Beethoven is God.

Here we go again. Anyone is as entitled as you are to their opinions about music as they are about anything else – and someone thinks classical music in general and Beethoven in particular is dull and boring and far inferior to bluegrass or to the Dixie Chicks, their opinion is no less valid than someone who thinks otherwise.

Why is there this strange need to assert that an opinion about classical music should be taken as an objective fact? And why the need (in this case) to describe everyone who holds a different opinion as insane?

 "Anyone is as entitled as you are to their opinions about music as they are about anything else – and someone thinks classical music in general and Beethoven in particular is dull and boring and far inferior to bluegrass or to the Dixie Chicks, their opinion is no less valid than someone who thinks otherwise."

The opinion that Beethoven is dull and boring may be valid from the holder's point of view but it is a very narrow-minded one based on ignorance.

Don't you guys know that this debate has already taken place on this website?

...and anyone who posts a topic like this is either aggressive, or offensive or both.

I see Magnus, that you have to resort to being, yes, offensive and openly aggressive. I go out yesterday morning to visit my local music shop and obtain a copy of Beethoven's sonatas volume 3 to look up Parla's wonderful suggestion about the E minor sonata opus 90, I get back and find that you have to go and spoil it all with your thinly veiled personal attack...

First of all, your comments are based on a total misunderstanding of the recent debate I initiated on Holy Minimalism. if you had actually bothered to read it at all and digest it, you would have noticed that I stated that Beethoven was one of the greatest minds in music we have ever had. I certainly never claimed that holy minimalism was above Beethoven.

I asked for some debate on this music, which others like Vic, found fascinating. I made it clear that I do not fully grasp myself why this music moves so many people, because personally I find it at times desolate, bleak and austere.

It is also the case that I said I currently preferred 20th Century Music to music of the past, but that I might revise my position in time.

A perfectly decent, valid and engaging debate - absolutely worthwhile.

You see Magnus, there is mystery in music and how it connects with people. Such mystery may be of a divine nature, and even people who are non-believers can feel strangely moved by it. Who has not experienced a thrill listening to one of Haydn's glorious late masses? Who has not felt a moment of fear listening to Verdi' Dies Irae? Who has not felt something holy or sanctified listening to Gregorian chant? It is therefore perfectly valid to debate such mystery.

Your problem Magnus is not with the content of holy minimalism. It is with the word minimalism itself. Had we called it neo-mystical or neo-contemplative you would not have a problem with it.

However, you dismiss the music - and have not told us exactly what you have listened to and why you do not like it - because of its label. That you also dismiss jazz music, pop music and ridiculously call minimalism pop music is worrying. That you have to resort to personal attack is even more worrying.

To insinuate that I am a 'wood chewing redneck' is stooping to a whole new level. The term redneck is a slang term for poor, uneducated white farmers. Also used to insult members of my own church, the Roman Catholic. Whichever of the two you mean, or both, it is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE. I expect that it would be asking too much of you to apologize for that remark, but I feel as strongly about that as Anton Ferdinand does about what it was exactly that John Terry said to him. If you cannot find it within yourself to apologize openly on this forum, you will kindly desist from using such inflammatory language.

You see, my friend, I am like Parla trying to teach you something, though Parla probably has more patience than any of us. And by the way, since you ally yourself with Parla, he has a first-class degree in humanity where you dropped off the course, hence the kind of comments you make.

I am talking about a personal code of ethics Magnus. It is NOT ACCEPTABLE to attack someone at source - because of the kind of person they are, because of their beliefs, because of the way they express themselves. Such a form of attack is close to bullying and indeed, often leads to it in many walks of like, whether in the workplace or home, in families, marriages or between friends.

Had you labelled this thread 'Searching for the divine in Beethoven's music' or 'Is Beethoven the greatest composer etc..' without your ill-thought out prejudices, you might have got a great debate going.

Somehow, I think you are incapable of seeing the divine in Beethoven's music, since you are incapable of seeing the good in human discourse.

You will I am sure understand why, after your personal insults, that I am not signing off as I most often do, with best wishes...

Partsong

To others like Craig and Parla - thanks for your comments, but it may be that we are wasting our time.

I’ve thought it through a thousand times and the conclusion is always the same: Beethoven’s 9th symphony is nothing but a sequence of musical notes and Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa is nothing but a configuration of paint strokes. Whatever artistic value there is in these creations – beyond the mere craftsmanship - comes entirely from the one who perceives it. And everybody perceives the meaning behind a work of art differently. How can a person apply an inarguable and absolute artistic value or meaning to something so vague as an image or a sequence of sounds? “A picture is worth a thousand words.” 

This is why I didn’t even bother commenting on my ‘Subjectiveness Vs. Objectiveness’ forum topic. There was a conclusion reached that no one can argue: The technical aspects of music are objective, while the perceived meaning / artistic qualities of music are always subjective.