!!!

[Michael]

[QUOTE=Philip;40828]Michael, I must chide you once again. When have I ever given a "negative reaction" to great music? Or am I really so unclear in my postings?

QUOTE]


Er, yes, Philip. You keep contradicting yourself from post to post. Here are two quotes from you:

1. For the record (read this carefully, I'll keep it simple) : I joined this forum because, er ... I am fascinated by the music of Beethoven.

2. Can classical music – a vestige of an increasingly distant world – still speak to us in any significant way?


Can I now expect ten pages of waffle explaining and justifying all this?

(Add "Give me a break" icon thingy!)

[Quijote]

[QUOTE=Michael;40830]

Michael, I must chide you once again. When have I ever given a "negative reaction" to great music? Or am I really so unclear in my postings?

QUOTE]


Er, yes, Philip. You keep contradicting yourself from post to post. Here are two quotes from you:

1. For the record (read this carefully, I'll keep it simple) : I joined this forum because, er ... I am fascinated by the music of Beethoven.

2. Can classical music – a vestige of an increasingly distant world – still speak to us in any significant way?


Can I now expect ten pages of waffle explaining and justifying all this?

(Add "Give me a break" icon thingy!)

As I said before, reading and understanding text is an art. My question "Can classical music ... etc" is a rhetorical device used to encourage thought and discussion, and does not necessarily reflect my own personal view.

So, not ten pages of waffle, but two lines of incisiveness.

Add icon thingie, "YAWN".

[Quijote]

Michael, why don't you try and be "clever and superior" like me and address the other points I raised above, instead of trying to take cheap pop shots at me? Your tetchy comments are just water off a duck's back. Remember, you didn't want to argue with me because life is too short. Go back to biting the heads off of Whippets. Add icon thingie (I give you carte blanche in the choice).

[Quijote]

The judge's choice of punishment is one more nail in the coffin of classical music. It is already being used in public buildings to dissuade undesirables from congregating in those places. A friend of mine who is quite musical still shrinks away in horror when I mention the name Beethoven. Actually, I don't mention that kind of music at all to anyone because I know the reaction I will get.
The last place I expected to get a negative reaction about great music was from this website.
(I'm not talking about you, PDG, a staunch Beethovenian and Beatlehovian like myself....... now, about those folksongs .........)

I know life is short Michael, but I thought your posting lacks clarity. You say classical music is already being used in public buildings to dissuade undesirables from congregating in those places. This is news to me. And astonishing it is. However, when you refer to "classical music" being used, do you mean, specifically, Classical (with a capital "C") music circa 1770 - 1820, or do you mean classical (lower case "c") to include perhaps more "off-putting" (not my view) music such as Schoenerg, Bartok, Boulez et al?

[Peter]

My comments concern Peter, for the moment. Before I begin, let me add an icon thingie, the one expressing avuncular - if not indulgent - chuckling...
I never try to be clever, it really comes quite naturally to me. As to 'superior' : I am aghast. Moi, supérieur? Jamais, mon cher Pierre !

Fun over, let's get down to business. No, the point was never obvious, hence my jibe "reading and understanding text is an art". Let us review the history of Michael's original posting : Michael posts a news item (NewsWax) without comment from his part; the interpretations are twofold (not only one, Peter) : the judge is a cretin for imposing such a "fine" (agreed) or, the accused is too stupid to undergo so many hours of listening to classical music. Sorrano then posts (I paraphrase) "The guy must be lacking grey matter". Question : Who? The judge or the rap fan? Preston's posting follows on hotly from Sorrano's : "Figures" [+ icon thingie]. What does he mean? Is his position clear? No, I, fear not, but being clever I suspect he is referring to the rap fan. Not the judge. In the next posting we have Peter, categorical as ever, but at least clear (I paraphrase) : "Why oh why ... what is the world coming to .... etc etc". Hofrat enters the fray, turning the argument (quite logically) on its head, but makes disparaging remarks about Bartok. Joy now posts, saying she would quite happily pay the fine if it was rap music, Tony John Hearne is flabbergasted, but again we don't know if his reaction concerns the judge or the rap fan. Michael later makes a belated effort to clarify his position.

