newbie

[Rod]

Originally posted by chopithoven:
In the other side, tell me which classical composer is worst than those repetitive bass lines of Kylie Minogue? Should we call that thing music?

You can get repetitive bass lines in classical music as well - basso ostinato.

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[This message has been edited by Rod (edited 03-09-2002).]

[camden]

Umm, and there isn't anything wrong with repetition per se, music would be rather random without it. But "monotony" alla-Minogue is another matter!!

[Sorrano]

Originally posted by Rod:
You can get repetitive bass lines in classical music as well - basso ostinato.

And what is done above the basso ostinato in classical music is significant. A similar repetitive device such as in the 2nd movement of B's 7th Symphony--a repetitive harmonic progression with variations (same, too, with the final movement of Brahm's 4th Symphony). The idea of development of musical ideas is apparently much more important to classical musicians than to pop musicians.

[chopithoven]

Originally posted by Rod:
You can get repetitive bass lines in classical music as well - basso ostinato.

If we got to this absurd comparison we must not debate anymore. You can think whatever you want, Candem.

[Rod]

Originally posted by chopithoven:
If we got to this absurd comparison we must not debate anymore. You can think whatever you want, Candem.

I do not regard analytic comparisons between Beethoven and pop music worthy of the word 'debate'. If it stops, all the better!!

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[camden]

Yes, I suppose it's far safer to say inside one's own little egg carton, where no one can hurt us.

[Stephen J. Wade]

How can you compare different composers? Why in this forum alone, I venture to guess that each and every piece of music listened to will have a different 'effect' on the respective listener.
In America, we are spoon-fed so much of our culture. As if market campaigns were the art form and the artists are seen as incendental props to be pampered and used untill the shine fades away and can't be polished up anymore.
After scratching the surface of Ludwigs music, mainly his symphonies, I became inspired to 'breakout' of my own little 'egg carton'.
So beautiful, so resounding within my own heart and soul. I thank the spirit; that Ludwig had the courage to follow his own heart and instinct in his music.

[fudgsicleflo]

I think that this is all a matter of opinion--everyone has their own musical tastes and preferences. Hence, we can not "prove" that one composer is better than another because of our personal difference. A piece may be techinally better written, but may not pull at the heart strings as a "simpler" may. But I digress.

To get back to the original subject, I'd reccomend the violin concerto (op. 61), and symphony no.9 (op.125).

[chopithoven]

Originally posted by fudgsicleflo:
Hence, we can not "prove" that one composer is better than another because of our personal difference.

We can certainly prove that Beethoven is superior to the guy who composes Kylie Minogue's songs.

[camden]

Originally posted by chopithoven:
We can certainly prove that Beethoven is superior to the guy who composes Kylie Minogue's songs.

Then why don't you? Good luck to you!

I can't see how you'll manage when scientists can't even "proove" the earth isn't flat. they can only "disproove" theories that say it is, and therby strengthen our confidence that it isn't... and that's the realm of so called "fact"!

"Prooving" artistic "value", by extension, seems to me to be a totally paradoxical effort as "value" is a relative concept (in that it does exactly that, it defines relations) and yet by insiting on "prooving" it you try to make it absolute. It's a bit like trying to fit square pegs into round holes!

[Peter]

Originally posted by camden:

"Prooving" artistic "value", by extension, seems to me to be a totally paradoxical effort as "value" is a relative concept (in that it does exactly that, it defines relations) and yet by insiting on "prooving" it you try to make it absolute. It's a bit like trying to fit square pegs into round holes!

I personally think the only difficulty comes when artists reach the summit - distinguishing between a Brendel or a Gilels is not so easy as distinguishing between a Brendel and a Richard Clayderman. Likewise choosing between Beethoven, Handel, Mozart is nigh on impossible, but Beethoven and Hummel isn't such a contest. Proving it though as you say is more problematical - if someone can't stand Beethoven, how the hell do you convince them he is great! If someone can't stomach Brendel's playing how can you convince them he is a greater artist than Kylie Minogue?

