what do you think of beethoven

[Sorrano]

Originally posted by Uniqor:
"Fun" isn't the strict word to use, as far as philosophy of language's concerned, no word is perfect enough to describe aesthetic value. A leibesleid gives me satisfaction by helping me expressing and fantasising, that I call "fun". So puleeez, don't object to defy my common sense and basic reasoning.

Money can't measure a lot of things, not at all, but the popularity of a musician can be measured from his relevant income, especially in the modern economic societies.

Popularuty... Yes, everthing goes back to the fundamentals doesn't it? To ask about the significance of popularity, is to ask how significant is utility gained in consumption. All I've been trying to say is: it is significant. Additionally I say, technical related factors should be disregarded when assessing the value of art. That's why I provided the arguement with a much more relevant consideration - market worth. It seems to me that you haven't been bothered to read my posts with adequate care Peter.

Oh by the way, do you teach TU or To or both?

Let me ask you some questions in order that I might understand what you are trying to say.

If a composition sounds good to the general public does this make it great?

In a top twenty "classical hits" that is conducted among the general public and "Fur Elise" comes out in the top five does that make it one of the five greatest classical compositions?

What is your specific criteria for greatness in art? Can it be based solely upon how it pleases the listener?

I enjoy reading the Alley Oop comicstrips more than I do Anna Karennia. Which is greater?

[Uniqor]

Well, I've been writing my ass off trying to say one thing:

A piece of artwork is great, if you consider the experience of consuming it to be worthwhile.

Therefor, For Elise is great, even if it's great only for me around here, it's still great.

Now it's my turn to ask you a question:

Do you have to say that what you like is superior than what you don't, merely because its more complex in nature, when it generates just as much enjoyment as what you don't like generates for other people?

[Sorrano]

Originally posted by Uniqor:
Well, I've been writing my ass off trying to say one thing:

A piece of artwork is great, if you consider the experience of consuming it to be worthwhile.

Therefor, For Elise is great, even if it's great only for me around here, it's still great.

Now it's my turn to ask you a question:

Do you have to say that what you like is superior than what you don't, merely because its more complex in nature, when it generates just as much enjoyment as what you don't like generates for other people?

So far I have not made any statements as to what I think is superior. If complexity were a criteria of superiority then maybe this would be a Max Reger site, or something like that. (Of course there are more composers of more complex music but I had to through Reger in there.) Personally, I am not very fond of Bach's music (except for the organ music) and I do consider his Mass in B minor and his passions (for example) superior to the Kabalevsly sonatinas, op. 13. So what does that prove? I have no idea. But I feel that superiority is dependant upon many criteria and if you and I cannot agree upon the criteria then no amount of argument or discussion can resolve any issues of what we deem to be the best music. I do not always agree with the majority of the critics in regards to greatness but then I am most likely using a different criteria to determine my own judgment on that. I still do not understand what your criteria is.

[Uniqor]

What don't you understand about my point? "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder", putting it loosely, that is my point.

You like that, I like this, whose like is more worth-liking? The best anwser that you can provide would be just as pointless as the question itself.

[Peter]

Originally posted by Uniqor:
What don't you understand about my point? "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder", putting it loosely, that is my point.

You like that, I like this, whose like is more worth-liking? The best anwser that you can provide would be just as pointless as the question itself.

Some people like killing, it doesn't make it right - it means there is something wrong with that person not the criteria we judge right and wrong by. If someone plays a musical instrument dreadfully but believes it to be wonderful, it is their perspective that is wrong.

When I hear a piece I don't like I always ask myself is it me or the music? How many people dismiss a piece on first hearing or without bothering to listen at all?(there is an enormous difference between hearing and listening).
When I first heard certain Beethoven works such as the Grosse fugue, 1st mov of the 9th, Op.95, I didn't like them. However, I recognised that Beethoven was musically superior to myself and came back to them at a later date and I now fully appreciate these pieces - it was my perspective that was wrong, not the music.

Every great work of art contains a spiritual depth and truth, it is this that marks it out from the ordinary. Some people for whatever reason are unable to see this, but when they do it is like a revelation. Great art affects us on a far deeper level than the superficial ever can. If someone states that chopsticks is greater than the 9th, then I think it quite reasonable to question their powers of intelligence, musicality and spiritual awareness, rather than Beethoven's achievement.

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



[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 12-06-2004).]

[Sorrano]

Originally posted by Uniqor:
What don't you understand about my point? "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder", putting it loosely, that is my point.

You like that, I like this, whose like is more worth-liking? The best anwser that you can provide would be just as pointless as the question itself.

I think there is a big difference in what specific music I often like and what great music is. I do not determine by my level of acceptance whether a work is great or not. With art (painting, sculpture, and etc.) I only know what I like but have no means to judge greatness in these. For that I depend on several learned people in those fields, those that know and understand how these things are put together. As I have some knowledge of music theory and an understanding of form and the inner workings I have some means to judge whether one composition is superior to another in terms of construction and aesthetical content. But I am not the last word on that and I know it.

