It implies nothing of the sort – only that they are different.
Exactly – the result. Which is more than a score, a recipe or the world's most detailed 'Painting by Numbers' Mona Lisa set. And who's to say where a painter works is any indicator of the quality of his work?
Exactly, and so...
Oh parla, you were "doing" so well, until you chose "to" make the ridiculous point "that there" is some higher order of quality beyond the opinion of the listener.
If, "for the" sake of argument, someone feels Paul Simon's "work is" genius, and everything Beethoven wrote stinks, then that opinion "is every" bit as valid as the "one you" seem to receive "from some" higher plane.
Audio Editor, Gramophone
No one is arguing the relative merits of Paul Simon and Beethoven, classical and non-classical music. This is a false argument that you have erected ...
The point is the value or enjoyment an individual might place on her/his choice of music. A value that you have no access to, are in no position to evaluate, and have no right to denigrate.
Parla, did you read this before you penned your response? What part of it don't you understand if you did read it?
Parla's posts may or may not represent his views on, and knowledge of, music, as opposed to some amorphous melange of friends' opinions, plagiarism from Wikipedia and who knows what other publications and, just maybe his own thoughts, however incoherent and impenetrably expressed they may be. Frankly, I couldn't care less and spending any time in debating with this now exposed charlatan is, for me, an utterly fruitless pursuit. I admire the patience of others like Vic and Andrew for doing so.
I can't be the only one who appreciates the delicious irony in the fact that Parla litters his impenetrable offerings with quotation marks, often employed seemingly at random, whereas when they really are required - at least of anyone with the slightest pretension to academic or intellectual self respect - when quoting and properly attributing other people's remarks (plagiarism in polite circles, stealing in some others) they are absent.
Just how much time do you people have to spare to make this thread run to 9 laboured pages? Especially on such a tosh intial post. Have you not got homes to go to?
It does strike me that the debate is turning into some kind of class/ political argument, with the Beethoven-is-god posse shooting for some kind of Nietzean superman fantasy (which tends to lead to trouble) and the team Paul Simon as the wooly liberals knitting their own yoghurt.
You are parla's slightly hipper brother, AICM £5.
(Gramo don't do smilies...)
Mark, the "ignorant" goes to those who willfully remain unaware, despite the chances they have to know more.
Right Parla, I must have missed the word 'wilfully' somewhere. So now there are people who insist on staying ignorant, and are not open to change. So out goes the popularity of Operatic aria from the 90's and Gorecki's third, just as examples.
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".
So our listening perceptions are to be measured by what is absent rather than by what is present - in other words by what we do not hear rather than by what we hear. An odd view.
What we like in concert is quite different of what it has been actually been performed.
Even Lutoslawski might be less "prepared" for the perfection of any Brahms' Symphony, which requires a great deal of intellectual and musical stamina to cope with.
So Witold Lutoslawski, one of the great post war composers, was not ready to listen to Brahms, and did not have the required intellectual stamina. Ever heard the comment 'sweeping statement'. I would have thought that a composer of Lutoslawski's musical intelligence had actually bothered to listen to Brahms before voicing an opinion.
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?),
Okay. Point taken, in the case of a gargantuan work like a Bruckner Symphony or Wagner Opera. But the average listener can, I am sure, get what is happening in the usual concert programme of overture, concerto and symphony.
while some "junk" or easy-come easy-go or naive (like Satie), stuff can work perfectly fine.
Satie naive? Simple and beautiful yes - naive no. Artists make conscious choices when they revert to simplicity.
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.
How many times - Jazz is about using your musical skills to perform an on the spot improvisation. Beethoven and his pals were also well versed in 'extemporising on the pianoforte'. Schubert did write them down - they are called the Moments Musicaux. Yes he used to improvise in front of small select audiences of friends etc...The fact that Jazz is improvised does NOT belittle the musical skill of the performers - you have to be pretty adept musically to keep up with the pace. Yes it might be on record rather than in a score - so what?
As for the Pop, do you really think that Dylan, Beatles and the rest will stay as musical examples or as mere popular figures.
Yes I do think they will stay because whether I as an individual like it or not, what has longevity in our culture is important to others.
Life on Mars, played on piano, sounds as a dull piece of cumbersome music.
Maybe it does Parla, but so does Pachelbel's canon, without the full sonority of the strings. You are talking about listening only to the melody ripped out of the totality of the context - the lyric, the singing, the musicians, the arrangements, the production etc...
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.
Yes okay, but really only of interest to a classical period enthusiast, where the rest of us will go for the big four musketeers - Beethoven, Mozart, Schubert, Haydn.
Finally, I would not call jazz and pop unmentionable forms of music.