So, Peter, was the point really so obvious to everyone else? I think not. Allow me to continue : you say that my arguments concerning the merits of classical music are only to be expected. And you wonder why I listen to it [...] if it isn't relevant. My "comments" as you term them, were rhetorical in nature and intended to provoke thought. What makes you say my arguments are "expected"? When have I ever said (categorically) that classical music isn't "relevant"? Do you really think I would bother with such a forum as this one if I thought so? Indeed not, but because I'm a clever and superior fellow I like to think about music.

As to Warlock, yes, a nice little quote. I have played (string quartet and orchestra) the Capriol Suite many times. Pleasant, it is. Still, being a clever fellow I can't help questioning his terminology : at what point does music "become old" ?

Dear Philip thank you for your replies on the topic - you are a tremendous asset to the forum as you do provoke reaction which is what a healthy forum needs. You do however present contradictions in your arguments. You ask at what point does music become old, whilst referring to Classical music as a 'vestige of an increasingly distant world'. You refer to 'Great music' and yet we have had a whole thread with you questioning the essence of such a concept! You accuse those who value classical music more highly than other types of music as being 'stuffed shirts' without appreciating the reasons why. I accept that all music has value to the people who like it, but classical music is a genre that is marginalised and people here are rightly defensive on this sensitive issue. We are like some persecuted minority who have to explain away our peculiar tastes in almost apologetic tones - this is not some imaginery paranoia but real prejudice that I have experienced throughout life. Therefore I think we should be ambassadors for classical music and have real positive arguments as to why we listen to it. You tend to scoff at some here who find moral value or spiritual depths in this music and I think that is being just as narrow in mindset as anyone looking down on other genres.

So if I had to explain why I listen to classical music I would say because it offers the greatest diversity and depth of expression of all music in my opinion. Because it affects on a very deep profound level as opposed to a superficial level and because it demands that you listen rather than merely hear - there is a real difference between the two. It is not something for nothing music - you have to concentrate and give of yourself and not simply be a taker. I think it develops you as a person and deepens your understanding of life. Some composers do this more for me than others and I would place Bach and Beethoven at the top, but that is of course a very personal view!

So in relation to Michael's original post, I just find it sad that something that should enrich life should be seen in such a negative way - a form of punishment and really that is an indictment on our society.

[Quijote]

Dear Philip thank you for your replies on the topic - you are a tremendous asset to the forum as you do provoke reaction which is what a healthy forum needs. You do however present contradictions in your arguments. You ask at what point does music become old, whilst referring to Classical music as a 'vestige of an increasingly distant world'. You refer to 'Great music' and yet we have had a whole thread with you questioning the essence of such a concept! You accuse those who value classical music more highly than other types of music as being 'stuffed shirts' without appreciating the reasons why. I accept that all music has value to the people who like it, but classical music is a genre that is marginalised and people here are rightly defensive on this sensitive issue. We are like some persecuted minority who have to explain away our peculiar tastes in almost apologetic tones - this is not some imaginery paranoia but real prejudice that I have experienced throughout life. Therefore I think we should be ambassadors for classical music and have real positive arguments as to why we listen to it. You tend to scoff at some here who find moral value or spiritual depths in this music and I think that is being just as narrow in mindset as anyone looking down on other genres.

So if I had to explain why I listen to classical music I would say because it offers the greatest diversity and depth of expression of all music in my opinion. Because it affects on a very deep profound level as opposed to a superficial level and because it demands that you listen rather than merely hear - there is a real difference between the two. It is not something for nothing music - you have to concentrate and give of yourself and not simply be a taker. I think it develops you as a person and deepens your understanding of life. Some composers do this more for me than others and I would place Bach and Beethoven at the top, but that is of course a very personal view!