[Uniqor]

Peter:

Intellegence? Musicality? Depth? It seems to me that you're getting a little aggressive now. Right or wrong to kill? May I remind you that we're in a discusion concerning aesthetics rather than ethics. Also, may I say again that what's significant is whether you like it or not. Doesn't matter how "great" it is, when it fails to generate satisfaction in consumption for him, then it's nothing great for him really. Deciding to develop his "musicality" in order to allow it to become great for him, is an irrelevant matter to these posts. I mean, think about satisfaction as Rome, as long as you're in Rome, does it matter which way you came from? "Classical music affect us much deeplier", I consider this the only real arguement against mine that you've camed up wih so far, so here's my "counterpoint": depth of affection isn't proportional to degree of satisfaction.

Sorano (Peter as well):

What great music is for you, in the most fundamental sense, is those you often like, not those you often dislike but want to like in the future. when you actually achieve your goal, by then, what'll be great for you will still be those you often like. This proccesse may continue a life time. So in the end, what has been great music for you, are all those you've appreciated. See something refreshing here?

[Peter]

Originally posted by Uniqor:
Peter:

Intellegence? Musicality? Depth? It seems to me that you're getting a little aggressive now. Right or wrong to kill? May I remind you that we're in a discusion concerning aesthetics rather than ethics. Also, may I say again that what's significant is whether you like it or not. Doesn't matter how "great" it is, when it fails to generate satisfaction in consumption for him, then it's nothing great for him really. Deciding to develop his "musicality" in order to allow it to become great for him, is an irrelevant matter to these posts. I mean, think about satisfaction as Rome, as long as you're in Rome, does it matter which way you came from? "Classical music affect us much deeplier", I consider this the only real arguement against mine that you've camed up wih so far, so here's my "counterpoint": depth of affection isn't proportional to degree of satisfaction.

Sorano (Peter as well):

What great music is for you, in the most fundamental sense, is those you often like, not those you often dislike but want to like in the future. when you actually achieve your goal, by then, what'll be great for you will still be those you often like. This proccesse may continue a life time. So in the end, what has been great music for you, are all those you've appreciated. See something refreshing here?

Yes intelligence, musicality and spiritual awareness have a big part to play. Simply answer this point - if you listen to a piece and dislike it, by your argument it is not a great piece of music. However if 6 months later you love it, it suddenly is great - what's changed, the music or your own understanding?
Many young people come to classical music later in life - we've had many on this site saying how they used to dislike it, but now love it - what's changed? They've matured, they are seeking greater depth and spirituality.

The fact is the more you listen to a great piece of music the more you learn, the more you discover - so what at first may seem of no value, suddenly reveals more and more. Why does most popular music disappear very quickly? because it lacks depth, it doesn't reveal anything on further listenings. It becomes boring simply because it provides the instant gratification that millions desire - a banal repetitive tune, the most basic of harmonies and a thumping beat that cannot offer the sophistication and spiritual depth of Beethoven.

You have conveniently not answered my point on musical performance. Is it possible to say one performance is better than another, say a school orchestra compared to a professional orchestra? According to your theories the answer should be no, in which case it is also impossible to teach, because I should have to say to my students "simply play as you like because there are no standards, no such thing as a great performance, it is all in the eye of the beholder".

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



[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 12-07-2004).]

[PDG]

Originally posted by Peter:

When I first heard certain Beethoven works such as the Grosse fugue, 1st mov of the 9th, Op.95, I didn't like them. However, I recognised that Beethoven was musically superior to myself and came back to them at a later date and I now fully appreciate these pieces -

Careful, Peter. By saying you fully appreciate them is the same as saying you are sure that they will never again jump up and surprise you! Analytically and clinically you may fully understand the structure and cogs and wheels of these pieces, but the listening experience is ever-evolving. I doubt whether anyone has ever fully appreciated a great Beethoven work; indeed, the question cannot arise. If our appreciation becomes full, then I suggest that the music's apparent greatness must be flawed, since it will have become attainable, and greatness, by design, must always stay just out of reach.

[Peter]

Originally posted by PDG:

Careful, Peter. By saying you fully appreciate them is the same as saying you are sure that they will never again jump up and surprise you! Analytically and clinically you may fully understand the structure and cogs and wheels of these pieces, but the listening experience is ever-evolving.

Welcome back from wherever you've been lurking PDG! Yes of course you are quite right, to claim to understand fully is perhaps rather presumptious, but I think you know what I meant!

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

[Sorrano]

Originally posted by Uniqor:


Sorano (Peter as well):

What great music is for you, in the most fundamental sense, is those you often like, not those you often dislike but want to like in the future. when you actually achieve your goal, by then, what'll be great for you will still be those you often like. This proccesse may continue a life time. So in the end, what has been great music for you, are all those you've appreciated. See something refreshing here?

Looks to me that we are talking apples and oranges. I am looking at greatness in terms of the composition itself not in terms of how I personally feel it stacks up with other compositions. There is a standard, however loosely governed, among music critics throughout the world that makes such calls--not so much in terms of personal aesthtics or in terms of personal opinion--but in terms of construction, influence, and global "popularity". Because of my own musical background I appreciate more the construction and solidity of the composition and though I may personally not like it I can still deem it to be among the great works of the world. But then, I am not one of the standard setters, but rather in terms of my own learning I have accepted much of the criteria in determining what is great and not.

