Even so, I stick by my opinion...I still don't think Handel is as good as Bach (although, if you refer to one of my posts above, I stated that I do love some of Handel's music)
-
-
Please discuss the music and composers - not one another. Nothing to be gained by that.Comment
-
Quite so Chris, you tell 'em!Originally posted by Chris:
Please discuss the music and composers - not one another. Nothing to be gained by that.
------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod CorkinComment
-
What Chris says SOUNDS sensible, especially for a moderator. But I disagree insofar as I find the differences between listeners as fascinating as the differences between composers. In both cases we are looking into the mysterious depth of the mind and heart and trying to gain some insight into what actually makes art vital and communicative. How someone who responds strongly to Beethoven and Handel cannot appreciate Bach will fascinate me forever. And I find it just as appropriate and worthy of discussion on a music board as one's reactions to a piece by Haydn or Haydn's influence on Beethoven. After all, without the listener, who is all of us, nobody would care about music in the least. If the topic is music, why is the mystery of the indispensable listener less worthy of discussion than the mystery of the indispensable composer?Originally posted by Chris:
Please discuss the music and composers - not one another. Nothing to be gained by that.
If it were to degenerate into name calling it would of course be inappropriate. But calling attention to a poster's ingenuous slips of logic in debate about music is not name calling, any more than is discussing Beethoven's sly manipulations of his publishers. And perhaps more to the point.
[This message has been edited by Chaszz (edited 10-26-2005).]See my paintings and sculptures at Saatchiart.com. In the search box, choose Artist and enter Charles Zigmund.Comment
-
Yes Chaszz but even amongst the great composers they degenerated into name calling! How can we explain why an artist as sensitive as Clara Schumann for example regarded Brahms's 1st symphony as a disappointment? Why did she regard all Liszt's music as trash? Why did Chopin have no time for Schumann's music? Tchaikovsky thought little of Handel and Brahms. Wagner regarded everybody as inferior to himself! There is no answer to this other than we all respond differently.Originally posted by Chaszz:
What Chris says SOUNDS sensible, especially for a moderator. But I disagree insofar as I find the differences between listeners as fascinating as the differences between composers. In both cases we are looking into the mysterious depth of the mind and heart and trying to gain some insight into what actually makes art vital and communicative. How someone who responds strongly to Beethoven and Handel cannot appreciate Bach will fascinate me forever. And I find it just as appropriate and worthy of discussion on a music board as one's reactions to a piece by Haydn or Haydn's influence on Beethoven. After all, without the listener, who is all of us, nobody would care about music in the least. If the topic is music, why is the mystery of the indispensable listener less worthy of discussion than the mystery of the indispensable composer?
If it were to degenerate into name calling it would of course be inappropriate. But calling attention to a poster's ingenuous slips of logic in debate about music is not name calling, any more than is discussing Beethoven's sly manipulations of his publishers. And perhaps more to the point.
[This message has been edited by Chaszz (edited 10-26-2005).]
------------------
'Man know thyself''Man know thyself'Comment
-
How can anyone (Chopin) not like Schumann's music? That's puzzling to me.Comment
-
Originally posted by Peter:
Yes Chaszz but even amongst the great composers they degenerated into name calling! How can we explain why an artist as sensitive as Clara Schumann for example regarded Brahms's 1st symphony as a disappointment? Why did she regard all Liszt's music as trash? Why did Chopin have no time for Schumann's music? Tchaikovsky thought little of Handel and Brahms. Wagner regarded everybody as inferior to himself! There is no answer to this other than we all respond differently.
But my point was that discussion here of differences among listeners' preferences is as valid as discussion of music and composers and composers' preferences. I tried to rule out name-calling as beyond the pale, because this practice can degenerate into personality clashes rather than a search for musical insight. You've not responded to my point, as far as I can tell, except to seemingly legitimize name-calling.
(By the way, Wagner regarded Beethoven as the greatest composer, and Mozart and Bach not far behind, if at all. He regarded as inferior to himself all the then-living composers. Which is a judgment that is hard to disagree with.)See my paintings and sculptures at Saatchiart.com. In the search box, choose Artist and enter Charles Zigmund.Comment
-
Chaszz your usual light hearted manner seems to have deserted you - I wasn't being serious and certainly do not condone 'name-calling', if anything your own posts were going down that road by being provocative regarding Rod. The debate is valid but where do we go from simply stating our preferences? As for Wagner's opinion of other 19th century composers, it's actually pretty easy to disagree with as many did then and still do today!Originally posted by Chaszz:
But my point was that discussion here of differences among listeners' preferences is as valid as discussion of music and composers and composers' preferences. I tried to rule out name-calling as beyond the pale, because this practice can degenerate into personality clashes rather than a search for musical insight. You've not responded to my point, as far as I can tell, except to seemingly legitimize name-calling.
(By the way, Wagner regarded Beethoven as the greatest composer, and Mozart and Bach not far behind, if at all. He regarded as inferior to himself all the then-living composers. Which is a judgment that is hard to disagree with.)
------------------
'Man know thyself''Man know thyself'Comment
-
Where do we go from simply stating our preferences? Well,Originally posted by Peter:
Chaszz your usual light hearted manner seems to have deserted you - I wasn't being serious and certainly do not condone 'name-calling', if anything your own posts were going down that road by being provocative regarding Rod. The debate is valid but where do we go from simply stating our preferences? As for Wagner's opinion of other 19th century composers, it's actually pretty easy to disagree with as many did then and still do today!
