Piano Forum
Piano Board => Performance => Topic started by: daniel patschan on April 22, 2009, 03:48:19 AM
-
Dear Mr. Hinton !
It always interested me whether one guy out there really exists. His name (as you may already have heard of him) is Artur Cimirro. He now plans to record
SORABJI - OPUS ARCHIMAGICUM (SONATA V)
On his web page he presents future projects and in June/July this year a CD containing this works will be released. Did you hear about it ? If so, he must propably be real.
Daniel
-
Dear Mr. Hinton !
It always interested me whether one guy out there really exists. His name (as you may already have heard of him) is Artur Cimirro. He now plans to record
SORABJI - OPUS ARCHIMAGICUM (SONATA V)
On his web page he presents future projects and in June/July this year a CD containing this works will be released. Did you hear about it ? If so, he must propably be real.
Daniel
Yes, I have heard about this and yes, Mr Cimirro is indeed real. Whether or when he will accomplish this remarkable feat I cannot tell you as I do not know; there is, after all, no edition of the work as yet, although one is currently in preparation.
Best,
Alistair
-
Thank you very much !
D. :)
-
Me old mate Artur is the real deal. He will also be recording the complete Tausig in the not too distant future.
You can hear him at this years Toledo Festival, albeit i don't know if he is going to play any Sorabji. It would go down like a lead balloon perhaps?.
Thal
-
You can hear him at this years Toledo Festival, albeit i don't know if he is going to play any Sorabji. It would go down like a lead balloon perhaps?.
Thal
Because???
-
Me old mate Artur is the real deal. He will also be recording the complete Tausig in the not too distant future.
He has indicated that he will be doing that, yes; the Acte Préalable label is supposedly issuing these.
You can hear him at this years Toledo Festival, albeit i don't know if he is going to play any Sorabji. It would go down like a lead balloon perhaps?.
I am not aware that he plans to play any Sorabji there. Why, however, do you suppose that any of his work might go down as you suggest in that place? Do you have hard evidence for this from concertgoers in that location? For that matter, have you ever actually encountered a lead balloon? By the way, this reminds me (albeit somewhat obliquely) of a woodwind player whom I heard speaking about a certain concerto by Panufnik (one of his last works, if I recall correctly) and suggesting that it might go down in a certain venue like a lead bassoon. Did you know that Opus Clavicembalisticum had a recent performance in Madrid, by the way?
Best,
Alistair
-
Because???
If it is 4 hours long and sounds like a bull in a Steinway Showroom, it could be too much for your average festival attendee.
Thal
-
If it is 4 hours long and sounds like a bull in a Steinway Showroom, it could be too much for your average festival attendee.
Let's take that one apart, one point at a time.
1. Very few of Sorabji's works are four hours long; a few are more than this and most are far shorter.
2. There is no evidence that the duration of any piece will in itself guarantee that its performance might be "too much" (of what?) for anyone.
3. Since I doubt that you have any more experience of male bovines in a Steinway showroom (let alone whether they might sound different in such places than in their more usual habitat, for example) than you have of lead balloons, your suggestion that any of Sorabji's works might sound like the former is about as valid as your earlier one that performances of them might go down like the latter.
4. What is an average festival attendee? Festivals themselves very enormously not only in content but in variety of content; it is therefore reasonable to assume that, the more varied the content, the less pertinent and identifiable any such "average" might be in any case.
5. For the record, when Jonathan Powell played four Sorabji works in one programme to a French festival audience of whom less than once per cent had ever previously heard a note of Sorabji, he elicited rapt attention throughout - and this programme, whilst it did not contain any of Sorabji's "four hour long" works, was nevertheless challenging both the audience and pianist in that those works spanned 60 years of compositional activity and bore durations of approximately 26, 35, 85 and 62 minutes respectively, adding up to two-interval event whose total length was in excess of four hours.
Best,
Alistair
-
If it is 4 hours long and sounds like a bull in a Steinway Showroom, it could be too much for your average festival attendee.
Thal
I wonder how you know that it "sounds like a bull in a Steinway Showroom"? I'd be MOST surprised if it did!
Secondly, even if it IS "too much for your average festival attendee", so what? Should every concert contain only that what is pleasable for the average concert and/or festival attendee? Classic FM in concert, so to say? Or should there be room for something that actually may need some dedicated mental attendance? Or contains music perhaps not digested to the very last bit at first hearing?
If this Sonata sounds something in the line of, say, Symphony 4, that I would think it possible for the average attendee, asuming he/she is someone with a moderately intelligence and a willingness to hear something new, quite possible to not only endure but actually follow and even like the piece. This judging from the fact that even I can appreciate Sorabji's music in general and said Symphony 4 in particular.
But your totally free to devote yourselves to, say, Feldman's String Quartet (II), which is also 4 hours long but sounds like drying paint looks (or, to keep within your metaphor, sounds like a dead bull in a Steinway Showroom), which is then perhaps not so fearfull to you? Personally, I find thát kind of music too much!
-
If this Sonata sounds something in the line of, say, Symphony 4, that I would think it possible for the average attendee, asuming he/she is someone with a moderately intelligence and a willingness to hear something new, quite possible to not only endure but actually follow and even like the piece.
Now what you say here is important, as it appears you are suggesting that you need to have intelligence (albeit moderate) to appreciate Sorabji. I would go even further and suggest that you need a beard as well.
Personally, I think the time might come when the music of Sorabji's great teacher might be heard as much as Sorabji himself, as no intelligence would be required at all.
However, this might not be trew.
Thal
-
For the record, when Jonathan Powell played four Sorabji works in one programme to a French festival audience of whom less than once per cent had ever previously heard a note of Sorabji, he elicited rapt attention throughout
I am sure they both enjoyed it.
Thal
-
Is this piece hard?
-
I am sure they both enjoyed it.
Your boredom content is self-enhanced here. By "both" one might assume you to mean Jonathan Powell himself and his page-turner but, whilst your remark might well apply in such a context, I was referring to the audience of some 150 people who braved a searingly hot summer Sunday afternoon to take in all that Sorabji and Mr Powell offered on that occasion and responded accordingly. You may not like to have to accept that, but that's up to you.
Best,
Alistair
-
Now what you say here is important, as it appears you are suggesting that you need to have intelligence (albeit moderate) to appreciate Sorabji.
Indeed I do, although I should perhaps have been more clear and state that you need at least a moderate intelligence to appreciate Sorabji. And be prepared to use it, of course! But that applies to most classical music, I think. If you like music (stretching the term) with requires no intelligence whatsoever, one might turn to most pop-music in general and the various house-music in particular.
I would go even further and suggest that you need a beard as well.
An unnecessary stab, I think. And I can personally testify it to be untrue, too. Actually, at a (partially) Sorabji concerts I've been to (played by Jonathan Powell, I might add), there were several dozen people despite the extremly foul weather that made travel all but impossible. None of the people there had a beard. And all very much enjoyed the Sorabji piece played, I might add!