So in relation to Michael's original post, I just find it sad that something that should enrich life should be seen in such a negative way - a form of punishment and really that is an indictment on our society.

Hello Peter. Whilst I’m still smarting at being called “clever and superior” (in a sneering way), your considered posting requires an answer. That you say I provoke reaction fails to recognise that I am reacting to equally provocative comments in the first place. And the provocation in this instance, for me, was in the subtext of Michael’s original posting on this thread, namely, that rap is valueless. I don’t want to embark on a lengthy consideration of each musical genre’s value system, but why, when I question the assumptions underpinning Michael’s posting, do you imagine that I disparage western art music? Why would I waste my time here if I did? I simply ask what values we continue to draw from music that, as some argue, is a vestige of an increasingly distant world because the question is valid and highly interesting. For example, on a superficial level, there are cultural references in Classical Period music that we today as modern listeners no longer perceive – I’m thinking of religious references in B’s Missa Solemnis (certain flute passages representing fluttering angels’ wings and so on). As the distance in time between the composition and performances increases, there is, I feel, a concomitant loss of aesthetic value, or rather “meaning”. That the works of Beethoven still engage us today despite a certain loss of cultural reference points to “something” still at work; if I may paraphrase Nicolas Cook, there is still a lot of “cultural work” that Beethoven’s music provides for us.

As to classical music being marginalised – I think we must live very different lives, Peter. In all honesty I have never felt this prejudice you refer to. Of course, there are many people who have had little exposure to classical music, but I have never, ever felt defensive about my own musical tastes. What I do find a little galling is rather the lack of interest in contemporary art music (yes, Cage, Stockhausen et al…), from people (on this forum and outside) who refuse to engage with it. Putting aside the cult of personality that surrounds Beethoven, there are, in my view, Masters at work today. So at this juncture, to be a little bit partisan, I would say forget rap, kids and everyone else, there is music being written today that would blow your minds away, if only you would put aside your ideological straightjackets and open your ears !!

As to scoffing at those who find moral value or spiritual depths in classical music, I only do so because I think it represents “mauvaise foi” (I’m sorry, I’m not sure if “bad faith” really captures this concept put forward by Sartre); what I mean is that in using such terminology we are simply repeating Romantic-era ‘tropes’ that have entered everyday usage, and are bandied about without anyone really understanding the ideologies behind them. In other words, we are simply repeating (as received opinion) ideas first aired by Tieck, Wackenroeder and Hoffmann in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, not to mention Schencker some years later.

You say we should be ambassadors for classical music and have good reasons for listening to it. It’s almost as if you see the need to fight some kind of rearguard action. But is classical music really under threat of extinction? It’s true that I have heard comments such as in America classical music is practically “dead”. Even Michael has spoken about "nails in the coffin of classical music". This is fascinating to me. Is it true? What does it mean for a genre “to die”? In asking such questions, please do not imagine that I share the sentiment.

To finish, I think your explanation of why you listen to classical music would be, in part, why I do so too. And also why I listen to contemporary music. I must say that your sentence “because it demands that you listen rather than merely hear” suits me far more than the quote by Warlock. And I can think of a music that encapsulates your idea precisely : it is called electroacoustic music. No, not electronic in the popular sense; serious electroacoustic music first developed by Edgar Varèse, Pierre Schaeffer, Stockhausen, Boulez (at IRCAM, in Paris) and my own teacher, Denis Smalley, whom I thank for really opening my ears, “to listen rather than merely hear”. And again, for the record, I adore Beethoven’s music.

[Quijote]

You know, Peter, this might be a good time to change your "signature" from "Man, Know Thyself" to a very fitting "Music to listen to, not merely hear". Damn, wish I'd thought of such a line !!

I have toyed with the idea of adding a "signature" to my postings, but I have always hesitated because that's what everyone else does.

If I ever choose to do so, it would be this :

"Your/my B. is not mine/yours."

