Beethoven is God.
Tue, Nov 29 2011, 11:00AM
#2
RE: Beethoven is God.
Partsong - Sorry I ruined your day but I think you have a rather over inflated sense of your own importance. This thread was in no way aimed as a personal attack on you. Who are you? Sit down, calm down and have a 'nice cup of tea'. Yes I included the jibe at minimalism as it was an ongoing thread - but come on Partsong, nothing was aimed at you personally. If you feel that way then of course I appogise, but you are mistaken and a little paranoid to say the least. Now put the kettle on.
.....do they have tea in your neck of the woods?
(just a joke)
Tue, Nov 29 2011, 11:32AM
#3
RE: Beethoven is God.
..... and lets get this straight. I am not saying that 'classical music' is better than any other form of music 'per se'. Tchaikovsky and Dvorak amongst others have proved that it is just as capable of producing dross as any other form. BUT that it is in this genre that the greatest musical works have been produced and that it is Beethoven who has crowned these achievements, and as such it is in this forum that those seeking to produce truly lasting great works of art perform, and therefore as a sum of it's produce it is the only form of music worth taking at seriously ...... and yes I am stating that as a fact ...... so there :-P Tongue sticking out.
Tue, Nov 29 2011, 11:55AM
#4
RE: Beethoven is God.
Too many posts in few minutes! Difficult to reply to all of you, but I feel I have to answer your last post fw.
I was not member of this forum, when you initiated your thread on "Subjectiveness Vs. Objectiveness", though I made a late contribution after the "end" had come.
The "conclusion" you may have reached in this thread is neither final nor definitive. It's simply the outcome of some members who expressed their views or even opinions. So, to contest your "conclusion" : If the "technical" (the way the work has been created, the rules and canons that have been followed) aspects of a work are "objective", namely incontestable, then its "artistic qualities" cannot be subject to our limitations, caprices, current mood and so many "changing" factors. It's unfair for an artist to strive to command and master his Art to find out that his work is considered as "nothing". To make it clearer: if Bach's Fugues master the respective writing and composition skills, then, they are the perfect ones in this genre. They are the numero uno in this field. Whether we like, are able to "perceive", them is another matter. This is called "popularity" and has nothing to do with the value of the work(s), which is objective. Whether we can or we wish to attain the work in question is our "subjective" prerogative.
To sum up : "the sequence of musical notes" can apply to Beethoven's Ninth as well to any "Dixie Chicks" song. The difference is that the "particular sequence of notes" in Beethoven's work is unrivalled, unique, a product of mastering the Art of how you "command the sequence of the notes", so that the "product" of his labour is a great one and a legacy for the defended Art and the posterity.
The same applies, by all means, for this inimitable "configuration of paint strokes" for "Mona Lisa"'s "creation". (Poor Da Vinci).
Parla
Tue, Nov 29 2011, 12:18PM
#5
RE: Beethoven is God.
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.
''If an infinate number of monkeys sit at an infinate number of typewriters then eventually the works of Shakespeare would be written''. Quite so, but to suggest that all the efforts in between are of equal value is nonsense. Think again for the 1001st time.
Tue, Nov 29 2011, 1:33PM
#6
RE: Beethoven is God. RE: Beethoven is God.
To sum up : "the sequence of musical notes" can apply to Beethoven's Ninth as well to any "Dixie Chicks" song. The difference is that the "particular sequence of notes" in Beethoven's work is unrivalled, unique, a product of mastering the Art of how you "command the sequence of the notes", so that the "product" of his labour is a great one and a legacy for the defended Art and the posterity.
Yes – but the point is what factual basis do you assert that the sequence of notes in the Choral Symphony is ‘unrivalled, unique’ etc? If there is no basis, then that statement is totally meaningless.
You can do better than that, Craig. The works of "contemporary visual Art" you chose can probably be compared with the likes of Avant Garde in music, but not with the Classics.
The same applies to the Classics in Music. You cannot possibly envisage and embrace let's say the third movement of Beethoven's Hammerklavier Sonata in a prima vista listening. You will fail to comprehend the multifaceted musical language and structure of the Ninth's third movement by simply listening at "face value". In Classic Art, the process is an ongoing one. By the time, through consistent listening, it grows on you.