Now let me ask, are you even capable of growing a beard? Quite some of your posts suggest not....
Personally, I think the time might come when the music of Sorabji's great teacher might be heard as much as Sorabji himself, as no intelligence would be required at all.
Now I must admit not knowing what you mean here. If anyone is "Sorabji's great teacher", then it must be Busoni, for whose music one would need (to switch on) some intelligence too.
It would seem to me that you think that if you cannot undertand some composer's music said music must be nonsense, and if you don't like it it must be bad. An incarnation of Hanslick!
Die Sonne scheinet ja länger auf die Gipfel der Berge als in der Tiefe des Thals...
-
Indeed I do, although I should perhaps have been more clear and state that you need at least a moderate intelligence to appreciate Sorabji. And be prepared to use it, of course! But that applies to most classical music, I think. If you like music (stretching the term) with requires no intelligence whatsoever, one might turn to most pop-music in general and the various house-music in particular.
Listen pal, i crack the jokes on here. This is so stupid it simply must be a joke.
I can just image the advertising posters.
Concert: 16th April 2009
Venue: Squash Court, Malborough Street, London
Pianist: Leif Gunner Prikkarson
Tickets: £16
Intelligence required: Moderate
Thanks for the laugh.
Thal
-
pal
That's a video format, yes?
Quote from: gep on Today at 05:58:41 AM
Indeed I do, although I should perhaps have been more clear and state that you need at least a moderate intelligence to appreciate Sorabji. And be prepared to use it, of course! But that applies to most classical music, I think. If you like music (stretching the term) with requires no intelligence whatsoever, one might turn to most pop-music in general and the various house-music in particular.
Listen pal, i crack the jokes on here. This is so stupid it simply must be a joke.
The one bit where I'm fully serious.....
Although, the various bits of Dance, Trance, and whatever sh*t is on MTV and it's various clones IS a joke. And a bad one too...
I can just image the advertising posters.
Concert: 16th April 2009
Venue: Squash Court, Malborough Street, London
Pianist: Leif Gunner Prikkarson
Tickets: £16
Intelligence required: Moderate
Hmm, this might not even be a bad idea! WARNING: new and/or difficult music ahead. Fasten your brainbelts!
-
The one bit where I'm fully serious.....
Although, the various bits of Dance, Trance, and whatever sh*t is on MTV and it's various clones IS a joke. And a bad one too...
Hmm, this might not even be a bad idea! WARNING: new and/or difficult music ahead. Fasten your brainbelts!
The fact that you talk about popular music with disdain and talk about classical music as if it needs a certain intelligence to be able to listen to it makes me wonder wether you are intelligent enough for classical music ;)
-
The fact that you talk about popular music with disdain and talk about classical music as if it needs a certain intelligence to be able to listen to it makes me wonder wether you are intelligent enough for classical music ;)
It is this kind of attitude that gep has displayed that might put some people off and i think it is musical snobbery, which i detest.
Perhaps each composer should have an IQ rating so that you cannot listen to him/her if you do not have sufficient intelligence. Let me try a little list.
Composer IQ required
Sorabji 190
Finnissey 180
Carter 170
Beethoven 160
Chopin 150
Liszt 140
Schumann 130
Herz 10
Hunten 0
Thal
-
The fact that you talk about popular music with disdain and talk about classical music as if it needs a certain intelligence to be able to listen to it makes me wonder wether you are intelligent enough for classical music ;)
I think there is a difference between pop-music and popular music (even if the former is used as a short for the latter). I would think someone like André Rieu (if you know him) fits under "popular music", but not under pop-music. I have nothing but respect for Mr. Rieu.
The trash and muck that is almost inescapable today (such as the mentioned MTV, inter alia) I talk about with disdain, yes. Sorry to have a taste...
I do think it would need some intelligence to listen to (i.e. digest mentally) classical music, be it Johann Strauss, or Sorabji. I never have, nor ever will, make a claim to have anything above the average intelligence. But it is not so much what you have as what you do with it.
It is this kind of attitude that gep has displayed that might put some people off and i think it is musical snobbery, which i detest.
I think it to be impossible to have any attitude that is not putting at least some people off. I you think I display musical snobbery, feel free to do so. If such detest you, feel equally free to be so. I've read some of your posts (upto and including the very last, I'd say) which I find rather snobbish, if not even insulting to some people.
Perhaps each composer should have an IQ rating so that you cannot listen to him/her if you do not have sufficient intelligence. Let me try a little list.
Composer IQ required
Sorabji 190
Finnissey 180
Carter 170
Beethoven 160
Chopin 150
Liszt 140
Schumann 130
Herz 10
Hunten 0
You either overestimate the difficulty of the above composers, or underestimate your own intelligence. The fact that I can no just listen but actually enjoy the composers you name should be proof that a normal intelligence is quite sufficient. But they do take some mental work, yes. Is that a problem?
-
Listen pal, i crack the jokes on here.
You have a special exclusive dispensation from Nils to do that, do you? If so, you really ought to take your responsibility seriously and crack better ones than this.
I can just image the advertising posters.
Concert: 16th April 2009
Venue: Squash Court, Malborough Street, London
Pianist: Leif Gunner Prikkarson
Tickets: £16
Intelligence required: Moderate
By "image" one might presume (if one cared) you to mean "imagine", although what follows suggests that you have an overactive imagination which, whilst no bad thing in itself, is subject - as gep reminds that intelligence is also - to what you do with it more than the extent to which you have it.
London has no "Malborough Street" and the nearest equivalent thereto is Great, as in "Great Marlborough Street".
I hope that Leif Ove Andsnes isn'ta member of this forum and that, if he is, he does not take offence at your mock pianist's name.
Our wise and great British government has yet to introduce compulsory National Identity Cards (though it has threatened to spend zillions of its long-suffering taxpayers' hard-earned money on so doing), but I was not aware that intelligence level data was anticipated to be included thereon; without it, however, how would anyone expect to be able to gain admittance to an event that stipulated a specific minimum certifed intelligence quotient as a condition of eligibility to purchase a ticket?
Best,
Alistair
-
It is this kind of attitude that gep has displayed that might put some people off
People called Thal, perhaps; not sure how many of those there are...
and i think it is musical snobbery, which i detest.
And what follows below from you is...?...
Perhaps each composer should have an IQ rating so that you cannot listen to him/her if you do not have sufficient intelligence. Let me try a little list.
Composer IQ required
Sorabji 190
Finnissey 180
Carter 170
Beethoven 160
Chopin 150
Liszt 140
Schumann 130
Herz 10
Hunten 0
But even if such a list had a shred of credibility (which of course it doesn't), who would stop - or even be able to stop - anyone listening to any of the above composers, especially in the privacy of their own homes, on the sole basis of insufficient provable IQ? The National Identity Card thought police? - and, if so, might they commit acts of violence on suspected transgressors, as at the recent G20 summit protests in London? In addition to the credibility factor of your list (which is a minus figure), you have spelt "Finnissy" incorrectly by adding an "e" to his name (and you've spelt "Hinton" even more incorrectly by using two wrong vowels)...
