opinion, I may be wrong.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[atserriotserri]

One more point, excuse me in advance for re-posting and don't misunderstand me, but...

20th century will give you many many examples of people considering themselves "artists" and saying to everyone they've devoted their lives to the arts: a guy that makes a hole on the bottom of a bucket of paint and lets it drip over a canvas on the floor, a girl who dances more or less coordinatedly (and more or less dressed) while lip-synching the lyrics of a music a bunch of guys pretend they're playing but everyone knows it's all recorded, a gentleman considering a corageous artistic action record only the breathing of a pianist sitting in front of a piano without playing any key, a photographer making people of hundreds of people naked in a public place, a guy that just loves wrapping buildings and monuments. The painter who was payed thousands of euros for doing the murals of Sevilla Cathedral and are identic to those he was already payed for painting in santo domingo on t.v. had his mouth full of arts, devotion, dedication, commitment, a guy who was payed thousands of euros for doing a hymn (in a classical way) for the province of Madrid in spain (incidentally, pathetic) was the same guy who pretended playing korg keyboards' carcasses, since there is footage of the roadies of his former band carrying each one 2 korg keyboards on each arm since those were empty! etc.....
Messianism is something that is no good for such a young and enthusiastic, interested in music person like you.

[King Stephen]

We live in the most close-minded society in history; new works cannot be performed because all the stupid public wants to hear is the music of the past! Yes, it is great music, but if you do not open your minds and your hearts then this generation will produce no great composers, or artists for that matter! This is the greatest tragedy that could ever occur; does anyone want to be remembered as the generation whose great artists were Britney Spears and 50 Cent?


Serious music now makes up 3.5% of the music industry's profits (again, this is in the cultural hell that is North America) and most of this is people buying Mozart and Beethoven, and people who want music to sooth them. I wonder how much of the music industry's profit is made up of modern serious music; my guess would be not even one one-thousandth of a percent. And this idea of liking music for a tune is to blame.

Yes music is entertaining, I as everyone in the world listen with a somewhat indifferent ear occasionally looking only for "tunefulness" but when this is all one does, they do not love music, they do it a great injustice. Everyone has their passions and if art is not one I suppose that is fine but to degrade art by seeking its entertainment value only offends me, it offends me more than anything on earth.

My apologies to King Stephen because this is not directed at you. I do not know you personally but this has been coming to the forefront in my life lately and thus I said what I felt I had to say concerning that which I believe should be of great concern to all human beings. I see the intelligence in your argument concerning Rod's views (which I do not understand but though they seem to be sincere I cannot argue with them) and you should not consider yourself grouped along with the ignorant masses I am discussing.[/B][/QUOTE]

Haffner, No aplogies needed when expressing your personal views, but thank you just the same.
The problem that I have with your standing is that I have, in my 68 years on this planet, heard much in the realm of 20th century music and been left more or less scratching my head. What are (most) composers trying to say? Why all this mathematical configuration in their music, why are themes so unintelligible? You put, in my opinon to much emphasis on what is not happening to the music of today instead of trying to find out what is wrong with it, why don't people take to it?
Back a few years at Symphony Hall in Boston there was a piece of "music?" that was performed. On stage were a number of percussion instuments. The piece, which has a title and for reasons of my better psyche I have forgotten, were banged around like toy drums for what seemed eternity. At the end of this so called 20th century piece of music the 'elite' audience booed, whistled and hissed. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that this response was right. What I am saying is that most sounds that are not pleasant to our ears are in reality noise.
This work sounded no better then 2 garbage cans being banged around. I am sure there are many more examples of such pieces being performed under the title of serious music. Now..... Here is the kicker, about 6 months after this live concert it was repeated on a local classical music station and lo and behold at the very end what had happened at the live concert was cut, no booes, no whistles, no hisses. Did that make the piece exceptable? Absoultly not. Did it make it better? I think not. This is only one example of what is being put out under the name of Serious music and it is no wonder that people seach out and find what they are looking for in past composers. Again I would be a fool if I said all 20th century music was bad. And I believe that a lot of what is called music from our time is self distructing. If you feel that stongly about your convictions then get out there and beat the doors down but please don't beat on my door. Beside being pleasing to our ears and because it entertains us ,what more do you want music to do. It is not a tangable item like a painting hanging on a wall, nor is it like a book in a book case. I've said it before, it is something that effects both heart and mind so why would one seek out something that is not pleasant to both?. I refuse to be dupped by todays standards, and they have changed from Beethoven's day, of classical music. Maybe, Haffner, classical music is 'dead'. We have been left a wonderful legacy by the composers of the past. Why not enjoy it instead of analizing it. Beethoven is as much a part of the lives of music lovers today, maybe more so, as they were in his day.
Haffner, I do respect your beliefs, although I do not agree with you, you do spike my interest.