Well, the Duchamp work was created in 1917 and so it’s a bit of a stretch to describe it as contemporary. And both that and Emin’s bed are fairly typical of art produced in the last century or so – there are thousands more examples which I could have cited. My point was that describing art in general, and these works in particular – as you did - as ‘seeking perfection’ is clearly inappropriate.
And though I have little time for Ms Emin, I can see the force behind the statement that the Duchamp was the greatest work of art created in the twentieth century – precisely because of its subtlety and its intelligence. And like the Hammerklavier, not something which can be fully understood at an initial glance – some people might just mistake it for a urinal purchased from a local hardware store!
Tue, Nov 29 2011, 3:33PM
#7
RE: Beethoven is God.
Still, Craig, you can't get it, can you?
Fw claimed that, in his thread, it was concluded that the "technical aspects" (in Music) are objective (this is the "factual basis"). So, people in this forum (and everywhere where music is taught) accept that music is not written with notes thrown in a random sequence, but with strict order, rules etc., which, thank God, even in these forums are considered as "objective".
Therefore, the difference between Beethoven's "sequence of notes" and "Dixie Chicks" lies in the way these "sequences" are treated. So, Beethoven knew how to use the tonalities, modulations, tempi changes, dynamics, transpositions, Harmony etc, so that the final result to be a perfect speciman of what music is all about, while the very little and poor treatment of any sequence might exist in the few notes, used by Dixie, constitutes only the "leftovers" of what can be called music.
As for the visual Arts, I specifically refered to the respective periods as in Classical Music, where a Michelangelo, Da Vinci, Raphael and later Caspar Friedrich etc. created perfection. However, in 20th century, the influential ones left an indelible mark of seeking a sort of perfection, like Picasso, Dali and their likes.
Finally, the fact that the ignorant and unaware cannot get the Hammerklavier at the first listening (it's not the same as a "glance"), it will never mean he will get it wrong. He will simply miss all these details that could make him appreciate the artistic values of the work itself. (When you see, at an initial galnce, the painitngs in Capella Sixtina, you can never claim you see something different than they depict along with an obvious (initial) beauty, which brings the Harmony of colours and the orderly and inspired "configuration of paint strokes").
Parla
Tue, Nov 29 2011, 3:46PM
#8
RE: Beethoven is God.
Still, Craig, you can't get it, can you?
As for the visual Arts, I specifically refered to the respective periods as in Classical Music, where a Michelangelo, Da Vinci, Raphael and later Caspar Friedrich etc. created perfection. However, in 20th century, the influential ones left an indelible mark of seeking a sort of perfection, like Picasso, Dali and their likes.
It all depends what you mean by perfection: I would say this type of evaluation is, to a degree, subjective.
Tue, Nov 29 2011, 4:58PM
#9
RE: Beethoven is God.
Let me make it easy for you.
Both Beethoven and the Dixie Chicks use sequences of notes, harmonies, dynamics, etc - that is an objective verifiable fact. But what is the (objective or otherwise) basis for saying that in the former case, the result is ‘a perfect specimen of what music is all about’ whilst in the latter what you get is ‘only the "leftovers" of what can be called music’.
It strikes me that you are saying absolutely nothing beyond you prefer Beethoven to the Dixie Chicks.
Tue, Nov 29 2011, 5:33PM
#10
RE: Beethoven is God.
Okay Magnus.I accept your apology and explanation. Thankyou.Now let's draw a line under it and move on!
Some of us folks be goin' to the hop on Sat'day night where the Dixie chicks be spinnin' some toons! Hope to see y'all there!
(Joke of course)
Perhaps, if we could try to steer the thread onto Beethoven, and what makes him possibly the greatest etc...then people like Parla, and Adrian and yourself Magnus could share some of their knowledge with us...
Mark
Regards (this time)
Tue, Nov 29 2011, 8:51PM
#11
RE: Beethoven is God.
Er...everyone's gone quiet.
Sorry! It was only my suggestion.
Go on then, as you were...
Do we not have access to different and varied types of music now than audiences did in the past? Does that not complicate things a bit? Were there popular forms of music in Beethovens' day?
Have we not become accustomed to distinguishing between 'lighter' and more 'serious' forms of music? Do those words such as 'lighter', 'popular', 'serious', 'classical' etc...not imply value judgements themselves about the music which they describe?