Now I hope not to appear unduly controversial by my next suggestion, but what about returning to the topic?
Best,
Alistair
-
To Hinton: I'm curious why you and others thought it was a shame that recordings of Sorabjis own playing got out, from some radioshow in the 70s. I think he played gorgoeus. Some mentioned that some parts were improvised, but is that really such a big deal? And I'm curious how to order your music, the Grieg variations. I didn't really get it how to order from Altarus.
-
To Hinton: I'm curious why you and others thought it was a shame that recordings of Sorabjis own playing got out, from some radioshow in the 70s. I think he played gorgoeus. Some mentioned that some parts were improvised, but is that really such a big deal? And I'm curious how to order your music, the Grieg variations. I didn't really get it how to order from Altarus.
I will happily answer both of those questions.
I have never actually suggested that it was a "shame" that a few (though by no means all) of those recordings got aired on radio in the 1970s (actually from 1969 onwards on several small American public FM stations), but I do indeed have a list of caveats about them. Yes, he knows how to get "the Sorabji sound" (well, and so he should - it's his alone, after all!), at best it is indeed gorgeous and the late Charles Hopkins certainly said that he learnt much from listening to Sorabji's recording of that work when preparing his own recording of it, for all that Sorabji departed (sometimes quite alarmingly) from the ms. text.
That's the good news; the less good news is as follows. Sorabji has not performed in public for more than a quarter century when he began to make these recordings in the early 1960s (he made more than 11 hours' worth of them eventually); he was then in his 70s and had not practised regularly for a long time, nor, it has to be said, did he devote anything like the amount of practice time required in advance of making those recordings. The person who made them had no experience of making sound recordings and the recording machine used was a domestic open-reel mono tape recorder and microphone rather than studio equipment; there can be no doubting the enthusiasm and persuasive powers of the person who made those recordings or the immense amount of trouble to which he went in order to enable them to be made - and the machine was arguably one of the better domestic tape recorders on the market in those days - but the conditions were nothing like those of a professional recording studio. The recordings were made in the composer's music room at his home in a very dry and dead acoustic (the room was full of thick drapes, upholstery and other fabrics). The piano used was his 1896 Steinway C which, though almost ideally suited to much of what he recorded, was even then already in need of a little more technical attention than it had received for a while (it now belongs to The Sorabji Archive and has been hospitalised on a long-term basis in order that a complete overhaul can take place, including a restring, new wrest-plank, new action, etc. - only the soundboard and casework will remain untouched). Finally, the composer himself said after making those recordings (and he reiterated his remarks even two decades later) that all he aimed to do in them was cover the ground of the music in order to give people some idea of what the works actually contained - i.e. a kind of thumbnail illustration rather than anything remotely approaching an authentic performance.
As to obtaining my Grieg Variations, I can supply this direct from The Sorabji Archive - both the score and Donna Amato's recording of it. Please visit my page on The Sorabji Archive website at www.sorabji-archive.co.uk for further information and/or email me for details at sorabji-archive@lineone.net where I will be happy to help.
Best,
Alistair
-
I didn't really get it how to order from Altarus.
Regretfully, I must advise you that you have failed the intelligence test and do not qualify to listen to this composer.
Thal
-
You have a special exclusive dispensation from Nils to do that, do you?
No more than you have for pomposity.
Thal
-
Regretfully, I must advise you that you have failed the intelligence test and do not qualify to listen to this composer.
Thal
Hmmm, judging by the amount of slashing and bashing I would think you seem somewhat fearful of the subject "intelligence". I wonder why....
-
Our wise and great British government has yet to introduce compulsory National Identity Cards (though it has threatened to spend zillions of its long-suffering taxpayers' hard-earned money on so doing),
Ours has, for everybody above years of age... Hmm, better not mention the IQ thing, it might get them ideas. Oh joy of man's desire....
-
Hmmm, judging by the amount of slashing and bashing I would think you seem somewhat fearful of the subject "intelligence". I wonder why....
I am only fearful of idiots who think you need it to appreciate certain composers.
Thal
-
No more than you have for pomposity.
For the record (and I'm sorry if I disappoint you), I have no special exclusive dispensations from Nils at all...
Best,
Alistair
-
Ours has, for everybody above years of age... Hmm, better not mention the IQ thing, it might get them ideas. Oh joy of man's desire....
Aren't there enough Jesus-oriented threads on this forum already without introducing - oh, J S Bach, sorry! My mistake. Mea culpa...
Best,
Alistair
-
I am only fearful of idiots who think you need it to appreciate certain composers.
You are the one suggesting required IQ levels for this (albeit not with that much seriousness of intent, I suspect). As "gep" implies, if it takes a certain degree of intelligence to create something it is not unlikely that some will be required of the observer of the end result; there is nothing snobbish or exclusivistic about that, unless the person thinking otherwise is confusing intelligence with intellectuality.
Best,
Alistair
-
if it takes a certain degree of intelligence to create something it is not unlikely that some will be required of the observer of the end result;
Therefore, to listen to the music of Blind Tom, not a lot of intelligence is required??
Shall we go back to the subject, as you love to say??
Thal
-
I am only fearful of idiots who think you need it to appreciate certain composers.
Thal
Oh, but I won't deny that there are certain composers for who's work one does not need much, or any, intelligence! Or certain writes, politicians, painters, Forum-members,......
Therefore, to listen to the music of Blind Tom, not a lot of intelligence is required??
That would depend on who Blind Tom is. Please enlighten us! For it may very well be that his music indeed needs a lot of intelligence to fully appreciate.
If I may veer back to MTV and the like, I would say that not a lot of intelligence is mandatory.
Shall we go back to the subject, as you love to say??
Yes, let's shall! Opus Archimagicum it was, I think
*checking back*
ah yes. Now, on Mr. Cimirro's site it says a recording may be expected in 2010. That would be quite soon! Thumbs up! (Or down, of course...!)
-
That would depend on who Blind Tom is. Please enlighten us!
I am sure you have sufficient intelligence to find out for yourself. Perhaps the intelligence required to appreciate Sorabji is less than that needed to use an internet search engine.
If you have any difficulties though, please let me know and i will see what i can do.
Luv
Thal
-
Blind Tom was a 19th century composer and pianist. He was born blind and was sold as a slave. He could play by ear even though he was blind and had given public performances. He has a few compositions even though I am skeptic of the quality.
-
Therefore, to listen to the music of Blind Tom, not a lot of intelligence is required??
Shall we go back to the subject, as you love to say??
Thal
Yes, why not? Elliott Carter was once asked what he expected of the audience for the première of the middle movement of his Symphonia - entitled Adagio tenebroso; with the utmost modesty and dignity that the rest of us might arguably have some right to expect of a composer, he simply stated that he hoped (not "expected", mind you) that people would concentrate on what he had done in just the same way as he had had to concentrate when writing the piece. Do you suppose that Alkan or Chopin would have had any different expectations for first hearings of their works? - because I don't!
