Classically snobbish?

[Peter]

Secondly, if anyone is getting het up, it is you. You have singularly misunderstood my purpose in posting the article, and seek yet again to put words into my mouth, as you admit above. My purpose in posting the article (with its link) was to point up the mauvaise foi in musoc.org’s ridiculous 10-point check list of what constitutes a musical “art work”. Whilst I agree that the label “classical music” is inadequate (for its impreciseness) , this sort of thought-policing verges on the fascist, in that it is reminiscent of the Nazi régime's strictures about what is to be considered valid art (degenerate or otherwise).

Well it would have helped if you had provided a little more reasoning for the post at the start as I requested. With little forthcoming, certain assumptions (not unreasonable I think ) were made on my part for the motives behind your post.

I think your reaction to the website concerned is over the top - hysterical comparisons to the Nazis (expected I suppose from the Guardian way of thinking) are unhelpful and unjustified. Whilst agreeing that it is perhaps unwise to set in stone a list of requirements for 'art music' I'm surprised you have a problem with some of the critieria. For example regarding performance - no one would surely disagree that a high level of musicianship and education is desirable? Or is that only valid for Classical music and not pop? Or are you saying it doesn't matter with either? With regard to listening to music, you yourself have had a dig at many on this forum for not complying with the very point that site makes - mocking those who listen to music whilst cooking and gardening I seem to recall?

The main problems I have with the criteria are about improvisation which clearly is an art form in itself (all be it sadly lost to the classical world now) and the 'complexity' point - clearly it doesn't follow that the more complex a piece is, the greater it is.

[Peter]

No, we can make judgements, but they are in the main subjective. And I will make one for you. Comparing B’s 3rd movement of the Triple concerto and the Beatles’ Eleanor Rigby (check spelling), I find (in my judgement) that the harmony in the latter is far more interesting than in the former. Is one "better" than the other?

Are they subjective? Let me give another example - the link between the 3rd and 4th movements of the 5th symphony. A lesser composer (if he could have dreamt up that scherzo to start with) would simply have ended the movement with a soft perfect cadence and deprived us of one of Beethoven's most magical effects. There are many such examples in Beethoven's music of his complete mastery of tonality, handling of large structures and his originality of conception that distinguishes him from his contemporaries - this is not subjective.

[Quijote]

Well it would have helped if you had provided a little more reasoning for the post at the start as I requested. With little forthcoming, certain assumptions (not unreasonable I think ) were made on my part for the motives behind your post.

Why is it, then, that when a certain poster (who is retired and sits all day long on park benches in the rain answering your teasers) posts articles without reason or comment you don't ask for the raison d'être of his posting? One law for the Jews, and another for the Christians?

[Quijote]

Or is it that when one chooses to stick one's neck out (without recourse to CD liner notes and other debatable sources) one must expect a lot of flack? In any case, when visiting the BRS I always wear a full-metal jacket.

[Peter]

Why is it, then, that when a certain poster (who is retired and sits all day long on park benches in the rain answering your teasers) posts articles without reason or comment you don't ask for the raison d'être of his posting? One law for the Jews, and another for the Christians?

Not at all - the honourable member concerned doesn't have an agenda. I know you of old Philip and you don't post something like that unless you're trying to provoke a fight!!

[Quijote]

Not at all - the honourable member concerned doesn't have an agenda. I know you of old Philip and you don't post something like that unless you're trying to provoke a fight!!

No I am not provoking a fight, merely making a comment. The poster who sits all day long on park benches is not the only example I have in mind. I expect fair treatment, that's all.

[Quijote]

In any case, I will henceforth give explicit reasons when I post an article from the general press. I hope (probably vainly) for others to follow my example.

[Peter]

No I am not provoking a fight, merely making a comment. The poster who sits all day long on park benches is not the only example I have in mind. I expect fair treatment, that's all.

I apologise if you feel your treatment has been unfair, but it's interesting you haven't dealt with the issues I raised in response to your comments on the article.

[Quijote]

[...] it's interesting you haven't dealt with the issues I raised in response to your comments on the article.

I will indulge you tomorrow.

[Peter]

Thirdly, I do not think that the original Guardian article was positing any cultural relativism. Rather, in your post, you reveal your own tangential agenda (even though some points I may well agree with). I really don’t watch much TV (news only, in the main), and I’m quite sure there is a lot of rubbish on it (formulaic trash – a good term, I will grant you). As to surveys, I remain suspicious of them, but they are fun. And as to speaking the truth, well, …

Oh I think it was (and it's a bit naive to think otherwise) - the mere fact that they even bothered to comment shows it contravenes their PC rules. I wish they'd give this site a bit of publicity! Still all this is a distraction from the main points and actually I'm grateful you've posted this as it does provide an opportunity to discuss these issues hopefully in a calm and reflective way so that hopefully we can reach some agreement on certain points. Part of my misunderstanding regarding your original post is when you said it should be on the main page of the forum - I thought you meant a special link to it on the forum home page (http://www.gyrix.com/forums/index.php) and therefore assumed you were making a real thing of it.