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

[Stephen J. Wade]

One of the wonderful things about all music, is its ability to reach inside us. To unlock emotions/feelings and experience the wonderful rush that occurs while enjoying the artists work.
No composer touchs me like Ludwig does. There is something quite unique within his work that draws me back again and again.
I am not versed in composition, nor am I an expert in all the nuainces surrounding these composers and their works. I just know when I hear Ludwigs music.... I tremble

------------------
Stephen

[Ricky]

Hello! Nice to see a Beethoven community here. Of course this is a very interesting thread, one with a lot of well-measured thoughts and comments. There is more than a grain of truth in each of Peter's and Camden's positions.

I myself have thought of the question of how to rate music objectively. Can there be objective measures of quality of music? And more importantly, are they meaninful? I recently began writing a book on beginning music theory, for beginning music students that want to "rigorously" study the foundations of music by using a set-theoretic construction, in preparation for the types of musical theories advocated by the composer Milton Babbitt. In such studies, it is true that one can deliver an objective basis to the very bare elements of music: say, pitch class, frequency envelope etc. It is harder though, to objectively construct a wide enough basis for finer structures such as harmony which encompass all of world music - though indeed it is possible if one restricts oneself to a special class: such as harmonies based on a consonant interval (triadic, quartal etc.). My attempt was to show that there ARE indeed objective elements of music that everyone can agree on - simply because the fundamental nature of music is the propogation of a sound wave, and this is based on science - objective science.

However, apart from this objective basis, I also do think there is in music - and in all the arts, a great amount of subjectivity. This usually involves emotion - which is subjective - but not only this but fundamental aesthetic appreciation - I think these things are to a large extent culturally dependent, and dependent on one's experience with a certain type of art.

Let me say that I think of all the arts, music probably has the soundest objective theoretical basis - it is lucky in the sense that it really is based on a singularly physical phenomena in ALL scenarios: from John Cage and Stockhausen to Chinese drums, this is the propogation of the sound wave. And for the majority of cases even broader generalisation can be made in that it is not just ANY sound (though John Cage will of course allow this), but particular frequencies at particular times. There is a great amount of "construction" involved. Visual art, as far as I know, does not have as extensive an objective basis, and in literature the justification for any basis must be exceptionally tenuous.

So after all that what do I think? I do agree with Peter that to allow complete subjectivity is to allow no values, to allow amorphous chaos. It is to restrict oneself - NOT JUST to saying "classical music is objectively no "greater" than any other music", but to the extreme of not even being able to compare the musical quality of different movements within a SINGLE work. I do think there are objective components to music.

AND YET, I do allow that they are limits to these objective components, serious limits, in that they do not give the comfort that the of empirical confirmation by experiment of a theory in science, for instance, gives. For part of enjoying music is subjective, and part of what one DESIRES from music (call it the beautiful) is dependent on one's training (upbringing). After all, complexity means nothing objectively, it only means something in the engineering sense. Some pieces which are crammed with notes and chock full of cryptograms may seem but only "crudely technological" as Maxwell Davies once said, and some extremely simple eastern oriental melody may be very beautiful. And then again, maybe a rigorous, unified fugue in the 15th century Netherlandic style can be more engaging and vigorous than a "banal" peasant melody.

There are not just these factors to consider, but also the "originality" of a piece, which might be defined as the degree to which a piece exceeds the musical norms (given by the musical parameters of pitch, frequency envelope etc.) of a given time and culture. Undoubtedly it is treacherously complicated issue, and our arguments will probably not convince the other, but it is still a great deal of fun to talk about it.

[camden]

It is nice to see someone who, although taking an opposite stance to myself, finds similar difficulties in approaching the idea of musical "value". But I must say I find it difficult to follow some facets of your argument, Ricky. To start off, what do you mean by your trying to show that there are "objective" elements of music that everyone can "agree" on? Isn't that an oxymoron, or something? I mean Objective features are absolute, irrelevant to perception and thus discovered by us, not created.(if they can be know by us at all that is) And yet "agreement" suggests compromise between individuals, so something created. Existentialists would agrue that even if there is an objective reality, we could never know it, and so how could we agree upon it. I would suggest, following Nietzsche, that humans create, rather than discover, there own values and truths. Hence, they are always subjective.

[chopithoven]

Beethoven doesn't deserve to be compared with Kylie Minogue. This is completely absurd!