Beethoven is God.

Ten years ago I became obsessed with Beethoven.  For some reason, it was the Piano Sonatas that triggered this.  I never tire of listening to them still, which is certainly not the case with popular music.  Still, why pick on the Dixie Chicks and bluegrass?   

You take a break for a week and miss all the fun!

Parla - the language that we use often betrays our attitude, point of view, perspective - whatever you call it. You have, one more than one occasion on this thread, used the word 'ignorant' to describe some listeners. You also speak of the perfection of classical music as something which we, as listeners, ought to 'attain to', in the same way that composers attain to perfection in their art.

Call people uneducated or unaware, but don't call them ignorant. And I say that as someone who has spent most of his life teaching the uneducated and the culturally unaware.

Listeners aspiring to attain the perfection of serious music? If you take a look around you at a 2000 strong audience or whatever it is, at a Proms concert, there is no way that everyone in that audience understands that they will be listening to a 4 movement symphony tonight which comprises a sonata form with development, a sonata form without development, a scherzo and a rondo. People don't sit there with a ticksheet in front of them. People attend concerts (thankfully) for varied reasons - some might go to hear that particular composer, or that pianist, or that work, or that conductor playing that symphony. Or just to hear great music.Not everyone is aware of the intricacies of the form, nor do they need to be.

As Tagalie once said on another thread, the average listener can sense form in a piece of music, otherwise the piece has failed to communicate.

I was once lucky enough to attend a pre-concert talk by Witold Lutoslawski in the Royal Festival Hall, before the European premiere of his masterly 3rd Symphony. In this talk, he spoke of how, after a Brahms Symphony, he felt he had had 'too much music'. Too many climaxes, too weighty etc...I can only presume he meant Brahms 4 - which consists of three weighty movements all in sonata form, followed by a whopping theme and 31 variations.

Whichever Brahms he meant, the point is that great composers sometimes have doubts themselves about the complexity of other great composers.

Parla - the whole point about Jazz is precisely that it is NOT written down. It is an improvisation 'on the spur of the moment', to use a title by Tyner. It is a momentary thing of beauty - and sometimes albums contain 2nd or alternative takes for comparison.

As for the Dixie chicks, it is apples and pears, since I doubt very much whether they jam it in the studio with The Art of Fugue on the coffee table.

And Parla, there is the transient in pop as well as the permanent. And it is the same in serious music. I hate to trot out all the old names - but Dylan, Beatles, Stones, The Doors - even Elton John is still standing. The fact that these artists are still loved after nearly half a century says that people value their music. As far as I am concerned, what is of lasting value in any culture is important. Mozart, as I quoted elsewhere, called the Stamitz family 'a family of wretched scribblers'. Their music hasn't survived the test of time as little Wolfy's has.

(Listen to Bowie's 'Life on Mars' - a through composed melody and lyric which I thought was way ahead of its time for 1971, and still do.)

On another note, complexity in music is not the be all and the end all. Someone has already pointed to Satie's Gymnopedie no. 1. What about that lovely lyrical 3rd movement of Brahms' 3rd (Parla will you stop dipping your quill in the ink well so feverishly. I haven't quite finished and besides which, the noise is putting me off.) I am sure we could all quote examples of great simplicity in music.

I would say, from the time of the subjectiveness verus objectiveness debate, that there is probably a consensus of opinion on this forum that once people try to define objective criteria for why one genre of music is better than another, difficulties emerge quickly.

None of which disputes Beethoven's greatness as a composer.

Best wishes

Mark

So, the saga goes on. Thanks for the honour.

Mark, the "ignorant" goes to those who willfully remain unaware, despite the chances they have to know more.

Listeners can go to any concert with different intentions and level of any form of knowledge, but they cannot claim anything they like as the "final verdict". What we like in concert is quite different of what it has been actually been performed. Even Lutoslawsky might be less "prepared" for the perfection of any Brahms' Symphony, which requires a great deal of intellectual and musical stamina to cope with. And, no, the "average listener" cannot always "sense" the form in a piece of music and that's why plenty of great works do not get through (unfortunately often; see Wagner's Operas, Bruckner's Symphonies; are they for the average listener?), while some "junk" or easy-come easy-go or naive (like Satie), stuff can work perfectly fine.