Best,
Alistair
-
I am sure you have sufficient intelligence to find out for yourself. Perhaps the intelligence required to appreciate Sorabji is less than that needed to use an internet search engine.
If you have any difficulties though, please let me know and i will see what i can do.
Luv
Thal
As I have pointed out previously, there is a problem for some people in terms of an inability to distinguish between intelligence and intellectuality. Please bear this in mind. Sorabji did not write his work for the unintelligent - but then he also did not write it for those whose principal call to fame is intellectual brilliance. Indeed, he wrote in the first of his letters to me in 1972 that he appreciated people with genuine intelligence - in other words (as he put it) not those intellectuals "educated above their intelligence". For "intelligence", read human sensitivity and understanding. Go away and have a think or three about this, Thal. Sorabji hated those kinds of people who would seek to beat others down with their intellectual brilliance for the sake of so doing, as this had (as he saw it) no conceivable connection with the kind of music that he wrote or the kinds of response that he hoped to elicit from what he had written. He once told me that he valued the responses of people who happened not to be saddled with the poisoned chalice of musical intellectuality.
Best,
Alistair
-
a
-
I think there is a difference between pop-music and popular music (even if the former is used as a short for the latter). I would think someone like André Rieu (if you know him) fits under "popular music", but not under pop-music. I have nothing but respect for Mr. Rieu.
The trash and muck that is almost inescapable today (such as the mentioned MTV, inter alia) I talk about with disdain, yes. Sorry to have a taste...
I think there hardly is a difference, what was pop music in the early 20th century is now referred to as jazz/blues/folk, what was pop music in the 80's is now referred to as glam rock? Gabber was pop music for a while in the 90's. I also have the opinion that what we call classical music was in fact pop music in the time of the composers. Why do you think Chopin wrote waltzes? Not because he particularly liked them, but it sold, people danced on it, it was popular music...
I know André Rieu yes, my father tunes the piano of his sister. Some people in his 'inner circle' frown upon him for not being a top musician, but living the life of one. Of course André Rieu is an above average musician, i'm not in the position to judge his craftmanship. I do know however that his biggest quality is marketing. He knows what people want and like, he popularizes classical music and it sells. You might wonder why André Rieu never performs pieces comparable in character to Sorabji's piano works. I dont, it doesnt sell.
Your remark about you having a taste for NOT liking particular music shows you still havent looked in the mirror. Just because you do not like particular music does not make it distasteful. Just because U2 only needs 5 or 6 chords with a simple melody to entertain millions of people does not make them distasteful, it is their quality. People love a catchy tune like chopin's raindrop prelude, brahms's waltz in Ab or Britney Spear's baby one more time.
I am sure that if you would put as much effort in listening to MTV as you do listening to Sorabji, you would find a lot of catchy tunes you like.
-
Why are most/all Sorabji detractors ignoramuses/ignoramii ?
-
I also have the opinion that what we call classical music was in fact pop music in the time of the composers. Why do you think Chopin wrote waltzes? Not because he particularly liked them, but it sold, people danced on it, it was popular music...
I think this is partly true. The difference between what we today percieve as pop music and classical music has perhaps never been greater than today (even though there are still "bridges", like the musical, or "classical" composers using elements of pop(ish) music in their work. Likewise, there are pop musicians who use things from classical music. But I don't think that a piece like Mozart's 40th Symphony was part of the pop music of it's day. Sure, most of what we call classical music today was "practical" music then, for use in the churches, social gatherings, lesson material and such. But even then there was a distinction between what I will call "folk" music for lack of a better term, and "art" music for lack of a better term, even though there were strong ties between the two. One might think of the famous Schubertiades. And indeed quite a few of the "serious" composers earned there living in part or even mostly by writing "sellable" music.
Some people in his 'inner circle' frown upon him for not being a top musician, but living the life of one.
There may be an element of envy in that, I think. So he's not Yehudi Menuhin. But how many famous performers, conductors and such thrive on their name rather then there actual work? The kind of musician who plays/conducts the few famous pieces his name was build on in the early days of their career, but has nothing new to say today?
He knows what people want and like, he popularizes classical music and it sells.
With which I have no problem at all. I have the impression he's at least honest about what he does.
You might wonder why André Rieu never performs pieces comparable in character to Sorabji's piano works. I dont, it doesnt sell.
I do not wonder either, for the reason you wrote. There is nothing wrong with it. He's in that respect comparable to composers from the time until Mozart, who earned their living writing music for their patrons. Writing music their patrons didn't like therefor was unwise. In Rieu's case, one might say the audience at large is his patron.
Your remark about you having a taste for NOT liking particular music shows you still havent looked in the mirror. Just because you do not like particular music does not make it distasteful.
You're confusing things here. With "taste" I mean the result of havings sampled and listened to music as varied as possible, and threfrom accumulating what one likes or dislikes. This is an ongoing process. My taste is therefor the result of such 'work". I don't like Stockhausen, but this does not mean I believe him therefor to be a bad composer. 'His music is just not to my taste. However, I do believe that in the world of popmusic much is marketed and hyped, just as so many other things are. The result thereof I find distasteful, if not often plain vulgar. But then again, such is my opinion. if you like it, you are utterly free to do so; I would find it wrong if you weren't.
I fail to understand what taht has to do with looking in my mirror, though...
I am sure that if you would put as much effort in listening to MTV as you do listening to Sorabji, you would find a lot of catchy tunes you like.
I shudder at the idea of putting that much time and effort into listening to MTV.....
I prefer listening to that music as is to my taste, and exploring things I haven't heard yet, as I would hope everybody else does too.
Why are most/all Sorabji detractors ignoramuses/ignoramii ?
Because quite a few people are put off by the new and unknown, I guess.
-
Why are most/all Sorabji enthusiasts weirdos
On what specific evidence do you seek to suggest that they are?
Best,
Alistair
-
Why are most/all Sorabji detractors ignoramuses/ignoramii ?
i smell an argument on this one
-
Why are most/all Sorabji enthusiasts weirdos
i smell an argument on this one
Well, according to the pianist Ian Pace all "Sorabji enthusiasts" are part fo "an extreme right wing clique of disciples", and Sorabji himself a "composer of fascist music".
Perhaps that explains?
-
i smell an argument on this one
I don't. Nor do I propose to instigate or encourage one.
Best,
Alistair
-
Well, according to the pianist Ian Pace all "Sorabji enthusiasts" are part fo "an extreme right wing clique of disciples", and Sorabji himself a "composer of fascist music".
Perhaps that explains?
What it explains is that Mr Ian Pace has made certain remarks along such lines which, to the best of my knowledge, he has omitted to justify with any kind of proof and I therefore humbly submit that his remarks should - and indeed can only - be read in that context. I can only add, for the sake of clarity (I hope), that, as in so many other cases (some of which I have witnessed on this forum), when someone claims that "everyone" in a certain category has something else in common, it is always the case that the person making such assertions has not actually communicated beforehand with "everyone" in the said category, so that person can in actuality have no idea what their other allegiances may be.