It's really very simple - If you are moved by Winterreise then you are missing out BIG TIME if you never experience Nick Drake's Pink Moon. If you enjoy Erik Satie you really ought to hear Aphex Twin's Selected Ambient Music I & II. If you like Ride of the Valkerie check out Ride the Lightning by Metallica.
For god's sake Bob, are deliberately trying to drive him over the edge?
Parla, before you consider this, take your medication and try to stay calm!
Vic, I'm quite healthy, considering that I'm not young anymore, and I'm totally free of any medication (except that I rely, on an almost daily base, on dealing and listening to Classical Music; that's my healing).
Bob, if you mean what you wrote, it's of your concern only and you have to be a bit... concerned. Suit yourself!
However, Partsong or dear Mark, as a fair and truly good interlocutor, you deserve one more round, since you went to a very detailed analysis of my post.
So, as you have experience with people, I have too, dealing with preparations of my concerts for people in places I have been, like in Asia or in Africa and back in the late 90s in US. They use to come, invited (no ticket involved), with the certainty they know everything about whatever has to be performed and they refused even to follow the program or to be attentive in the introduction of the works of the program. By all means, the music went over their heads, but they didn't refrain from making any comments of general -not personal- character, like that was great or boring piece of music, etc. Some people are very comfortable with what they know and they believe that's the whole truth in the world. I don't think they are arrogant people, but I truly came to the conclusion they don't care to learn a word more than they know.
Likewise, in concerts, the audience is made of different kind of people (educated, well prepared, musically experienced and the opposite variants). So, while they all get the same thrill of the "live" performance, i.e. the direct contact with the performer(s) and the experience of the direct listening to the specific work, the outcome of their understanding and final judgement, understandably, should vary. Hence, the reaction of Lutoslawsky to the particular listening of Brahms' Symphony (which has to do a lot with the actual performance and not necessarily only with the actual value of the work). I have attended some dozen of live performances of Beethoven's Fifth (a towering masterpiece of Music, in this case not even arguably) and, in some "poor" performances, I felt it was a sort of dreadful, awkward music.
Bruckner's Symphonies and Wagner's Operas are not superficially called "gargantuan" works; they are written in such a way, so that every note can count. So, the listener either he is able to get it or not. It's not the size that prevent the uneducated, unaware (and the rest); it's again the form that send them away or even out. I remember a case of listening the Prelude of Tristan and a fellow-musician, "unaware" of Wagner's music, turned to me and asked me: "When the work is going to start?", explaining that he couldn't trace which is the tonality and how the work unfolds.
So, on which grounds are you sure that the "average" listener (who actually falls in this generic term?) can comprehend the "usual" (which is not that usual anymore) programme of overture, concerto and Symphony? Are you really sure this "average" can get the full scope of "Leonora III", or of the Second Piano Concerto of Brahms or of Nielsen's Fourth?
Satie was not "naive"; his music was by choice! He believed, according to different sources of his time, that music should be as simple as possible to be followed from the first note to the last. According to the same sources, a critic told him, once, that his music was "naive". Satie replied: "Sometimes, truth is naive".
As for Jazz, we don't disagree. They are great musicians and as good as anybody, but they play only. Very rarely (Brubeck, Ellington and th great Schiffrin) they write down what they have played. That creates a problem of making this music..."tangible", in real terms. If I admire, appreciate and love the musicality of Coltrane's solo in "my favourite things", how can I find the score, so I can study, reproduce and make it accessible for the future musicians? The recording is not a score and, sooner or later, the master tape will get weaker and weaker, while CDs won't last for ever.
Regarding Pop/Rock, you did't answer what is their actual contribution in the course of Music. What is the legacy, not in sociological, political or economic terms, but purely in musical ones.
For' whatever's sake, don't ever compare "Life on Mars" with Pachelbel's canon. The latter exists in difffernt versions, most of them deprived of any lush string sonority. I have it in Organ, chamber music and small string ensemble forms and you can always trace the beauty and magic flow of the original composition. That's why Pachlebel's canon is still in the repertory of various programs, while "Life on Mars"...
As for the Stamitz family, they are O.K., then, even if you "go for the big four musketeers". Yes, the Stamitz are for the classic audience mostly, but they were fine composers and musicians.
Many thanks for your post, Mark.
This is just for you Parla ...
Oh God! I'm losing the will to live!
Pause for thought.
It seems you either believe that quality exisist and is worth fighting for, or you believe that everything is exactly the same and that political stance is worth fighting for.
Looks like a desperate attempt to get the argument going again by positing false extremes.
Who doesn't believe that quality exists?
Who believes that everything is the same?
And throw in the word "political" as a pejorative to claim the high moral ground.
Surely this subject is exhausted?
Indeed. I'm just going to ignore Herr Brodsky, whatever new pseudonym he chooses to adopt.
A wise policy, Craig. I think 'Pablo Largo' is his latest nom du jour, but I see that an earlier post from him today seems to have been removed.