[This message has been edited by King Stephen (edited 10-30-2004).]

[Haffner]

You all make interesting arguments but by them I am left unsatisfied. atserriotserri, your argument about not having time to understand is very weak. Yes of course, everyone has other commitments besides music but what you are saying boarders on pure laziness. To seek a familiar work rather than a new one so as to deter disappointment is simply playing it safe and to me a very boring way to live; you seek the entertainment value of music but why are you entertained by "lesser" works as you call them of the great composers? Because they are pleasant or inoffensive and easy to listen to? What are you then but an indifferent bystander?

Peter, I do agree that many composers are more concerned with the intellectual aspect of their work than the emotional or spiritual aspect but there are many now, more so than 50 years ago, who are concerned solely with expressive new directions. I do not feel I am insulting the public when I call them stupid (perhaps ignorant would be a better word to use) because they on the whole can not see the beauty of some dissonance, all they hear is that which they are not accustomed to, that which is different. There are intense harmonic ambiguities in Mozart; the introduction to the so called "Dissonant" string quartet or the 40th symphony in G minor which actually, in the fourth movement, presents very clearly a tone row! I think though that you are right in several respects, the main one being that though the music of the greats was originally rejected for being different it was soon accepted for its sincerity and passion. This has not happened with Schoenberg and in my opinion rightfully so, it is quite dry, but it is also not yet happened with the music of Bartok. Above this great master I place only Mozart and Chopin and yet, one's music who I find to be so expressive, so spiritual is rejected by the ignorant due to its apparent harshness; anyone who is not moved by Bartok is restraining themselves because I do not know of more passionate sincere music. What is this then, this rejection of sincerity, what would you call it other than stupidity or ignorance?

Gurn
You do not seem to understand something very important; had you lived in the eras you admire so greatly, the sounds of Beethoven, Mozart, Schumann or Wagner would have been harsh to your unaccustomed ear. Hard to believe as it is, it would have been as harsh as the 20th century music is now to your ears but one must grow accustomed to new harmonies, new tonalities and new sounds if music is to move forward. How can you not agree since you acknowledge that a rebirth of the classical era would be foolish? Where else do we go; without new sounds all we are doing is restating over and over. Also, I never said that modern composers did not care about how their work sounds, that is absurd, of course if a composer did not take into consideration the sound of a composition he would be a hack, but in turn, if he is not in some way moving forward, then he is as doomed a hack as the former.

Do you see music as entertainment or art because it cannot be both. Though art may entertain, it must do something more to be art; it must ask, search, and provoke thought, feeling and understanding. I can guarantee with great confidence that Beethoven would have disagreed with you, there is much more to music than how it sounds, if there were not, it would simply be entertainment and cease to be art.

King Stephen
Well you certainly project a gloomy vision of our future! Classical music "dead", then I am dead and the entire human race is dead. Art is the most important, it asks questions about who we are and when you say want more do you want from music, this is my answer; I want art! Pretty melodies in the style of Beethoven are no longer art because that is not progress and we require progress. Art is the transference of the human condition into a physical (in this case audible) form. To me this goes far beyond that which is pleasant.

On that note, all music cannot be pleasant because all of life is not pleasant. Life is at times wretched, meaningless, hopeless and seemingly worthless; just because this is not the mentality we wish to commonly adhere to, it still exists and is thus worth expressing. No, forget "worth expressing"; because it exists it must be expressed! By what means should we do this, pleasant melodies?

