Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

what do you think of beethoven

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #76
    hi sorano,i am holding a two edged sword, one edge for you and the other for peter, cheers...

    Comment


      #77
      Originally posted by Uniqor:
      Finally, some exciting new conrtibutions...

      Amalie:

      I'm in agrement with you that classical music is "deep". Hence non-classical music is not "serious", only in comparison with classsical.

      Peter:

      Fun is everything. You're into classical because you can have fun from it. By "fun" I mean satisfaction and joy, which is pretty much what fun means really.

      Classical artistic value = intelectual depth+ spiratual depth + x

      Modern artistic value = coolness + letoutness + y

      Artistic value so far = classical artistic value + modern artistic value = Fun

      Pete, I don't give a ratass about heavy metal, but I don't attack its value in order to glorify if you like, classicl value. Does money measure value in some aspects? Tell me who's the richest, Speares or Nyman? Oh, maybe a lame reference - you wouldn't consider Nyman truely classical right?

      atserriotserri:

      For the aesthetic content in your post, I like it. But can't anyone say: modern music fans don't give a shit about classical? You and your friends are an exception though, and statistically, you don't count very much do you? So do I have to add the word "most" to sort this out?

      Ellery:

      Some interesting concepts there! What's not interesting is the fact that you said that Beethoven is the greatest. "Invadora" doesn't idealise beethoven over bach the "traditionalist". Just like Edison doesn't rank above Newton. How do you distinguish invetion between tradition anyway? Hasn't bach "invented" anything at all? If the anwser is no for whatever unreasonable reson, then I doubt that beethoven would've "invented" anything later as he actually did.

      You guess they (modern music fans) don't count, but you have in mind mtv-vh1-kind-of-guys, many people are surprised that there are goth-metal clubs (at least here in Barcelona) that after all the metal stuff, early in the morning, before they kick everybody out, play Haendel's Messiah, Bach cantatas... I remember the night after the end of career party (1996, oh God! I'm rusting) in one of that goth rock clubs a gorgeous girl wearing a t-shirt depicting an old bearded man sat on a chair, and on the back stating "Brahms rules"...

      Regarding Bach, agree.

      "Perception": I think one can isolate perception as a sensitive experience from being related on one's interests or needs in any given moment, or someone's background or interests; so if you're interested in intrincate music that stimulates not just your soul but also your brain to find interconnections between different themes, instruments, flamboyant moments... you'll perceive one piece of music as challenging, brilliant, inspired, interesting, "cool"... and other piece will inspire you a condescendent "nice tune, I must remember it", but you'll look for something else. Perception depends from many things.

      I think most of Gould's LvB piano sonatas interpretation points out interesting aspects of the partiture, so I guess that makes me a hardcore transcendental idealist

      Comment


        #78
        Originally posted by atserriotserri:
        You guess they (modern music fans) don't count, but you have in mind mtv-vh1-kind-of-guys, many people are surprised that there are goth-metal clubs (at least here in Barcelona) that after all the metal stuff, early in the morning, before they kick everybody out, play Haendel's Messiah, Bach cantatas... I remember the night after the end of career party (1996, oh God! I'm rusting) in one of that goth rock clubs a gorgeous girl wearing a t-shirt depicting an old bearded man sat on a chair, and on the back stating "Brahms rules"...
        Virtually all the old hard rock fans i know (like me) are into classical too to varying degrees, some into Jazz as well. This is not usually the case with those who like pop only.


        ------------------
        "If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin
        http://classicalmusicmayhem.freeforums.org

        Comment


          #79
          People who are interested in modern music can actually appreciate classical and jazz, because those old music represents a more complicated aesthetical development. So as long as your taste can be brought "up", or already innately "up" somehow, then you can grow, or happen to like Bach, Beethoven and Brahms.

          My question is: can a already highly developed listener like simple music such as pop? So far according to experience, my anwser is "yes". That means a person, who already got hooked with Beethoven, find the Beetles pleasent as well, knowing that Yesterday is that kind of a piece, which a college fresher can write in a day or so. Well, how explain this? How is the "simple" so very likable, disregard of how "high" one is already? Obviously it is, that there is a common ground for all music - the metaphysical beautiful.

          Plato: anything that reflects the form of beauty is beautiful... So we see that the concepts of "intellectual", "spiritual" superiority and inferiority is more or less irrelavent here. If you are no platonian and don't mind what Plato reckons because you don't believe in hid forms, then what about Nietzsche: forms are crap, beauty is subconciously defined by individuals according to their own pysiological conditions. Wo what now? Yep, this is even more likely to defy those comparisonal concepts! This even means shit can taste delicious for some! But this usually doesn't happen, at least not among our spieces, is due to the common ground that exists for all of us - no matter how different our pyschological situations, we all look upon the same fundamental thing when trying to judge, or just judge, what's beautiful or not. Now come back to my question, which is why I, a classical listener, also enjoy some pieces from other types of music, simpler music.

          So basically, both Plato and Nietzsche, who totally defied the earlier, are in tacic agreement that there is a common ground on which all rest. Forms for Plato and the Will to Power for Nietzsche. Sooo, why look down, or discredit others, by building a illusive hill under your feet, when in fact, all stand the same tall on the sea level of this ground?

          Comment

          Working...
          X