The worst record covers ever
Sun, Mar 18 2012, 5:09PM
#2
RE: The worst record covers ever
But, you must admit, it's not dull, is it? In fact, I'm sure you've found it entertaining.
Surely, a 'worst' cover must be, at the very least, deadly dull.
Sun, Mar 18 2012, 5:44PM
#3
RE: The worst record covers ever
I think you two found the best "exit" policy: going back to the topic by using Bartoli's interesting cover.
By the way, JAH "tasteless is an Art in itself" and called kitsch. The best definition of it came like this: Something...beautiful!
Parla
Sun, Mar 18 2012, 5:52PM
#4
RE: The worst record covers ever
But, you must admit, it's not dull, is it? In fact, I'm sure you've found it entertaining.
Surely, a 'worst' cover must be, at the very least, deadly dull.
Well I have to say that, questions of dubious taste aside, it did provoke a guffaw when I first saw it, if only of mockery!
I think all-round naffness is what I'd consider the main qualification.
Sun, Mar 18 2012, 5:55PM
#5
RE: The worst record covers ever
I think you two found the best "exit" policy: going back to the topic by using Bartoli's interesting cover.
I have no need of an "exit policy" whatever that may mean. I have no position from which I need to "exit".
Mon, Mar 19 2012, 12:23AM
#6
RE: The worst record covers ever
No, JKH, I didn't mean you "need of an exit policy": I meant that you and JAH helped the thread going back to its topic and escaped from a stalemated never-ending subject about the subjective versus objective evaluation of Music. Well done!
As for the other question on the "references to any published works", most of them are in my mother tongue, in French and some in German. In English, I can recommend any book from any composer or performer, like Rameau's "Treatise on Harmony", the "ABC of Music" of Imogen Holst, the "Shaping Forces of Music" of Ernst Toch or "Structural Hearing:Tonal Coherence in Music" by Heinrich Schenker (they exist in English translation, except for I. Holst which is in English anyway).
Parla
Mon, Mar 19 2012, 1:10AM
#7
RE: The worst record covers ever
No, JKH, I didn't mean you "need of an exit policy......... Well done!
Praise indeed. It almost feels like Newbolt's Vitai Lampada.
As for the other question on the "references to any published works"... In English, I can recommend any book from any composer or performer, like Rameau's "Treatise on Harmony", the "ABC of Music" of Imogen Holst, the "Shaping Forces of Music" of Ernst Toch or "Structural Hearing:Tonal Coherence in Music" by Heinrich Schenker (they exist in English translation, except for I. Holst which is in English anyway).
Thank you very much for those suggestions. At first glance I'd have thought "any book by any composer or performer" is casting the net a little wide, but let's keep an open mind. For example, I look forward with eagerness to Rameau's comparison of Beethoven's and Puccini's compositional techniques.
Mon, Mar 19 2012, 1:16AM
#8
RE: The worst record covers ever
Rameau on Beethoven and Puccini is rubbish. He hardly mentions them and what is worst is that it is in French!
I haven't read it but I both Googled and Wikepedia'd it.
Mon, Mar 19 2012, 10:11AM
#9
RE: The worst record covers ever
Vic, I start realizing that there is no hope to communicate. You don't answer my questions, while you keep repeating the same old stuff.
The funny thing is that both the subjectivists and (obviously) the objectivists claim that their views are the absolute fact (or the truth: a forgotten word). In both cases, however, the claim of one side appears as an opinion to the other. However, the subjectivists make their statements and they do not bother to provide any argument to that effect. It's self-evident, they say and we are done! Their main argument (or weapon) is that they cannot find any merit in any argument from the side of the objectionists. And how can they? If you treat their statement as an opinion, you will treat their arguments the same way. In opinions, we don't need explanations: those who agree with the statement, they don't need any explanation and those who don't agree, they don't bother to listen to any.