Heil - er - um - Heilige Dankgesang - how about that?...
Best,
Alistair
-
What it explains is that Mr Ian Pace has made certain remarks along such lines which, to the best of my knowledge, he has omitted to justify with any kind of proof and I therefore humbly submit that his remarks should - and indeed can only - be read in that context. I can only add, for the sake of clarity (I hope), that, as in so many other cases (some of which I have witnessed on this forum), when someone claims that "everyone" in a certain category has something else in common, it is always the case that the person making such assertions has not actually communicated beforehand with "everyone" in the said category, so that person can in actuality have no idea what their other allegiances may be.
Heil - er - um - Heilige Dankgesang - how about that?...
Best,
Alistair
Of course, my remark was to be taken not so much cum granum salis, but more cum saccus salis, as you no doubt understood!
Now perhaps indeed some more of Heiliger Dankgesang eines Genesenen an die Bachheit.
-
You're confusing things here. With "taste" I mean the result of havings sampled and listened to music as varied as possible, and threfrom accumulating what one likes or dislikes. This is an ongoing process. My taste is therefor the result of such 'work". I don't like Stockhausen, but this does not mean I believe him therefor to be a bad composer. 'His music is just not to my taste. However, I do believe that in the world of popmusic much is marketed and hyped, just as so many other things are. The result thereof I find distasteful, if not often plain vulgar. But then again, such is my opinion. if you like it, you are utterly free to do so; I would find it wrong if you weren't.
I fail to understand what taht has to do with looking in my mirror, though...
I'm only quoting this part because i think we mostly agree on the rest.
Perhaps i'm the one confusing things, that could be true. The way you explained yourself towards popular music in the quoted section however differs in attitude from your earlier statements. In fact that same attitude is what Sorabji wrote about according to Alistair. That attitude is in my opinion a far bigger issue for classical music than its old age. Perhaps you did not intend it to be read that way, but thats how it came across.
I would like to leave it at this though, back to posting 0,014 posts a day for me.
Hans
-
If I have been confusing, that I regret that. Please understand that it is never easy to express your feelings in writing (at least for me), and that I have to do so here in a language that is not my own.
Perhaps I can clearify something about my feelings about pop music by using two examples mentioned earlier on by someone else.
Mention was made of U2. I know that group, and I think they are "real " musicians in the sense that they make music. I.e., they have talent, originality, etc, and aim to make music. To like their music or not is a matter of taste. I don't like it, which is my taste. Mention was also made of Britney Spears. That is a different matter. Appreciation of her "work" is I think mainly based on the hormonal reaction to the way she undulates across the screen this time. Mainly made up of "artificial additives". Music is certainly not the main issue here. I could mention Gangsta (c)rap here too as another example. To me at least this kind of junk is tasteless, not just a matter of taste.
If I may use an example from another subject that will interest perhaps nobody: erotica and pornography may be "about" the same thing, but the former can be quite tasteful, the latter is only tasteless. The difference is that between using a feather and using a whole chicken.
-
a
-
You, Kentaro Noda, Michael Habermann, author of this thread, most Sorabji assholes on here, et al.
I cannot comment about Mr Noda and have never met him. I prefer not to comment about Mr Habermann. Do you know the author of this thread personally and are thus able to provide evidence of your assertion insofar as it allegely relates to that person. You do not know me personally either, so your contention here is not backed up by the evidence I asked you to offer. I have no idea what a "Sorabji a*s*o*e" may be, but your mention of this term suggests that you are already predisposed against both Sorabji's work and those who are interested in it, which in turn suggests that you have decided for yourself in advance that neither he nor they are other than "weirdos" despite your having no personal experience of any of them and therefore no evidence with which to support your assertion. That seems pretty clear. You are evidently therefore talking through your - er - oh, well, you know which part of the anatomy to which I allude, since you referred to it yourself.
Perhaps, once again, we can now look forward to a return to the subject...
Best,
Alistair
-
Pies-your comment is baseless foolishness. For a start you can count me out of any right-wing clique that may exist in the realms of some people's Anti-Sorabji fantasies. I doubt that Pace ever said this anyway. I can see no evidence whatever that it is true-in my experience persons with beards are rarely fascists! In the nineteen-thirties Sorabji himself was apparently a supporter of the Social Credit theories of C.H.Douglas and was pro-abortion. These ideas are hardly a part of any right-wing or fascist political persuasion. It never ceases to amaze me how those who are unfavourably disposed to Sorabji's music will search for any small twig to belabour him with.
-
For a start you can count me out of any right-wing clique that may exist in the realms of some people's Anti-Sorabji fantasies.
I venture to suggest that one could just as easily count the other 99.999+% of Sorabji's admirers out of any such thing, frankly.
I doubt that Pace ever said this anyway.
I rather fear that you are on somewhat unsteadier ground there, since Ian Pace has indeed made remarks of this nature on more than one occasion; the fact that he has done so does not, of course, confer upon them a shred of credibility and one might well wonder at his agenda and motivation in making them.
I can see no evidence whatever that it is true-in my experience persons with beards are rarely fascists!
That's not so much feeding the troll as feeding the Thal! Of course there is no evidence of any truth in these absurd statements, but then there is equally none that one has not to be clean-shaven to appreciate Sorabji. Has Donna Amato, Margaret Kampmeier or any of the sopranos who have sung Sorabji's songs ever sported a beard? Has anyone ever done a beard count in the audience at a Sorabji performance? More importantly still, has anyone ever seen a photograph of Sorabji with a beard (now no doubt some wisecracker will see that as a cue to post one on which a beard has been superimposed). At least the beard stuff is a joke; Mr Pace's remarks as alluded to by pies, however risible, are most decidedly not so, especially to one who has on occasion been accused by him of fostering and supporting such nonsense (though on quite what grounds he has never made clear).
In the nineteen-thirties Sorabji himself was apparently a supporter of the Social Credit theories of C.H.Douglas and was pro-abortion. These ideas are hardly a part of any right-wing or fascist political persuasion. It never ceases to amaze me how those who are unfavourably disposed to Sorabji's music will search for any small twig to belabour him with.
It's a ruse a good deal older than the most ancient of trees from which such twigs might be snapped; it ceased to amaze (or interest) me long ago. Somehow, I think it can be said that Sorabji and his work will manage to survive the emptily noisy lucubrations of those who can't and won't see the wood for the trees; indeed, his own well known observation that "insects that are merely noisome like to think that they can also sting" seems most apposite in this context...
Best,
Alistair
-
You, Kentaro Noda, Michael Habermann, author of this thread, most Sorabji assholes on here, et al.
A..h..e, only because i am interested in Sorabji ? Unbelievable.
-
That's not so much feeding the troll as feeding the Thal!