This comes from an ironic allusion made by Pierre Boulez, who was discussing the connections between Beethoven's legacy and contemporary compositions, especially the generation of 'Serialists' who suffered serious doubts about their aesthetic value within the classical tradition. Remember too, Boulez's famous "Schoenberg is dead" of 1951. Which of course he is. Actually, that could be another possibility for my "signature". What if I were to twist that into a more original "Beethoven is dead". Which he is, too.

So, dear forum members, on this fine sunny day in Strasbourg, I would like to propose a vote.

What should Philip's "signature" be :

a) Your/my B. is not mine/yours.
b) Schoenberg is dead.
c) Beethoven is dead.
d) Classical music is dead.
e) Kiss me quick, PDG.
f) Drop dead, Philip.

Vote now, and add icon thingie.

[Quijote]

[...] but classical music is a genre that is marginalised and people here are rightly defensive on this sensitive issue [...]

More seriously, now : I have taken a selective quote from your posting, Peter. And it does clarify things for me a little, regarding this forum. If this view is shared by others, then I can see why my questions and 'positions' might shock. Are you all really a little defensive about liking classical music in general and Beethoven in particular? Surely not? Perhaps I am an insensitive brute, but could you elaborate about the perceived prejudices you have experienced? And do others share this? It is a subject that is foreign to me, to be candid. Maybe I live in an Ivory Tower - I simply don't know.

[Sorrano]

I guess I have a bit more to express about this discussion. First, I do think that Philip has a very valid point in that we do tend to be prejudicial in our musical (and other) choices and often tend to condemn anything that even remotely appears in contradiction to the values we put on those choices. However, Philip, you could have been less abrasive ("what a group of sanctimonious "stuffed shirts" you all are"). In reflecting the incident, what I see is that the judge is giving the rap fan an opportunity to expand his horizons, rather than trying to inflict a punishment. The fan rejects this opportunity and thus earns the dubious title that Philip awarded those of us on the forum for "doing the same sort of thing." Hence my "grey matter" remark, in that a blanket rejection to further one's knowledge when a FREE opportunity presents itself and a cost comes at that rejection is idiocy.

I, also, think that Philip is correct in that we tend to judge and prioritize based upon our own western culture rather than expand and delve into other cultures to see what there is out there. While I tend to shy away from most pop/rock/rap/whatever forms of music I do realize that I cannot wholesale reject the validity of the forms. However, they are not very palatable to me at this time.

[Peter]

Hello Peter. Whilst I’m still smarting at being called “clever and superior” (in a sneering way), your considered posting requires an answer. That you say I provoke reaction fails to recognise that I am reacting to equally provocative comments in the first place. And the provocation in this instance, for me, was in the subtext of Michael’s original posting on this thread, namely, that rap is valueless. I don’t want to embark on a lengthy consideration of each musical genre’s value system, but why, when I question the assumptions underpinning Michael’s posting, do you imagine that I disparage western art music? Why would I waste my time here if I did? I simply ask what values we continue to draw from music that, as some argue, is a vestige of an increasingly distant world because the question is valid and highly interesting. For example, on a superficial level, there are cultural references in Classical Period music that we today as modern listeners no longer perceive – I’m thinking of religious references in B’s Missa Solemnis (certain flute passages representing fluttering angels’ wings and so on). As the distance in time between the composition and performances increases, there is, I feel, a concomitant loss of aesthetic value, or rather “meaning”. That the works of Beethoven still engage us today despite a certain loss of cultural reference points to “something” still at work; if I may paraphrase Nicolas Cook, there is still a lot of “cultural work” that Beethoven’s music provides for us.

As to classical music being marginalised – I think we must live very different lives, Peter. In all honesty I have never felt this prejudice you refer to. Of course, there are many people who have had little exposure to classical music, but I have never, ever felt defensive about my own musical tastes. What I do find a little galling is rather the lack of interest in contemporary art music (yes, Cage, Stockhausen et al…), from people (on this forum and outside) who refuse to engage with it. Putting aside the cult of personality that surrounds Beethoven, there are, in my view, Masters at work today. So at this juncture, to be a little bit partisan, I would say forget rap, kids and everyone else, there is music being written today that would blow your minds away, if only you would put aside your ideological straightjackets and open your ears !!