Mark
Tue, Nov 29 2011, 9:53PM
#12
RE: Beethoven is God.
Music is a language, and like any other language it has those who know how to use it, they can say more, they can hit the nail on the head, they can help us to decide what is important, they can use the language beautifully to describe something that is beautiful. We say they are great authors, we celebrate their genius, we build statues to their memory and we remember them long after they are dead. We also have newspaper writers who can tell us something they have just seen, they can tell us which soap star is dating which football player, they can use the words adequately enough to tell us something that we may already know, we may like to know, or we couldn't really care less about. We say he is a good reporter. Beethoven working with the language of music is the best author we have, and have ever had. The Dixie Chicks are decent reporters, but decent reporters are ten a penny. Do we value Shakespeare more than Piers Morgan.
Wed, Nov 30 2011, 12:01AM
#13
RE: Beethoven is God.
I don't know if it's only Craig, who cannot get it, or there are more who believe that the only rule in music is what we like and the composers and performers should be judged not on their value (since there is not an objective one), but on the trend of the day. So, a great composer is a coincidence of an accidental convergence of the taste (a notion nobody dares to define, however) of different people. In other words, the great is practically identical with the popular! So, why we do we need the two terms?
So, let me make easy for you, Craig, because it is you who do not (or cannot) understand what I say in so many ways:
Music has a definition, which we should bear in mind, if we ignore it, in one or the other way: It's the art of using the different forms of composition, namely the modes, the tonalities, the modulations, the fugues, the canons, the sonata form, rondeau, orchestration etc. So, in Beethoven's works all these "tools" (means) are used in abundance (plenty of brilliant modulations), in combination (sonata and rondeau), in perfection (full sonata form with a second development in the coda), inspiring plenitude of themes and melodies (in the First movement of the Sixth Symphony there are seven distinct themes), variations in rhythms within the same movement (moderato, allegro, largo), in dynamics (forte, piano, mezza forte, pianissimo), in harmonies (complex harmonic progressions from minor to major to the dominant to relevant major, etc) in brilliant orchestrations (see the Finale of the Fifth). The scores of Beethoven's works exist and it's up to you to examine and verify them.
In the case of Dixies, I don't know if there is a score (do they need one?). If there is one, then, examine if there is even one modulation, any major or even substantive harmonic progression, any written (specific) indication for changes in rhythm or dynamics, any orchestration (do they need or are they able to use one?) etc., then let me know.
To make it even more straight, if Music is an Art, it has rules, forms, means to master and command. So, the one who manages to master and command these rules better than the other (e.g. one who writes a song in C major all the way, using four of the seven notes in the scale cannot be compared whith the one who composes a Symphony or Sonata in the same tonality, using thousands of notes, in different sequences, using modulations, inspiring harmonies and the rest I have already mentioned). In Art, there is a gradation of how the artistic work has to be created. That's why people go to study, to master their technic and command their knowledge on their subject. An architect who designs humble huts cannot be of the same value with one who creates mansions or cathedrals.
So, it's not that I perfer Beethoven than Dixies; it's that I appreciate, recognise and pay my respects to his great Art of composition and his immense contribution to Music. No matter what you may think or do, his Music has already left an indelible mark of the highest order. As for the Dixies, I can assure you, except for their contribution to the "fashion" of the day, they will be evaporated, like thin air, in the worse possible oblivion, soon after they make their big bucks.
So, it'up to you to like the same way or even more the "popular", trendy, fashionable, easy come easy go music, but, please kindly do not try to "streamline" the whole art of Music. As I am sure you defend your profession and your work and you don't want to be prey to what other people like or dislike in your work, but what you actually deserve and who you are, the same applies to the musicians (composers and performers), who work as hard as it gets to perfect their Art and to promote its stature. They have to be recognised accordingly and not by our personal limitations.
Parla
Wed, Nov 30 2011, 12:06AM
#14
RE: Beethoven is God.
I don't know if it's only Craig, who cannot get it, or there are more who believe that the only rule in music is what we like and the composers and performers should be judged not on their value (since there is not an objective one), but on the trend of the day. So, a great composer is a coincidence of an accidental convergence of the taste (a notion nobody dares to define, however) of different people. In other words, the great is practically identical with the popular! So, why do we need the two terms?