I hardly need feeding and neither do you, as your ability to regurgitate Powell, Carter and the next performance of your works into the most unrelated of threads, clearly demonstrates.
Thal
-
**digs hole to have a crap**
**Gets attacked by Grizzly Bear**
** savours the picture **
** has pleasant dreams....**
Quote from: ahinton on Today at 05:35:01 AM
That's not so much feeding the troll as feeding the Thal!
I hardly need feeding and neither do you, as your ability to regurgitate Powell, Carter and the next performance of your works into the most unrelated of threads, clearly demonstrates.
I'm sorry to say this, but it seems that on the subject of regurgitating, or perhaps one should say barfing up, things, you are the rather unchallenged king around here. I almost feel sorry for the Grizzly bear, their stomach has it's limits too, I fear...
-
I hardly need feeding
You don't? Because you are already over-fed. perhaps? Who can say?
and neither do you, as your ability to regurgitate Powell, Carter and the next performance of your works into the most unrelated of threads, clearly demonstrates.
Perhaps you can demonstrate the alleged irrelevance of any of these items in specific threads in order to clarify what you are talking about for those who, like most if not all others of us here, do not know; to take just one example, the citing of Mr Powell in a thread about Sorabji does not seem to me to be especially wide of the topic...
Best,
Alistair
-
I'm sorry to say this, but it seems that on the subject of regurgitating, or perhaps one should say barfing up, things, you are the rather unchallenged king around here.
You have only been here a few days, but who knows, in time you might steal my crown.
Initial impressions are promising.
Thal
-
Who can say? Perhaps you can demonstrate the alleged irrelevance of any of these items in specific threads in order to clarify what you are talking about for those who, like most if not all others of us here, do not know; to take just one example, the citing of Mr Powell in a thread about Sorabji does not seem to me to be especially wide of the topic...
Mr Powell has appeared in a lot of unrelated threads, but probably not as many as Mr Carter.
I would not waste time trawling through your squillion words to illustrate my point, as i am satisfied it has happened.
Could be a good job for gep.
Thal
-
You have only been here a few days, but who knows, in time you might steal my crown.
Initial impressions are promising.
Oh, I am quite sure that no one would want to unseat you from that position around here!
Best,
Alistair
-
Mr Powell has appeared in a lot of unrelated threads, but probably not as many as Mr Carter.
Unrelated to what, exactly? I do not suppose that Mr Powell has appeared in very many threads (and don't forget that he is himself an occasional contributor here) and I doubt that Mr Carter has either - at least not in terms of the overall number of threads on this forum. The extent of the relevance of either to this or that thread is in any case to some extent a subjective matter. Some people might, for example, suggest that writing about you in a thread on 19th century piano concertos would be unrelated to the topic; I would disagree.
Best,
Alistair
-
Fascinating.
Thal
-
I still can´t believe what´s the result of a simple question: Does Mr. Hinton know Artur Cimirro or not. I simply wanted to know whether this guy who claims to have about 100 piano concerts in his repertoire (after studying for only 5 years) really exists. That´s all- If so, he would be twice as impressive as Sgouros. And now... everybody is throwing things at each other. Very sad. :-[
-
You only have to mention the word Sorabji and this sometimes happens.
Your question was completely harmless, but perhaps in future if you have a Question for A Hinton, it might be wise to send him a pm.
That would mean you don't have to put up with geeks like me, pompous windbags and stuck up intellectuals.
Thal
-
My post was a half-joke at best. I'm sorry. I actually like Sorabji's music. I have most of the recordings and plan on learning one of his works eventually.
Just wondering: What exactly has Pace said about Sorabji and his admirers?
-
I still can´t believe what´s the result of a simple question: Does Mr. Hinton know Artur Cimirro or not. I simply wanted to know whether this guy who claims to have about 100 piano concerts in his repertoire (after studying for only 5 years) really exists. That´s all- If so, he would be twice as impressive as Sgouros. And now... everybody is throwing things at each other. Very sad. :-[
Very sad indeed - but I think that I did actually answer your question before the rot set in. If you remain in any doubt, I do not personally know Mr Cimirro but, since I have had some correspondence with him and know a couple of people who have ostensibly heard him play, I have had no cause to doubt his existence. I cannot, however, vouch for what he has in his repertoire as I have not heard him perform any of it, although I have seen the website on which he shows this repertoire. I think that this is all that I can say about the matter except to emphasise that Sorabji's Fifth Piano Sonata is an immense challenge to anyone and not the kind of piece to consider preparing for performance from a copy of the composer's manuscript; a new typeset edition is in preparation.
Best,
Alistair
-
Maybe one more thing: if it was just that simple with Sorabji nobody would care to discuss him again and again. There must be at least something with his compositions that attract people. Otherwise...we could just ignore him. But we don´t.
-
Maybe one more thing: if it was just that simple with Sorabji nobody would care to discuss him again and again.
There are those that think he is a genius and those who wonder what the fuss is all about and probably a lot who occupy the middle ground.
His name usually appears in "wot is da ardest song evva writtan" type threads where 10 year olds can discuss the difficulties of his 4 hour long dirge called Opus Whatsitsname.
The intellectuals then arrive to remind us of all the beautiful shorter pieces he wrote and the fact that said 4 hour long dirge has never been satisfactorily recorded.
Hinty then turns up, lets us know when the next concert is, reminds us all of what can be obtained from the Sorabji Archive and that is it until the next time.
It is a never ending circle.
Thal
-
There are those that think he is a genius and those who wonder what the fuss is all about and probably a lot who occupy the middle ground.
I think that you are right about that, even though similar positions could be claimed for various people in their responses to many other composers (albeit some more than others, perhaps).
His name usually appears in "wot is da ardest song evva writtan" type threads where 10 year olds can discuss the difficulties of his 4 hour long dirge called Opus Whatsitsname.
Yes, indeed there are such 10-year-olds of all ages and none and all sexes and none (as Sorabji himself would have put it) who do this kind of thing - we've all seen it happen all too often - but to suggest that Sorabji's name "usually" appears only in such contexts is nonsense; on certain kinds of internet forum that may well be the case, but there are so many other places in which his name appears that your suggestion that discussion of his work is largely limited to such 10-year olds is, frankly, unsupportable.
The intellectuals then arrive to remind us of all the beautiful shorter pieces he wrote and the fact that said 4 hour long dirge has never been satisfactorily recorded.
It doesn't take an "intellectual" to do this, one has only to examine the catalogue of his works on www.sorabji-archive.co.uk to get a perspective on their various durations and, as long as anyone who does so accepts the cited durations as correct within reason, then anyone can ascertain this fact for him/herself.
Hinty then turns up,
If that's supposed to be me, I will have been here all the time rather than "then turning up".
lets us know when the next concert is,
Rarely so - and what in any case is wrong in principle with telling people interested in Sorabji when they might next be able to attend a performance of one or more of his works?
reminds us all of what can be obtained from the Sorabji Archive
Not so; I do draw attention on occasion of the fact that a catalogue of works and plenty of other information is available on The Sorabji Archive website (and, again, what is wrong in principle with telling people interested in Sorabji about that?)...