As to scoffing at those who find moral value or spiritual depths in classical music, I only do so because I think it represents “mauvaise foi” (I’m sorry, I’m not sure if “bad faith” really captures this concept put forward by Sartre); what I mean is that in using such terminology we are simply repeating Romantic-era ‘tropes’ that have entered everyday usage, and are bandied about without anyone really understanding the ideologies behind them. In other words, we are simply repeating (as received opinion) ideas first aired by Tieck, Wackenroeder and Hoffmann in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, not to mention Schencker some years later.

You say we should be ambassadors for classical music and have good reasons for listening to it. It’s almost as if you see the need to fight some kind of rearguard action. But is classical music really under threat of extinction? It’s true that I have heard comments such as in America classical music is practically “dead”. Even Michael has spoken about "nails in the coffin of classical music". This is fascinating to me. Is it true? What does it mean for a genre “to die”? In asking such questions, please do not imagine that I share the sentiment.

To finish, I think your explanation of why you listen to classical music would be, in part, why I do so too. And also why I listen to contemporary music. I must say that your sentence “because it demands that you listen rather than merely hear” suits me far more than the quote by Warlock. And I can think of a music that encapsulates your idea precisely : it is called electroacoustic music. No, not electronic in the popular sense; serious electroacoustic music first developed by Edgar Varèse, Pierre Schaeffer, Stockhausen, Boulez (at IRCAM, in Paris) and my own teacher, Denis Smalley, whom I thank for really opening my ears, “to listen rather than merely hear”. And again, for the record, I adore Beethoven’s music.

I'm not alone in feeling defensive about CM. Let me quote Maxwell Davies from 2005 -"SERIOUS music could become “extinct” in Britain, the Master of the Queen’s Music believes. Sir Peter Maxwell Davies, attacked government cutbacks in music education and lamented an assumption by the vast majority of people that classical music was elitist - (The culture secretary Margaret Hodge has recently described the proms as elitist!). Delivering the Royal Philharmonic Society Annual Lecture at the Queen Elizabeth Hall in London, his first major public speech since his appointment, Sir Peter said that masterpieces such as Bach’s St Matthew Passion were now seen as “the exclusive domain of the elderly”. There was an inverted snobbery about cultural standards, he said. At the time of his remarks the government was also about to impose a National Insurance tax rise on musicians which could well have resulted in the loss of the majority of Britain's orchestras - fortunately common sense prevailed on this occasion but it shows the mindset.

Then you only have to go to your local cd store to see the dwindling classical section hidden away as though in shame. The high record sales for classical crossover has caused the number of straight classical releases to dwindle. When you consider that classical music accounts for only 4 percent of all record sales, and most classical radio listeners are over age 50 it's no wonder that many in the record industry are going down this road. Then consider the average age of a classical concert goer - the future lies with the young and they are not being engaged, partly I suspect because of the overwhelming saturation of popular culture.

Why should you be galled by a lack of enthusiasm here for Cage, Stockhausen etc..? I don't expect people here to share my enthusiasm for Orlando Gibbons or Byrd because this is primarily a Beethoven forum. At least you can discuss them here which is more than can be said for some forums! When this forum started I was urged by some to restrict it entirely to Beethoven and allow nothing else - I think it was right to allow a broader spectrum of discussion. Far from being a narrow minded bunch of 'stuffed shirts' (I'm not still smarting!) I'll think you'll find a wider range of music appreciation and tolerance here than you would putting the same arguments on many other forums.

As to the spiritual values - well music must have in Barenboim's words 'something that can't be said by words alone otherwise it is pointless'. You can use what terms to express this something else you like, but for me spiritual values does very well.