[Gurn Blanston]

Originally posted by Haffner:
Gurn
You do not seem to understand something very important; had you lived in the eras you admire so greatly, the sounds of Beethoven, Mozart, Schumann or Wagner would have been harsh to your unaccustomed ear. Hard to believe as it is, it would have been as harsh as the 20th century music is now to your ears but one must grow accustomed to new harmonies, new tonalities and new sounds if music is to move forward. How can you not agree since you acknowledge that a rebirth of the classical era would be foolish? Where else do we go; without new sounds all we are doing is restating over and over. Also, I never said that modern composers did not care about how their work sounds, that is absurd, of course if a composer did not take into consideration the sound of a composition he would be a hack, but in turn, if he is not in some way moving forward, then he is as doomed a hack as the former.

Do you see music as entertainment or art because it cannot be both. Though art may entertain, it must do something more to be art; it must ask, search, and provoke thought, feeling and understanding. I can guarantee with great confidence that Beethoven would have disagreed with you, there is much more to music than how it sounds, if there were not, it would simply be entertainment and cease to be art.
On that note, all music cannot be pleasant because all of life is not pleasant. Life is at times wretched, meaningless, hopeless and seemingly worthless; just because this is not the mentality we wish to commonly adhere to, it still exists and is thus worth expressing. No, forget "worth expressing"; because it exists it must be expressed! By what means should we do this, pleasant melodies?

Haffner,
Actually, I am very well aware that the contemporaries of Mozart and Beethoven found them hard to take. However, it is not for the same reasons that we are talking about with many modern composers. And it was not knowledgeable people in most cases either. A big criticism of both of them was that their works required precision playing to sound good, and many musicians weren't capable of delivering the goods. They liked the easy stuff.
For example, a criticism of Mozart from Vanhal (a knowledgeable observer): He puts so many ideas of such beauty that you cannot savor one before another is there. Yikes, doesn't sound like Concerto for Jackhammer with Garbage Truck obliggato to me!
Beethoven was criticized more by his peers for maintaining classical style and developing it in new ways than he was for making anyone's ears bleed. To wit, he was old fashioned to all the young guys.
I ask you, do you think that I haven't listened to these things? That I am simply criticizing for the sake of doing so? I assure you this is not the case. I understand also that not all music can be pleasant, that it can and must express unpleasant and depressing feelings. Listen to the String Quintet in g minor, K 516 and tell me that this doesn't express a whole range of emotion on the dark side, and yet do it in a beautifully tuneful manner. I can take dissonance as well as the next person, but to have it in an unrelieved, unresolved barrage is not my idea of what music should sound like.
Time has filtered out many composers of the past, names you and I have never heard. It is a Darwinian process and inexorable. Even composers overlooked in their own lifetimes, such as Schubert whose music was rescued by Schumann and Mendelssohn, will find their place if they have merit. And so it will be with this generation too. Quality will live on long beyond us, crap will disappear quicker than the Ruttles.
And yes, music CAN be art & entertainment. If it fails to be so it will perish. The fallacy of your statement lies in the fact that music does not exist unless it is perceived by a listener. It can be written as neatly as dammit on the page, but if in the realization it does not please, then it will surely die. So I propose to you that music MUST BE entertainment as well as art. Because in the event, if it is only art and not entertainment it will not have the critical aspect that makes it exist: listeners.


------------------
Regards,
Gurn
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That's my opinion, I may be wrong.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[King Stephen]

Originally posted by Haffner:


King Stephen
Well you certainly project a gloomy vision of our future! Classical music "dead", then I am dead and the entire human race is dead. Art is the most important, it asks questions about who we are and when you say want more do you want from music, this is my answer; I want art! Pretty melodies in the style of Beethoven are no longer art because that is not progress and we require progress. Art is the transference of the human condition into a physical (in this case audible) form. To me this goes far beyond that which is pleasant.

On that note, all music cannot be pleasant because all of life is not pleasant. Life is at times wretched, meaningless, hopeless and seemingly worthless; just because this is not the mentality we wish to commonly adhere to, it still exists and is thus worth expressing. No, forget "worth expressing"; because it exists it must be expressed! By what means should we do this, pleasant melodies?

