newbie

[Peter]

Originally posted by Sorrano:

Did not Beethoven applaud Carl Maria von Weber as a composer of note as well at one time?

Yes, he praised Weber's Der Freischutz.

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

[camden]

Peter,

You are missing my point sorry to say. I agree musical criteria can most certainly be used to "proove" that Beethoven is better than Kylie. My point is: who has the autority to decide what the criteria are?..or what criteria can be used to determine greatness?

If you are a Beethoven fan, you would choose such criteria for comparison that are favourable to his coming out on top, as indeed you do: form, thematic development,dramaturgical structure, harmonic clarity, orchestration, etc. Of course, in this system of assessment, kylie comes off very badly indeed. But if you are a Kylie fan you would simply choose different criteria: (i'm not one so i have to guess here, but)production, suitability for recording (i.e. just sounds better on hi-fi), brevity of material and harmonic simplicity (no reason why these can't be seen as positive!), contemporary/stylistic relevance to ones peers etc.

I just don't think it's fair to use the elements that characterise one music as a source of deriving criteria to judge another. For example it's not fair to criticise kylie for her orchestration when she isn't producing orchestral music. If that were the case I could critise Beethovens op.2 for it's lack of instrumental variety, or Machaut's monophonic songs for there lack of harmony.

The thing is that for you (and me)our criteria are just different to those Kylie fans look for. Why they are different, who can say? And how can one ever argue that some criteria are more important than others without constantly contradicting onesself?

[Rod]

Originally posted by Peter:
Yes, he praised Weber's Der Freischutz.

You should read some of B's other comments concerning Weber! I hope you are not impling that Beethoven in general loved his contemporaries music? One evening B was discussing the great composers with friends, he had only good things to say about Handel. When repeatedly drawn to the matter of Mozart, B would not say much, and then said 'In a monarchy everyone knows who is King'. And this story does not come from Schindler! Although B was complimentary about Mozart on many occasions, this shows that in comparing B 'opposition' he was quite prepared to pick a champion above all others. It is clear that B thought H was way ahead of all the other composers. I am doing nothing less myself, infact along with Beethoven as king, I graciously allow room in the court for one other!

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

[Peter]

Originally posted by Rod:
You should read some of B's other comments concerning Weber! I hope you are not impling that Beethoven in general loved his contemporaries music? One evening B was discussing the great composers with friends, he had only good things to say about Handel. When repeatedly drawn to the matter of Mozart, B would not say much, and then said 'In a monarchy everyone knows who is King'. And this story does not come from Schindler! Although B was complimentary about Mozart on many occasions, this shows that in comparing B 'opposition' he was quite prepared to pick a champion above all others. It is clear that B thought H was way ahead of all the other composers. I am doing nothing less myself, infact along with Beethoven as king, I graciously allow room in the court for one other!

Of course I'm not implying Beethoven was a Weber fan! - I'm well aware of Beethoven's lack of enthusiasm for his contemporaries and who can blame him? The only other composer writing music of a high order from around 1814-27 was the unknown and unperformed (except for private music parties) Franz Schubert. Beethoven mentioned the composers Handel, Bach, Gluck, Haydn and Mozart in the same breath - Yes he regarded Handel as the greatest, but he had nothing but respect for the others unlike some on this forum!

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

[Peter]

Originally posted by camden:
Peter,

You are missing my point sorry to say. I agree musical criteria can most certainly be used to "proove" that Beethoven is better than Kylie. My point is: who has the autority to decide what the criteria are?..or what criteria can be used to determine greatness?

The thing is that for you (and me)our criteria are just different to those Kylie fans look for. Why they are different, who can say? And how can one ever argue that some criteria are more important than others without constantly contradicting onesself?

I don't think I am! Music is music and I'm all for breaking down barriers. I don't like the term 'Classical music' as it is misleading. There are a huge range of different genres and styles covering many centuries from Hildegard von Bingen to John Adams that is all lumped together as 'Classical'. Pop is by its nature a very limited genre being basically song and a miniaturist art form - a composer such as Beethoven was of course capable of producing music in virtually every genre ranging from miniatures to large scale works. On this ground alone 'Classical' music demonstrates its superiority, but let's be fair and compare like with like, 'classical' songs with pop songs - many of the criteria which you won't accept apply here also. You say that a Kylie fan would demonstrate the superiority over Beethoven by their own criteria, such as? Popularity perhaps? well Rossini was more popular than Beethoven, (may still be for all I know!) - does that mean Rossini is greater? Easy to listen to? Well the Rossini example applies here also. I've got it - Kylie's better looking! Now I think I'm getting close - do you imagine for one minute that Kylie would have sold a single cd if she looked like the back of a bus? This is the criteria pop is judged by, how sexy is the performer!

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

[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 03-06-2002).]

[camden]

Of course not, image is everything in the pop music industry. She wouldn't sell anything. No argument from me on that. But why people are moved to buy something and why they "like" it are not indelibly linked concepts.

But if "greatness" is an objective facet of a work of art, but at the same time- as you state-should not be used to dissuade people from listening to "inferior" music as they are entiltled to their own tastes, what is its significance then. If it is not a tool (weapon even) to coerce people to think as you do, what is its function as a critical perspective?

[Sorrano]

Originally posted by Rod:
You should read some of B's other comments concerning Weber!

Darn! I was hoping you would share some of those "other comments concerning Weber." It is rather hard to praise contemporaries, anyway if one is at the top of the pile. Heh heh!