[Ateach Asc]

Classical Music??

The phrase classical music appears to have been bandied about in considerable profusion on this illustrious thread. So much so in fact, that I was wondering... just what is it that is really meant by classical music? And what music would be excluded from the concept of classical music ?

[Peter]

The phrase classical music appears to have been bandied about in considerable profusion on this illustrious thread. So much so in fact, that I was wondering... just what is it that is really meant by classical music? And what music would be excluded from the concept of classical music ?

Well I'm referring to it in its widest sense referring to the past 1000 years of Western music from Hildegard to Birtwhistle - music you would find in the 'classical section' of cd stores (if your store has one!).

[Peter]

I guess I have a bit more to express about this discussion. First, I do think that Philip has a very valid point in that we do tend to be prejudicial in our musical (and other) choices and often tend to condemn anything that even remotely appears in contradiction to the values we put on those choices. However, Philip, you could have been less abrasive ("what a group of sanctimonious "stuffed shirts" you all are"). In reflecting the incident, what I see is that the judge is giving the rap fan an opportunity to expand his horizons, rather than trying to inflict a punishment. The fan rejects this opportunity and thus earns the dubious title that Philip awarded those of us on the forum for "doing the same sort of thing." Hence my "grey matter" remark, in that a blanket rejection to further one's knowledge when a FREE opportunity presents itself and a cost comes at that rejection is idiocy.

I, also, think that Philip is correct in that we tend to judge and prioritize based upon our own western culture rather than expand and delve into other cultures to see what there is out there. While I tend to shy away from most pop/rock/rap/whatever forms of music I do realize that I cannot wholesale reject the validity of the forms. However, they are not very palatable to me at this time.

By We, do you mean just this forum or everyone? As I mentioned to Philip I believe there is a wider appreciation of different music here than you might find on say a rap forum. Just see how much appreciation of Cage, Beethoven or Glenn Miller you find there!

[Sorrano]

By We, do you mean just this forum or everyone? As I mentioned to Philip I believe there is a wider appreciation of different music here than you might find on say a rap forum. Just see how much appreciation of Cage, Beethoven or Glenn Miller you find there!

I do think that we are guilty (here on the forum as well as elsewhere) of being over critical of musical styles (and this isn't necessarily limited to the music art form) that do not correspond to our tastes. Otherwise I doubt this discussion would exist. You are right that on this forum there is a wide range of musical interest but too often we (generalizing) tend to be a bit harsh regarding the genres or styles that we dislike. Maybe I am wrong but that is the feel I get from time to time here (as well as elsewhere, or outside the forum).

[Preston]

So if I had to explain why I listen to classical music I would say because it offers the greatest diversity and depth of expression of all music in my opinion. Because it affects on a very deep profound level as opposed to a superficial level and because it demands that you listen rather than merely hear - there is a real difference between the two. It is not something for nothing music - you have to concentrate and give of yourself and not simply be a taker. I think it develops you as a person and deepens your understanding of life. Some composers do this more for me than others...

I'm not alone in feeling defensive about CM. Let me quote Maxwell Davies from 2005 -"SERIOUS music could become “extinct” in Britain, the Master of the Queen’s Music believes. Sir Peter Maxwell Davies, attacked government cutbacks in music education and lamented an assumption by the vast majority of people that classical music was elitist - (The culture secretary Margaret Hodge has recently described the proms as elitist!). Delivering the Royal Philharmonic Society Annual Lecture at the Queen Elizabeth Hall in London, his first major public speech since his appointment, Sir Peter said that masterpieces such as Bach’s St Matthew Passion were now seen as “the exclusive domain of the elderly”. There was an inverted snobbery about cultural standards, he said. At the time of his remarks the government was also about to impose a National Insurance tax rise on musicians which could well have resulted in the loss of the majority of Britain's orchestras - fortunately common sense prevailed on this occasion but it shows the mindset.

Peter, great posts.