So, let me make easy for you, Craig, because it is you who do not (or cannot) understand what I say in so many ways:
Music has a definition, which we should bear in mind, if we ignore it, in one or the other way: It's the art of using the different forms of composition, namely the modes, the tonalities, the modulations, the fugues, the canons, the sonata form, rondeau, orchestration etc. So, in Beethoven's works all these "tools" (means) are used in abundance (plenty of brilliant modulations), in combination (sonata and rondeau), in perfection (full sonata form with a second development in the coda), inspiring plenitude of themes and melodies (in the First movement of the Sixth Symphony there are seven distinct themes), variations in rhythms within the same movement (moderato, allegro, largo), in dynamics (forte, piano, mezza forte, pianissimo), in harmonies (complex harmonic progressions from minor to major to the dominant to relevant major, etc) in brilliant orchestrations (see the Finale of the Fifth). The scores of Beethoven's works exist and it's up to you to examine and verify them.
In the case of Dixies, I don't know if there is a score (do they need one?). If there is one, then, examine if there is even one modulation, any major or even substantive harmonic progression, any written (specific) indication for changes in rhythm or dynamics, any orchestration (do they need or are they able to use one?) etc., then let me know.
To make it even more straight, if Music is an Art, it has rules, forms, means to master and command. So, the one who manages to master and command these rules better than the other (e.g. one who writes a song in C major all the way, using four of the seven notes in the scale cannot be compared whith the one who composes a Symphony or Sonata in the same tonality, using thousands of notes, in different sequences, using modulations, inspiring harmonies and the rest I have already mentioned). In Art, there is a gradation of how the artistic work has to be created. That's why people go to study, to master their technic and command their knowledge on their subject. An architect who designs humble huts cannot be of the same value with one who creates mansions or cathedrals.
So, it's not that I perfer Beethoven than Dixies; it's that I appreciate, recognise and pay my respects to his great Art of composition and his immense contribution to Music. No matter what you may think or do, his Music has already left an indelible mark of the highest order. As for the Dixies, I can assure you, except for their contribution to the "fashion" of the day, they will be evaporated, like thin air, in the worse possible oblivion, soon after they make their big bucks.
So, it'up to you to like the same way or even more the "popular", trendy, fashionable, easy come easy go music, but, please kindly do not try to "streamline" the whole art of Music. As I am sure you defend your profession and your work and you don't want to be prey to what other people like or dislike in your work, but what you actually deserve and who you are, the same applies to the musicians (composers and performers), who work as hard as it gets to perfect their Art and to promote its stature. They have to be recognised accordingly and not by our personal limitations.
Parla
Wed, Nov 30 2011, 12:29AM
#15
RE: Beethoven is God.
CraigM wrote]
I knew it would only be a matter of time before you felt compelled to share your thoughts from the Olympian heights…
And lest you think I’m just taking an atypical piece to make my point, this was judged to be the greatest work of art of the twentieth century: http://www.tate.org.uk/servlet/ViewWork?workid=26850
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many thanks Craig for the reference to Duchamp's urinal. I was in Tate Liverpool a couple of weeks ago and was obviously thrilled to see it or at least what I thought was Duchamp's urinal. I didn't bother to read the descriptive note and am now most disappointed to read that I only saw a replica as the original is lost. This has obviously now spoiled my day out.
You can do better than that, Craig. The works of "contemporary visual Art" you chose can probably be compared with the likes of Avant Garde in music, but not with the Classics. Take the visual Arts in the respective periods of Music (and the Classic periods in visual Arts as well) and, then, there you are. Do you think Michelangelo or Rembrandt or Raphael's Art is simply to like it (something like take it or leave it) or to attain, to reach the understanding of a level of such amazingly subtle and perfect artistic creation?
The same applies to the Classics in Music. You cannot possibly envisage and embrace let's say the third movement of Beethoven's Hammerklavier Sonata in a prima vista listening. You will fail to comprehend the multifaceted musical language and structure of the Ninth's third movement by simply listening at "face value". In Classic Art, the process is an ongoing one. By the time, through consistent listening, it grows on you.
Parla