Best,
Alistair
-
Not so; I do draw attention on occasion of the fact that a catalogue of works and plenty of other information is available on The Sorabji Archive website (and, again, what is wrong in principle with telling people interested in Sorabji about that?)...
Oh, so you don't sell anything then?
Thal
-
Oh, so you don't sell anything then?
Did I say so? No. It is true that we do not sell anythying? Again, no. Again, however, in principle, what exactly is the problem that you appear to have with the presence of a website dedicated to conveying information about the music and literary writings of Sorabji, including information on how to obtain material from us - and what is the problem in mentioning its presence in certain circumstances?
Best,
Alistair
-
It it true
You must try and find help for your stutter.
Thal
-
what exactly is the problem that you appear to have with the presence of a website dedicated to conveying information about the music and literary writings of Sorabji, including information on how to obtain material from us - and what is the problem in mentioning its presence in certain circumstances?
I do not recall saying it was.
I was simply illustrating to another member the cyclical nature of Sorabji threads.
Thal
-
I do not recall saying it was.
I was simply illustrating to another member the cyclical nature of Sorabji threads.
But whose responsibility might that be? And, perhaps more importantly, why do you draw attention to our website and the fact that, although nothing is sold directly therefrom, it helps people to find out how to purchase items that they might want, as though there might be something either wrong with that or that otherwise for some reason or none fails to meet with your approval? And what in any case might any of this have to do with the alleged "cyclical nature of Sorabji threads" of which you write without giving any evidence for your assertion about them in that or any other context?
Has it ever occurred to you to consider leaving well alone when there might not actually be a problem to which attention needs to be drawn?
Best,
Alistair
-
Has it ever occurred to you to consider leaving well alone when there might not actually be a problem to which attention needs to be drawn?
I do not know why you are throwing your toys out of the pram about this. I did not say there was a problem, i was just giving an illustration which being thus, requires no evidence.
Thal
-
I do not know why you are throwing your toys out of the pram about this. I did not say there was a problem, i was just giving an illustration which being thus, requires no evidence.
Having neither toys nor pram (nor need for either) at my disposal, the question, dear Thal, is mine, not yours; what are you seeking to illustrate? My suggstion that you appeared to have a problem was based entirely on what you yourself had written rather than any thoughts that Ior anyone else might have had about it. Do please re-read the relevant exchanges if that seems to make insufficient sense to you.
Best,
Alistair
-
I am rather interested in a topic that was touched on a while back in this thread, namely: is intelligence required to appreciate any music, given that there are many ways of appreciating a single piece of music?
I would be interested to read your thoughts.
I am of the impression that when I listen to a piece of music, I do not use my intelligence. If I possess any, that is. I just take it in. All sorts of different faculties are at play, but I'm not thinking an awful lot. I just feel I don't have to. It simply detracts!
When I try to study a piece of music, on the other hand, I try to use my intelligence, and by intelligence, I mean finding a way of trying to empathise with the composer, i.e.: 'what did Schubert really want me to do here, in order to make best sense of the line, or the structure, and the particular emotive character of this phrase'; all of which, inevitably, we can only guess, but I think intelligence (which must only serve as an umbrella term for all nuances of sympathies, experience and understanding) is what ought to be used here.
What do you all think (if this is the right word) about this?
R. Baxter
-
My post was a half-joke at best.
And not a partiucularly good one.
I'm sorry.
Accepted.
I actually like Sorabji's music. I have most of the recordings and plan on learning one of his works eventually.
Good luck with that!
Just wondering: What exactly has Pace said about Sorabji and his admirers?
Wonder away - but if you want to know the answer/s to that, I recommend that you ask him! In the meantime, what has been suggested here is not far short of the mark...
Best,
Alistair
-
I am of the impression that when I listen to a piece of music, I do not use my intelligence.
Well, I feel the same way, but some Sorabji snobs appear to think differently.
Thal
-
Do please re-read the relevant exchanges
No.
It is not worth the effort.
Thal
-
Well, I feel the same way, but some Sorabji snobs appear to think differently.
I cannot comment on what Sorabji snobs might think, since I do not know any, but I think that where you may be misunderstanding the situation is that, if the music draws you in sufficiently and commands your attention, you will give it some concentrated effort when listening, even if that concentration may be partly or wholly subconscious. Think of the question rather as one of the extent of attention that you feel any piece of music might draw from you (some will do this more than others, of course) rather than whether you consciously bring your intelligence to bear upon the listening experience.
Best,
Alistair
-
No.
It is not worth the effort.
Then why "make the effort" to post remarks that you either cannot or do not feel inclined to support by evidence? If people do not hear about Sorabji's work, they cannot be expected to develop any interest in it; the same goes for all those 19th century composers in whose work you are so interested and on which you have expended so much valuable time and energy in scanning and making available.
Best,
Alistair
-
I am rather interested in a topic that was touched on a while back in this thread, namely: is intelligence required to appreciate any music, given that there are many ways of appreciating a single piece of music?
I would be interested to read your thoughts.
I am of the impression that when I listen to a piece of music, I do not use my intelligence. If I possess any, that is. I just take it in. All sorts of different faculties are at play, but I'm not thinking an awful lot. I just feel I don't have to. It simply detracts!
When I try to study a piece of music, on the other hand, I try to use my intelligence, and by intelligence, I mean finding a way of trying to empathise with the composer, i.e.: 'what did Schubert really want me to do here, in order to make best sense of the line, or the structure, and the particular emotive character of this phrase'; all of which, inevitably, we can only guess, but I think intelligence (which must only serve as an umbrella term for all nuances of sympathies, experience and understanding) is what ought to be used here.
What do you all think (if this is the right word) about this?
R. Baxter
Interesting subject! I think you do use your intelligence both when listening to or when reading/studying music, but perhaps in different ways. I think that when you study a piece of music you are perhaps more conciously using your intelligence, but when you listen to a piece of music you're doing so more unconciously. (Like when you're writing you use muscles in a concious way, but when you're breathing you use them inconciously). Because when you're listening you must be able to make sense of what you are listening to, how things develop, relate, interact, and so on. And if you are familiar with the piece you're listening to, you're interacting with what is in your memory. So you could say that listening to a piece of music is a way of studying it, but in a different way than when studying it on paper, or by playing it yourself. Listening can be hard work, I've been to a series of three concerts in two days thisn weekend, in which the complete late string quartets of Beethoven were played. Taking it all in (or trying to, at least) was pretty exhausting, because you must (try to) mentally follow, in all meanings and at all levels, what is going on, which is a pretty hefty job.
When you're doing a crossword puzzle, you must use your intelligence with all things attached. Likewise, you must work mentally when you're listening to music, or appreciate any art for that matter.
In short, I think that if you would not use your intelligence when listening to music, you not listening at all, but merely hearing. You need your senses to experience the world around you, and use your intelligence to make sense of it.