Jazz is great as a non-written music, which means it is only for those who happen to attend the "concert" (who witnessed the musical event, for the rest of the humanity, they will never find out!) and through the recordings as a souvenir of what happened once in a studio (or a concert) and it will never happen again, either in another studio or in concert, either by the same artist or another! So, it's a one time impro, namely thin air, easily vanished in the annals of our heavily charged memory. What is the impact of specific works of Jazz in the recent or even future History of Music? And this impact how is going to be preserved? Only by the recordings? So, we have to pray the master tapes to stay intact eternally for the posterity.

As for the Pop, do you really think that Dylan, Beatles and the rest will stay as musical examples or as mere popular figures. Life of Mars, played on piano, sounds as a dull piece of cumbersome music.

The Stamitz family might not have been fortunate enough to have an Amadeus, but they were very skillful composers and their works are still recorded and played at an opportune time.

Complexity is not the sine qua non of Music, but is an indication, particularly in the form, (not in the dexterity and virtuosity) that indicates the skills and mastery of the composer. That's why Bruckner is a great composer despite it does not give me a thrill. The "complexity" of Haydn, Mozart and predominantly of Beethoven is found in the form rather than anywhere else.

If, despite all the "difficulties" that emerge from defining the "objective criteria" for which genre is better than another, still Beethoven is a great composer is enough for me. However, the real fans of Pop, Rock, Rap and the other unmentionable stuff detest with abhorrence anything classical. For me, rightly so. As for the true Jazz fans, normally, they are indifferent or dispassionate with anything classical. So, this trend that anything is equal, because it's simply different, it's a very interesting situation, which I hope it will be espoused by the true-blue of all these genres, despite that does not honour and does not do any justice to any of them.

Craig, I will bother to reply to the argument on the "literature" versus "music": The book reflects the value in literature terms, while the actual performance projects the theatrical value of the play. In music, it is the same analogy: the score reveals the musical value (to the one who can fully and appropriately read it), while the live or studio performance reveals the full and comprehensive form of the work in question. Beethoven, being deaf in most of his musical life, he had to rely only on the score! (Of course, in pop songs, or in the basic themes in jazz, the "composer" can write a "set of technical instructions" to the fellow musicians, but the classical score is musical literature and that's why they are quite expensive).

If the behaviour of the elit (and the snob, despite they don't go together necessarily) is typical of a charlatan, then, I can fancy what happens to the other side...(beware of the populists).

Parla

That's an exceptionally generous view, Craig. You must be a very kind chap. I'm sure I'm not the only one who's unable to see the difference.

Indeed, something many of us should heed.

This is not my version of the history of music – it’s Cambridge University’s! And oddly enough, they didn’t consult once when they put their syllabus together. They clearly believe that pop and jazz have a legitimate role in the history of music, even though you refuse to acknowledge that possibility. And this is Cambridge – not some provincial former polytechnic which you would (patronisingly) would probably describe as ‘politically correct.’ So much for assertion that Paul Simon and Miles Davis made no contribution to the history of music. Or are you just going to ignore the facts that are at odds with your opinion?

You have disregarded the main point I was making – namely why is the score of the Missa Solemnis literature, whilst the score of Diamonds on the Sole of Her Shoes or of Take the A Train isn’t?  It's a simple factual question: surely a man of your spiritual insight and grasp of logic would find that a fairly strightfoward matter? 

You really don’t get it, do you? I have no need to write to Cambridge University to argue that pop and jazz should be on their music syllabus – they already are!

...and the fact that is in the syllabus doesn't mean that they safeguarded a place in the History of Music. Universities do not write the History by their syllabus. Besides, "contribution" in music is not a vehicle to importance or greatness.

By the way, which is the actual contribution of Pop and Rock, let's say, to the factual development and advancement of music? In other words, in which way, music became somehow better, more important, in musical terms only?

Parla