[Peter]

Originally posted by camden:

But if "greatness" is an objective facet of a work of art, but at the same time- as you state-should not be used to dissuade people from listening to "inferior" music as they are entiltled to their own tastes, what is its significance then. If it is not a tool (weapon even) to coerce people to think as you do, what is its function as a critical perspective?

The purpose of greatness? To enrich our lives spiritually and to provide a standard of excellence whatever field it may be in, arts, science, sport. Are you saying that there is no such thing as 'greatness' and that all music is of equal quality? If so how did you come to the conclusion that 95% of Classical music is rubbish?

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

[camden]

By saying my veiws imply all art is of "equal value", you are forcing me to articulate my thoughts through your vocabulary: i.e. (through the term "equal")one which presupposes objective value, or a fixed scale of comparison. It is this vocabulary itself I want to debunck. They are neither "equal" nor"unequal", this depends on the terms set out by whoever has the authority to do so.

Personally, I don't need subscription to higher authorities to justify to myself the pleasure I obtain from listening to Beethoven. Otherwise it's a bit like all those medieval clerics trying to proove that octaves and fifths were ordained by God, wheras thirds and tritones were "evil" just so they could continue doing what they were doing in practice anyway with peace of mind.

By asserting that "95 percent of CM is Rubbish" I was simply attempting to deconstruct your argument. I was using your criteria, and your assumptive base and showing that (even if this base were sound), one can easily demonstrate by a shift of perspective that the opposite of what you say holds"true" and is nevertheless consitent with it. Some might call this "irony".

[Peter]

Originally posted by camden:
By asserting that "95 percent of CM is Rubbish" I was simply attempting to deconstruct your argument. I was using your criteria, and your assumptive base and showing that (even if this base were sound), one can easily demonstrate by a shift of perspective that the opposite of what you say holds"true" and is nevertheless consitent with it. Some might call this "irony".

Well you stated your argument before you knew what my criteria were! Your remark - "Forget Beethoven, Bach, Mozart - the obvious greats. What about Dussek, J C Bach, Pleyel and many others who have just been forgotten they were so bad? " surely contradicts your arguments! Why do you say you are 'disturbed by this idea of musical greatness' and then refer to Beethoven as an obvious great? If you mean that it is wrong to assume all classical music is necessarily superior to pop music, then I would agree with you. But you are only saying that because you are applying the very musical criteria that you oppose! You seem to be saying that no criteria are valid as it all depends on the individual perspective, which is rather like saying black is white if someone sees it that way and there can be no 'reality' only interpretation of it - surely that's the road to insanity!

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

[Rod]

Originally posted by Peter:
Yes he regarded Handel as the greatest, but he had nothing but respect for the others unlike some on this forum!

It is not a matter of respect, I simply believe the others are not in Beethoven's and Handel's league - theirs is an altogether more elevated art form. When you've tasted good Champagne, would you tollerate Chateau Chernobyl? Some people cannot tell the difference - but then they could not be construed as an authority on good booze!

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



[This message has been edited by Rod (edited 03-07-2002).]

[camden]

Possibly, but it could also be the road to a more eagaliterian society which is tolerant of other peoples likes and dislikes without patronising them. The other way, supposing one has some priveledged knowledge as to what is "great" or "superior" is - and has been shown to be - laden with avenues for conflict and suffering. And it is here that my criticisms of pop music in general would be: in that the industry suppresses creative freedom and originality, restricting artists (those both within it and outside of it)from following their own individual paths and thus from enriching the lives of others in the process. CM has so far been the "freer" of the musical idioms, but this is sadly no longer the case either. I think we should all stand up and fight against this, but I don't believe insisting on its "superiority" is particularly contigent towards this end because of the counter arguments I have been attempting to outline.

I think Beethoven is a fine example of an artist who resisted contemporary pressures, singlemindedly persuing his own artistic vision at all costs. I lament over the waning of spirts such as these, and society's tolerance and championing of them.

I think we are on the same side. Perhaps our methods simply differ here.

[Rod]

Originally posted by Peter:
Yes he regarded Handel as the greatest, but he had nothing but respect for the others unlike some on this forum!

And for what it's worth, the 'rubbish' I was thinking of concerned everything from the early, middle, late Romantic era, and everything else from the 20th Century. I like the odd piece by Mozart, i like everything by Handel, Bach is too perfect, lacking a natural dramatic sence. Haydn can be interesting, especially some of his symphonies, but otherwise his music is lacking. Hummel and Weber bore me senselessly from what I've heard, as do the Italian Baroque composers. Beethoven used to refer to Weber simply as 'that man'. Weber was Beethovens most severe critic, definitely a Chateau Chernobyl guy.

There you have it. Not a single unreasoned word! I look forward to you telling me about your expanding Weber CD collection!

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



[This message has been edited by Rod (edited 03-07-2002).]

[Peter]

Originally posted by camden:

I think we are on the same side. Perhaps our methods simply differ here.

I'm sure we are! I agree entirely that we should be tolerant of all music and we shouldn't patronise anyone who doesn't share our tastes - from my experience it has always been those who have no time for classical music who are the most patronising, insulting and elitist, all coming from a perspective of ignorance as they simply have never bothered to listen to it!

I do think that Classical music is under attack and needs to be defended from arguments that portray it as old fashioned music that has no place in today's society - this is a view held by the majority of young and middle-aged people and encouraged by the pop industry.

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

[Peter]

Originally posted by Rod:
[B
There you have it. Not a single unreasoned word! I look forward to you telling me about your expanding Weber CD collection!

[/B]

It remains at one cd of overtures - I have no further plans for expanding the W section in my collection!

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