My approach will simply be to use Beethoven himself as evidence - I've already cited an example, another is the opening of the Eroica symphony which Beethoven agonised over himself. Now no one can be in any doubt if they substitute Beethoven's original ideas that his final solution works best and yet it is so simple - just two loud tonic chords - just see how weakened the effect is if you put the dominant in place of the second tonic chord! Now as an experiment try starting Op.109 with two loud tonic chords and see how ridiculous that is. Throughout the sketchbooks we see this - Beethoven finding the best solution and improving his original ideas. This to me is not subjective but can be demonstrated quite clearly simply by substituting the original ideas with the final working out.

Some further thoughts on my reaction to that website are simply that whilst not agreeing with all the criteria (as I hope I've made clear), I do understand the sentiment behind it. The Guardian article simply doesn't take into account the wider context and consequently over reacts without considering some of the points in more detail as I hope we shall do. In my original reply I tried to put some of that context - a constant bombardment everywhere you go of mindless noise churned out on a production line that is lauded by an ever eager public desperate for more. The website you object to so strongly is simply a reaction to that and I suspect frustration at the virtual disappearance of CM from high street CD shops etc as a direct result of what I perceive is the pernicious influence of the record companies who control the market - they decide who will succeed and who will not solely based on image.

[Quijote]

Well it would have helped if you had provided a little more reasoning for the post at the start as I requested. With little forthcoming, certain assumptions (not unreasonable I think ) were made on my part for the motives behind your post.

As I said above, you only expect me to give reasons when posting a third-party article. Unlike others, I am not a "post-an-article-and-run" contributor. In future I shall clarify why, and would expect others to do the same (for the sake of equitable treatment).

I think your reaction to the website concerned is over the top - hysterical comparisons to the Nazis (expected I suppose from the Guardian way of thinking) are unhelpful and unjustified.

I don't think it is. I take a very dim view of anyone who tries to prescribe what constitutes an art-work, and we have seen this all too frequently in totalitarian régimes. It is has nothing to do with the Guardian, and your suggesting such is merely a damp squib.

Whilst agreeing that it is perhaps unwise to set in stone a list of requirements for 'art music' I'm surprised you have a problem with some of the criteria.

No, I have a problem with people (or institutions) prescribing how others are to think. I do not object at all that high levels of musicianship and education are beneficial (whatever the genre). Listening habits are not "the very point" that the site makes. However, I think it is a question of respect to the music, but I will not dare prescribe how one should consume one's music, even though I may mock it.

The main problems I have with the criteria are about improvisation which clearly is an art form in itself (all be it sadly lost to the classical world now) and the 'complexity' point - clearly it doesn't follow that the more complex a piece is, the greater it is.

These are but two of the criteria that I take exception to.

It is a pity that nobody else cares to join in our discussion. Perhaps I should better not bother in future.

[Quijote]

[...] Part of my misunderstanding regarding your original post is when you said it should be on the main page of the forum - I thought you meant a special link to it on the forum home page (http://www.gyrix.com/forums/index.php) and therefore assumed you were making a real thing of it.

Fair enough. Let's continue the debate later.

[Quijote]

Perhaps an intelligent way would be to take each of the "criteria" above and examine it more closely. Hence (and I quote from the source mentioned above):

To count as Art Music, a work (as a whole) must meet ALL* the following criteria:
1) It must acknowledge, build on or work from a musical heritage based on structure and tonality and its precursors.

Comments?

[Quijote]

Après vous, je vous prie ...

[Peter]

As I said above, you only expect me to give reasons when posting a third-party article. Unlike others, I am not a "post-an-article-and-run" contributor. In future I shall clarify why, and would expect others to do the same (for the sake of equitable treatment).


I don't think it is. I take a very dim view of anyone who tries to prescribe what constitutes an art-work, and we have seen this all too frequently in totalitarian régimes. It is has nothing to do with the Guardian, and your suggesting such is merely a damp squib.

Do you have the same reaction to what constitutes a sonata or a symphony?

No, I have a problem with people (or institutions) prescribing how others are to think. I do not object at all that high levels of musicianship and education are beneficial (whatever the genre). Listening habits are not "the very point" that the site makes. However, I think it is a question of respect to the music, but I will not dare prescribe how one should consume one's music, even though I may mock it.

Really, yet this happens all the time in our PC world when we are not allowed to say this or that for fear of it being misrepresented or prosecuted. Advertising does this, we are surrounded by this sort of thing - even the very act of teaching is itself telling people how to think in a certain way.

These are but two of the criteria that I take exception to.

It is a pity that nobody else cares to join in our discussion. Perhaps I should better not bother in future.