Welcome back, PDG! I hope that you stay for awhile; your comments are appreciated!

[This message has been edited by Sorrano (edited 12-07-2004).]

[Uniqor]

Sorrano:

We're not talking about the factors related to the musical nature of the music, because in comparison with what we're talking about, they're really apples and oranges. We're are alking about what's aesthetically significant for music. You appear to be humble, but I really don't need to know that, because you're not really argueing at all in the last posts of yours.

Peter:

You keep saying that "... makes it great music" or something like that. You can't do it here, simply because the very topic being discused has been what's aestheticalt greatness or whether or not it exists.

You don't have to be "matured" to enjoy "greater" life. Look at how happy kids are, while some "matured" complain like Beethoven: "oh providence, grant me at least but one day of pure joy..." Yes, if I dislike a piece then I say it's no good for me, whether I have the positive atitude to develop a liking for it, is irrelevant here.

Standard in performing exists without a doubt. I play the hammerklavier without reaching the 9th when banging the chords, I play like shit in comparison with Brendel. But when you teach a student that can reach it and reach it perfectly, you don't teach like you use to anymore, because what's there left to teach? So say to your students who play like pianists: "play as you like, it's all in the eye of the beholder, there will always be someone who like your albums, it'll only be a matter of how many like them."

Again, who cares if the music can't offer sophistication, as long as it can offer satisfaction? Who cares if the music isn't complexity-wise great, as long as it's feeling-wise great? Now what matters more to life, complexity-wise or feeling-wise?

[Peter]

Originally posted by Uniqor:
Peter:

You keep saying that "... makes it great music" or something like that. You can't do it here, simply because the very topic being discused has been what's aestheticalt greatness or whether or not it exists.

You don't have to be "matured" to enjoy "greater" life. Look at how happy kids are, while some "matured" complain like Beethoven: "oh providence, grant me at least but one day of pure joy..." Yes, if I dislike a piece then I say it's no good for me, whether I have the positive atitude to develop a liking for it, is irrelevant here.

Standard in performing exists without a doubt. I play the hammerklavier without reaching the 9th when banging the chords, I play like shit in comparison with Brendel. But when you teach a student that can reach it and reach it perfectly, you don't teach like you use to anymore, because what's there left to teach? So say to your students who play like pianists: "play as you like, it's all in the eye of the beholder, there will always be someone who like your albums, it'll only be a matter of how many like them."

Again, who cares if the music can't offer sophistication, as long as it can offer satisfaction? Who cares if the music isn't complexity-wise great, as long as it's feeling-wise great? Now what matters more to life, complexity-wise or feeling-wise?

Clearly we are getting nowhere and shall have to agree to disagree.

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

[Uniqor]

Well, sometimes reaching the level where different believes are identified and distinguished, is an achievement itself. Just think about the philosofical arguements that Chrstians and non-christians have had - all in vain really.

However, I beg to differ, to say that this is the same case. I have been argueing all the way with you, tring to be as relevant to your messages as I possibly could, but you have anwsered me back with the same points over and over again. I have realised something that I didn't have in mind before I was involved in this arguement. For that I thank you, not because that you have taught me something, but because you have provoked some useful thoughts that led me futher deeper into this matter.

If you decide that this arguement has reached its limit, then you are having the same narrow-minded attitude as when you decide that the limit of aesthetic value resides in the nature of the artwork.

"Perception is above and beyond anything." I will cease to argue with you like to a hardcore Christian, if you disagree with this fundamental idea of transcentendal idealism, which is an idea that philosophiers have developed over two thousand years. Like I asked you before in the attempt to ensure that this disscussion would not end up in vain, I ask you again: "are you a transcedental idealist?"


[This message has been edited by Uniqor (edited 12-08-2004).]

[Sorrano]

Originally posted by Uniqor:
Well, sometimes reaching the level where different believes are identified and distinguished, is an achievement itself. Just think about the philosofical arguements that Chrstians and non-christians have had - all in vain really.

However, I beg to differ, to say that this is the same case. I have been argueing all the way with you, tring to be as relevant to your messages as I possibly could, but you have anwsered me back with the same points over and over again. I have realised something that I didn't have in mind before I was involved in this arguement. For that I thank you, not because that you have taught me something, but because you have provoked some useful thoughts that led me futher deeper into this matter.

If you decide that this arguement has reached its limit, then you are having the same narrow-minded attitude as when you decide that the limit of aesthetic value resides in the nature of the artwork.

"Perception is above and beyond anything." I will cease to argue with you like to a hardcore Christian, if you disagree with this fundamental idea of transcentendal idealism, which is an idea that philosophiers have developed over two thousand years. Like I asked you before in the attempt to ensure that this disscussion would not end up in vain, I ask you again: "are you a transcedental idealist?"


[This message has been edited by Uniqor (edited 12-08-2004).]

Sounds to me like you are holding a two-edged sword.