The only way to find a possible "exit" is to consider that there is an objective way to "measure" the compositional skills of a composer and a work, at least at the level of the composition (the creation, the music-making), like any creation in any field (not only in Arts). This is measured, as it is taught in the appropriate schools, by the rules and laws which have been established by years of such creative work. So, if we may simply contemplate that, only in technical matters, there is a "measurable" way to evaluate the work in question, there is enough room to say after that, at our personal (or even collective) level, we might not like it at all.
In other words, at least as far as I am concerned, I don't try to deprive anyone's taste, choices, opinions etc. I just try to say that, in technical matters (they way the different works are composed), there is a way to appreciate Art beyond our limitations. There are people who have studied, done researche, know anything they should know about music and they have indulge in it for a lifetime. These are the composers themselves, the performers, the producers, the scholars, the professors, etc. who have to say something about why Beethoven's compositional writing is more skillful than Puccini's, despite the latter was more able in orchestration. And why Puccini's arias are more elaborated than the songs of Paul Simon and so on.
Think about it.
Parla
I know it must be tiresome to have ones infallibility constantly questioned, but would you please address directly the following (in the interests of your increasingly tenuous credibility):
You have made an assertion and the onus in on you to defend it.
This might make it clearer. If there are objective criteria to evaluate the difference between genre there are presumably criteria to evaluate differences within them.
So tell us what criteria you would use to evaluate the relative quality of Beethoven and Bach. Or better still perhaps, between Missa Solemnis and Bach's B minor Mass. What evidence would you submit to make the claim that one is "greater" or "better" than the other? Note: not which is the greater, but what is the nature of the evidence you would use to make a claim?
You have repeatedly made the claim that objective criteria exists. What are they? And please don't insult our intelligence further with stuff like, "What they teach in music departments" and so on. Give us details, not generalisations.
Thanks in anticipation,
Vic.
Mon, Mar 19 2012, 12:08PM
#10
RE: The worst record covers ever
I admire your brave sense of humour, JKH. The "Treatise of Harmony" is a very essential book on all the possible aspects of Harmony. Of course, Rameau didn't bother to deal with different "compositional techniques", but he may give you the tools to see how more elaborated, advanced, in every aspect of Harmony, Beethoven had been in composing his works compared with Puccini, for that matter.
If you read the book of Rimsky-Korsakov on the orchestration, you have the "tools" to appreciate the incredible technique of Ravel as an unparalleled orchestrator compared even to Debussy.
Parla
Mon, Mar 19 2012, 1:24PM
#11
RE: The worst record covers ever
Brave?
Mon, Mar 19 2012, 5:08PM
#12
RE: The worst record covers ever
Dear Vic, I don't have any "interest in my increasingly tenuous credibility", since I have full confidence of what I claim. If I cannot convince the others, it doesn't mean my credibility is at stake.
I had made, on different occasions, the assertion on the objectivity of the superiority of Classical Music, providing pages of explanations to the "other side", including you. My argumentation has not yet convinced you and that's O.K. However, the "other side" had made also an assertion that all genres are equal, regardless of their source, and everything relies on the taste or opinion of the listener. So, the onus is as well on you (all of you who state that) to prove the truth of this statement, without resorting on the "self-evident" and the fact that you don't recognise and agree with any argument from me. You may be not convinced, but this doesn't mean other people have not accepted and supported the view I support and proclaim. So, you have to convince us on which specific grounds there is no way to identify a great composition from a badly or poorly written. FW has made some excellent points on that matter.
So, when you start supporting with specific musical/artistic arguments why all genres are equal, then, we may have an interesting debate.
Till anyone of you come with the slightest viable argument in support of your position, I don't plan to start redeveloping my arguments. As for this "evidence" between Missa Solemnis (apparently by Beethoven) and Bach's B minor Mass, I just bring to the table the fact that Dvorak's Cello Concerto is considered as the greatest Concerto for the instrument. Composers, musicians, scholars and, above all, the players themselves have supported that view, without asking any audience whether they agree or not. Do you really need any evidence, Vic, or do you actually contest this view? Concerning the "objective criteria" for the Cello Concerto par excellence, are so difficult for us to identify them? Do you really need words like structure, orchestration, harmonic progression, tonal development, brilliant modulations, superb virtuosity to tell you that Music is not composed in abstracto?
