Jazz is the new classical.

Guillaume, you cannot change your tune, no matter what.

Someone who "prefers", 'love" a composer is expected to listen to him more often than others that he/she does not. So, If I say, on so many occasions, I "prefer" Rossini, I listen to his music (and not only his Operas) extensively. So, Il Barbiere, Le Comte d' Ory and Il Turco are well known works to me. I enjoy them, but I do not see in which way they are "better" works than "all but indisputably great serious works" (which are they specifically? Mozart's Symphonies or the String Quintets or even his Operas, for instance?).

In one of my previous posts, I explain briefly why I do not find anything truly great in the vast majority of Rossini's compositions (not only in his Operas). Kindly read it again and, if you disagree, you may develop your own arguments on the specific points I raise there.

By the way, last night I listened to the "Serenata per piccolo compresso", the "String Sonata No.1 in G and the "Variazioni per Clarinetto obligato con accompagnamento di Orchestra in C". All lovely works, extremely entertaining, while the "Variazioni" proves to be a very virtuosic work too. However, great, profound, structurally complex or thoroughly developed? I don't believe so.

Parla

Yes. Being entertained is more than simply being cheered up by listening to a popular show tune or a relaxing to Frank Sinatra. Being entertained also inlcudes listening (properly) to the Resurrection Symphony or Missa Solemnis.

It might be a different type of entertainment, but that's what it is.

Thanks for your kind understanding, Chris. I tend to believe that definitions and semantics are more our barrier than what we actually say.

If some wish to use the verb "entertain" or "like" to include all stages and forms of satisfaction and fulfillment, it can be understood somehow. However, it is going to be confusing what is what.

The equivalent word for "entertain" in Ancient Greek is an hybrid one resulted from two words: "soul" (psyche) and "lead" (agw). So, according to the wisdom of the ancient Greeks, to entertain is to lead the soul. That means the entertainment pleases our senses, our emotions, our soul. So, any sense of appreciation is not included in the "entertainment" notion.

"Appreciation" in Art has to do mostly with the satisfaction of mind, since it is a work and outcome of it.

Finally, in the fortunate case where we have a celebration of appreciation and entertainment (e.g. Mozart), we may talk for "fulfillment" (an emotional and intellectual satisfaction).

Just consider the above, if it helps to comprehend each other's views.

Parla

Guillaume

I think I am with you on this debate (the aesthetic debate; not the one on whether Parla is a puffed up, condescending snob). Obviously, it takes effort and understanding to appreciate this or that work of art, but when all is said and done this has to be at the service of something like enjoyment or pleasure. The pleasure can be enriched by feelings of awe, terror, humour and so on, but it is still pleasure. To say this isn't to downgrade the importance of the intellect or the role of knowledge when it comes to aesthetic appreciation, but simply to say that one must ultimately be at the service of the other. Nor is it equivalent to claiming that pleasure is the only criterion when it comes to judging a work of art: I swear I will scream if Parla digs that straw-man up once more.

When we listen to music that gives us no pleasure, it is surely in the hope that it will at some point in the future. (Though I admit there may be a minor motive in pure curiosity: I wonder what this instrument will sound like and so on?) Furthermore, if it fails to yield any pleasure then we will never be able to fully understand it. We can describe it in technical terms (modulation here, split violas there, sonata form here), but that will always fall (far) short of anything approaching a true understanding. Put bluntly, the thing has to affect us to do that; without it, there would be no such thing as aesthetics. The meanings would always pass us by.

Eliza, "enjoyment or pleasure" as our final destination in dealing a work of Art is not contested, as you may see it in my post #8 above. To call all the process simply a matter of "taste" is what I contest.

What it is probably too difficult to understand by at least most members of this forum is that the intellectual "satisfaction" that comes from the appreciation of a work of music is not always and necessarily linked to the emotional pleasure and vice versa. In the rather rare occasion where both may occur, then, we can have the "fulfillment", a comprehensive enjoyment, of our listening experience.

So my argument goes against all those who claim that "our taste" only qualifies or defines what is great in music. As long as you accept that there is at least "effort and understanding" along the way, possibly we may understand each other and, most importantly, that there is something great out there, beyond what we "like", which we may reach it (with some effort, understanding, research, study, expertise, etc.).

I remember an almost 45 minute talk among two music critics, on a Radio program in my country (in the early 80s) about Shostakovich's 15th (which was a rather hot new stuff) before airing it. After analysing, explaining as many features as possible in almost every single bar and identifying the greatness and significance of this Symphony, at the end of their presentation, one of the two mentioned:"By the way, I like it". And the other replied: "I'm not that thrilled".

Parla

Perhaps the word 'entertainment' carries too many connotations of 'light entertainment' which is applied to TV game shows, sit coms and the like. So perhaps someone wouldn't immediately use such a word to describe the experience of sitting through Götterdämmerung – but that doesn’t alter the fact that the only reason that anyone would want to listen to Götterdämmerung, or the Missa Solemnis or the Turangalila is because they gain enjoyment from doing so.

And enjoyment encompasses perfectly the situation you describe where you need a bit of effort to get into a new piece of music. People do crossword puzzles for fun after all.

Are you suggesting that you wouldn’t enjoy being spiritually comforted? Or being profoundly moved?

Putting that aside, we might be at risk here in getting hung up on semantics – which will get us nowhere.

The issue I was seeking to explore was the suggestion that one’s response to classical music is superior or nobler or of a different order to one’s response to, say, jazz. And I fail to see why that should be the case. It sounds like good old fashioned snobbery to me…