Haffner,
My remark that classical music is dead is based solely on your thesus that 20th century music is neglected. Again I ask you why?. And yes music can be an art form and still be entertaining.
As far as life being unpleasant, it is you and not I that bring doom and gloom to the art. I seek out music to bring joy to my life not gloom.
Your statment and I quote "There is more to music than sound." My wife who is an artist has a phrase she uses and it is as follows;
Paintings are to be seen
Literature is to be read
Music is to be heard.
The last time I got involved with the Beethoven 9th Symphony was to hear it, and in the finale analysis that is what music is all about, TO BE HEARD. Most people turn to music to be entertained as well as to break away from the displeasures of every day life.

Haffner, I have one remaing question for you. What if there was no more classical music being composed. What would happen to your belief? Most of us would servive very well, where as what would you do?
In all your post you have never once said why we should open up more to 20th century music. What does it have to offer beside, in most cases, sterility ( my opinion). We are under no obligation to listen to something that is unpleasant to our ears.
I will go a step further, I will not spend time on something I do not like.
Not that it matters much but my music collection numbers over 4000 cd's and everyone was bought because it was what I wanted. I find absolutly nothing wrong 'hanging' out in the baroque, classical and romantic periods. There really is no time date to music ask any new student to classical music when Beethoven's 5th was composed and you'll get answers ranging from now to 300 years ago. To quote Gurn; So much music so little time. You bet, so I will enjoy what I like and in the process if I find a piece of music from the 20th century that I fancy I will listen and enjoy it.
Please Haffner don't comeback with I don't understand. Believe me I fully understand. You put to much enphases on the whys and wherefores. Sit back and enjoy the music.

[Peter]

Originally posted by Haffner:
Peter, I do agree that many composers are more concerned with the intellectual aspect of their work than the emotional or spiritual aspect but there are many now, more so than 50 years ago, who are concerned solely with expressive new directions. I do not feel I am insulting the public when I call them stupid (perhaps ignorant would be a better word to use) because they on the whole can not see the beauty of some dissonance, all they hear is that which they are not accustomed to, that which is different. There are intense harmonic ambiguities in Mozart; the introduction to the so called "Dissonant" string quartet or the 40th symphony in G minor which actually, in the fourth movement, presents very clearly a tone row! I think though that you are right in several respects, the main one being that though the music of the greats was originally rejected for being different it was soon accepted for its sincerity and passion. This has not happened with Schoenberg and in my opinion rightfully so, it is quite dry, but it is also not yet happened with the music of Bartok. Above this great master I place only Mozart and Chopin and yet, one's music who I find to be so expressive, so spiritual is rejected by the ignorant due to its apparent harshness; anyone who is not moved by Bartok is restraining themselves because I do not know of more passionate sincere music. What is this then, this rejection of sincerity, what would you call it other than stupidity or ignorance?

I also share your enthusiasm for Bartok, but I wouldn't place him above Beethoven!
I also agree that contemporary music is important and needs encouragement, but somehow composers of today need to reconnect with the public - this doesn't necessarily mean a good tune, it just means having something to say in a sincere manner. I think Bartok, Stravinsky, Shostakovich and Prokofiev did this and they are accepted in the great canon of major composers - I think from the 1950s on somehow serious music has failed to connect, but I am sure this is just a phase and eventually a new form of expression will evolve. We have to also remember that the audience even for mainstream classical music is and always has been relatively small.

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

[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 10-31-2004).]

[Amalie]

If I may say here, surely we all listen to great music primarily because we like it and it speaks to us and entertains us, though I think some of the difficulty may be with the word 'entertain' which can make serious music sound like a 'dog & pony' show.
As I see it, classical music delights, entertains, uplifts, soothes, educates and can even purify, what Shakespeare called 'Purging our Grosser Nature' .
Look at Haydn's Surprise Symphony which contains a great deal of Haydn's wit and humour, when we are never quite sure what turn the music will take next and Haydn springs delightful surprises on us, and of course Beethoven has his moments of humour and teasing, which I delight in!
And what about the most delightful Mozart Opera, The Magic Flute, which is not only extremley clever, witty and funny, but also a high art of the most distinguished kind!







[This message has been edited by Amalie (edited 10-31-2004).]