Till then, let's agree (that's a temporary exit policy from this stagnat issue) that we have two major views that, for the moment and in this forum, may be treated as opinions, till, one day, we may have a debate on the substance with agreed terms of reference, hoping that we may come to a potential convergence of these two major views.
Thanks for your kind consideration, in (eager) anticipation,
Parla
Mon, Mar 19 2012, 7:46PM
#13
RE: The worst record covers ever
Dear Vic, I don't have any "interest in my increasingly tenuous credibility", since I have full confidence of what I claim. If I cannot convince the others, it doesn't mean my credibility is at stake.
Your lack of credibility (on this issue) lies not in a failure to convince, but a failure to provide a jot of evidence for a ludicrous claim.
However, the "other side" had
made also an assertion that all genres are equal
No one has made or is defending this position. It is a straw dog device on your part.
I had made, on different occasions, the assertion on
the objectivity of the superiority of Classical Music, providing pages
of explanations
You have provided pages of waffle. The closest you have ever come is to post five criteria for the superiority of Berstein's "Somewhere" and "Maria" over Paul Simon's "Bridge Over Troubled Water". One of which, if I remember correctly, was that they were written for better singers!
However, the "other side" had
made also an assertion that ... everything relies on the taste or opinion of the listener. ... So, you have to convince us
on which specific grounds there is no way to identify a great
composition from a badly or poorly written.
You need to reflect on your use of logic here Parla! What "specific grounds" can prove there is "no way" to do something? Positives must be attempted to be proven. A negative is unprovable by definition. Like I cannot prove that there are not fairies living at the bottom of my garden.
I don't plan to start redeveloping my arguments.
You "redevelop" them all the time. It's the lack of any evidence for them that stretches your credibility.
Concerning the "objective criteria" for the
Cello Concerto par excellence, are so difficult for us to identify them?
Do you really need words like structure, orchestration, harmonic progression, tonal development, brilliant modulations, superb virtuosity to tell you that Music is not composed in abstracto?
You mean, like a score sheet for each aspect: Missa Solemnis = 9.2 for tonal development; B minor Mass = 9.5. therefore the B minor Mass is the greater of the two. That kind of thing? No I don't Parla. But then I am not the one arguing that there are grounds for objective criteria to evaluate music. You are.
All this is about you claiming objective criteria but not naming them. Want an "exit strategy"? List the objective criteria that make Beethoven greater or lesser a composer than Bach, or the songs of Bernstein lesser in musical terms that Paul Simon's and you have it.
But you won't because you can't and, once again you have dug yourself into a hole that you can't get out of.
Yours, with a bit less anticipation than before,
Vic.
Mon, Mar 19 2012, 7:42PM
#14
RE: The worst record covers ever
Any of the DG series of Karajan re-issues featuring Karajan next to jet plane, Karajan next to fast car, Karajan next to luxury boat. They should have continued the series with Karajan in bunker, Karajan in Panzer tank and Karajan kissing the feet of Paul Simon (just for Vic), however this last photograph could not be found.
Mon, Mar 19 2012, 9:18PM
#15
RE: The worst record covers ever
Any of the DG series of Karajan re-issues featuring Karajan ........Karajan in bunker,
Obviously a better conductor than he was a golfer.
Fantastic! Back to covers.
JKH, one person's tasteless is another's striking visual image. I'm not sure of the symbolism, or its relevance, but I like it.
I quite agree. De gustibus non est disputandum, as they used to say in the espresso bars of ancient Rome. I wouldn't want to give the impression that I'm a Victorian prude who covers up the legs of the piano, but 'symbolism' is a very generous description of this particularly cack-handed cover of an album devoted to music composed for castrati. Grafting Bartoli's head onto a sculpture of a male torso? Mmmm...
JKH