1. Some people seem to have a hard time with heavy polyphony. In addition to Rod, there is someone on another music board who calls herself a fan of early music yet dislikes Bach. When questioned, she admitted she prefers Renaissance to Baroque because of the relative lack of polyphony, or at least the simpler polyphony, of the earlier style.
This interests me in both cases because I think it may point to a difference in the brain. As brain scientists now use MRI or other imaging scans to see which areas of the brain respond to different stimuli, I would think if a study were made of musical tastes, they might identify an area of the brain that responds to polyphony. And that if people who don't enjoy polyphony were scanned, this area in their brains wouldn't "light up" in the same intensity when polyphonic music was played for them, as it would "light up" in someone who enjoys Bach.
2. A related topic is why Bach himself was so completely wedded to polyphony. I recently listened to some chamber music by one of his heroes, Buxtehude, the organist whom the young Bach walked a hundred miles to hear play, and who said when Bach played for him "I thought that this art was dead, but I see it still lives in you." Now this was chamber music, not organ music, but it was in many spots monophonic, which surprised me. If even a great composer of the previous generation was less polyphonic than Bach, then he was extreme even for his own time. Why? Is this also an accident of brain development?
3. Would the classic and romantic eras both have had more polyphonic writing if Bach had not been relatively forgotten until 1850? Especially as regards Mozart and Beethoven.
4. Is there any relationship between the polarities polyphony/monophony and classical/romantic? Do people who prefer homophony often also prefer classicism? Would brain scans also agree? The classical/romantic duality goes beyond music into the other arts also, and leads to a number of interesting situations and questions. And would the divide between abstract music and program music also have predictable affiliations in the other dichotomies menioned above?
There are other issues sometimes on my mind that I could mention, but the above gives some idea of why I think this kind of speculation is worthwhile. Now you may still say "Okay, but so what? Does this really illuminate anything about music?" Well, for one thing, it may account for why a particular player interprets something one way and not another. It may help a player in interpretation if he knows more about the composer's mind and tendencies. It may help explain why some composers are perfectly in tune with their era - Wagner - and others somewhat at cross-purposes to it - Brahms. It may help account for why some listeners 'get' Bach and others don't. Or Mozart, or Schubert, or Schumann, or Beethoven. And perhaps it goes toward the question of what musical worth really consists of.
No?
[This message has been edited by Chaszz (edited 10-28-2005).]See my paintings and sculptures at Saatchiart.com. In the search box, choose Artist and enter Charles Zigmund.Comment
-
Well that's very interesting Chaszz, but almosty impossible to answer! Surely other factors such as environment and exposure at an early age are also determining factors. Also of course people's tastes change - I think I appreciate a great deal more modern music than I did as a teenager and I certainly have a greater love for late Beethoven. Also I believe there is evidence that the music we listen to directly effects our brains so it could be a chicken and egg situation?Originally posted by Chaszz:
Where do we go from simply stating our preferences? Well,
1. Some people seem to have a hard time with heavy polyphony. In addition to Rod, there is someone on another music board who calls herself a fan of early music yet dislikes Bach. When questioned, she admitted she prefers Renaissance to Baroque because of the relative lack of polyphony, or at least the simpler polyphony, of the earlier style.
This interests me in both cases because I think it may point to a difference in the brain. As brain scientists now use MRI or other imaging scans to see which areas of the brain respond to different stimuli, I would think if a study were made of musical tastes, they might identify an area of the brain that responds to polyphony. And that if people who don't enjoy polyphony were scanned, this area in their brains wouldn't "light up" in the same intensity when polyphonic music was played for them, as it would "light up" in someone who enjoys Bach.
2. A related topic is why Bach himself was so completely wedded to polyphony. I recently listened to some chamber music by one of his heroes, Buxtehude, the organist whom the young Bach walked a hundred miles to hear play, and who said when Bach played for him "I thought that this art was dead, but I see it still lives in you." Now this was chamber music, not organ music, but it was in many spots monophonic, which surprised me. If even a great composer of the previous generation was less polyphonic than Bach, then he was extreme even for his own time. Why? Is this also an accident of brain development?
3. Would the classic and romantic eras both have had more polyphonic writing if Bach had not been relatively forgotten until 1850? Especially as regards Mozart and Beethoven.
4. Is there any relationship between the polarities polyphony/monophony and classical/romantic? Do people who prefer homophony often also prefer classicism? Would brain scans also agree? The classical/romantic duality goes beyond music into the other arts also, and leads to a number of interesting situations and questions. And would the divide between abstract music and program music also have predictable affiliations in the other dichotomies menioned above?
There are other issues sometimes on my mind that I could mention, but the above gives some idea of why I think this kind of speculation is worthwhile. Now you may still say "Okay, but so what? Does this really illuminate anything about music?" Well, for one thing, it may account for why a particular player interprets something one way and not another. It may help a player in interpretation if he knows more about the composer's mind and tendencies. It may help explain why some composers are perfectly in tune with their era - Wagner - and others somewhat at cross-purposes to it - Brahms. It may help account for why some listeners 'get' Bach and others don't. Or Mozart, or Schubert, or Schumann, or Beethoven. And perhaps it goes toward the question of what musical worth really consists of.
No?
------------------
'Man know thyself''Man know thyself'Comment
Comment