-
What would you classicfy Sorbjis music as? Postmodern?, Neoclassicism? Maybe that's up to the musicologists... Is he regarded a British composer? Where did his family originally come from? India?
-
What would you classicfy Sorbjis music as? Postmodern?, Neoclassicism? Maybe that's up to the musicologists...
That is an extremely hard question, since his music is so very unique. Like how would you classify Beethoven's late quartets, as Classic or Romantic? Sorabji's music certainly isn't "Modernistic" in the sense that it doesn not use any of the "modern" techniques (12-tone, serial, whatever). Perhaps the term "organic impressionism" comes closest in some pieces in the sense that they seem to grow from the inside and with their own internal logic, rather than from an outside logic (such as sonata-form). His music traverses the gamut from the utter simplicity to the staggeringly complex, and from the unparralelled serene to the utmost violent. Think like late Scriabin, Medtner and Szymanowksy mixed with Bachian (Baroque) formulae (like passacaglia and fuga, but also as in the Fantasias), but in a unique and personal way. If you would want a sample, I'd suggest the "Un Nido di Scatole", since it contains within a piece some 30 minutes long almost all styles and techniques Sorabji used.
Is he regarded a British composer?
Not by himself, I'd think! But he was born in England, and lived there all his life.
Where did his family originally come from? India?
On his father's side. His mother was English.
Over to Alistair Hinton, who can tell you so much more!
-
if the music draws you in sufficiently and commands your attention, you will give it some concentrated effort when listeneing, even if that concentration may be partly or wholly subconscious.
Personally, i have never found listeneeeeing an effort, apart from when my mother decides to use the vacuum cleaner at the same time.
Thal
-
Then why "make the effort" to post remarks that you either cannot or do not feel inclined to support by evidence?
I do not need evidence for what was a simple illustration.
-
Personally, i have never found listening an effort, apart from when my mother decides to use the vacuum cleaner at the same time.
At the same time as what? Don't bother to tell us!
Best,
Alistair
-
I do not need evidence for what was a simple illustration.
You might not - but I had thought that you posted for the benefit of other readers here; in any case, what were your remarks supposed to "illustrate" to anyone?
Best,
Alistair
-
Personally, i have never found listeneeeeing an effort, apart from when my mother decides to use the vacuum cleaner at the same time.
Thal
If listening to a piece of music isn't an effort, this would suggest that your mental capacities are enough to process the incoming music fully at full speed without you conciously having to do anything. . The same applies when you're speaking with someone, your brain can process the incoming talk at fast enough speed to give the impression of no effort at all. But of course any listening does need a mental effort, because your ears "merely" register variations in air pressure. It is your brain that prosesses it into sound (music, speach, whatever). So you may not be actually aware of an effort going on, but it is going on nontheless.
The fact that you say listening never needs an effort from you , therefor not even when hearing a piece of music for the very first time, would seem to suggest a musical intelligence some orders of magnitude greater than that of any composer alive or dead. Since any composer must make quite a mental effort to write his music it would logically require the need of at least an equal mental effort to take it in, at least at a first hearing. And probably beyond that first time too. At least, I find it quite a mental challenge to listen to a piece like Mahler's 9th, even though I've heard it quite a few times now. But perhaps you are so much smarter than any of us....
-
At the same time as what?
Obvious to all but the most simple of minds.
-
Since any composer must make quite a mental effort to write his music it would logically require the need of at least an equal mental effort to take it in, at least at a first hearing.
It takes a lot of effort to run the London Marathon, but i do not remember getting tired watching it on the television.
Thal
-
But perhaps you are so much smarter than any of us....
I have said a few times on this forum that i am only a part time hack. I have had but little formal musical education. Therefore i am probably one of the thickest members.
This however, does not mean that i just sit back and read posts by jumped up pompous little twonks, without putting my view forward.
I hope reading this has not mentally exhausted you.
-
Obvious to all but the most simple of minds.
The straight answer would indeed be so; the joke involved might arguably be less so, or so it may seem...
Best,
Alistair
-
It takes a lot of effort to run the London Marathon, but i do not remember getting tired watching it on the television.
Thal
You are equating apples with pears here. The London Marathon is mainly a physical effort, and quite not the same as watching it on the telly. Your remark would make more sense if you would compare the effort in running the marathon with walking it yourself. Perhaps listening to a composition can be even harder than writing it, since the composer knows what he wants, while the (1st time) listener has to find out.
I have said a few times on this forum that i am only a part time hack. I have had but little formal musical education. Therefore i am probably one of the thickest members.
Well, I've had little formal education also, but this doesn't mean one cannot study onself. Most if not all of what I've learned about music has been the result of ongoing self-study, as is the case with you I think. That you have had no formal education does not make you "thick" one bit! You could perhaps even say that no formal education has saved you from preset opinions and whatnot.
This however, does not mean that i just sit back and read posts by jumped up pompous little twonks, without putting my view forward.
And you would describe your posts as....? Genteel? Friendly? Unprejudiced? Openminded? Tactful?
I hope reading this has not mentally exhausted you.
I'll live.
-
First of all, thank you both ahinton and thalbergmad for the amusement. In order to not mentally exhaust myself i did not read it all, but i now understand why you both have that many posts.
Gep, i already suspected you were dutch after your remark about André Rieu, but with the so called 'dutchism' about apples and pears may i conclude you are?
About rabbity baxter's question, of course you dont need intelligence to listen to music, i can imagine however that you need some intelligence to be able to identify it as being music. This minimum intelligence level is however very low since babies are already known to appreciate music.
What perhaps is more interesting is the fact that music (and classical music in particular) is known to enhance some of your cognitive abilities. Especially your spatial visualization ability is enhanced by listening to and making music.
I'm no brain expert but i can imagine this has to do with the fact that music usually has a logical structure. If one (unconsciously) identifies this logical structure, u put your brains at work. You get expectations of whats coming next based on what you've heard beforehand. This is probably one of the reasons why Mozart is often mentioned in this context. His music always sounds logical to me (probably one of the reasons i start to find it boring not long afterwards).
So concluding i do think you need a certain intelligence to identify music, but i think every human is capable of doing so. Classical music is known to enhance your intelligence in some ways, but luckily that does not mean all those pompous pricks are smarter than metalheads ;).
-
This minimum intelligence level is however very low since babies are already known to appreciate music.
So are tulips, so unless there are any tulips with a degree, I agree with what you say.
Thal
-
but luckily that does not mean all those pompous pricks are smarter than metalheads ;).
Unfortunately, there are some here who appear to think they are.
Thal
-
Gep, i already suspected you were dutch after your remark about André Rieu, but with the so called 'dutchism' about apples and pears may i conclude you are?
Referring to André Rieu might mean I could be German, American, Japanese or Australian too, but I plead guilty....
Assuming you are Dutch too (since you recognise my Dutchism), shal we agree on still writing in English, for the amusement of the rest (insofar as they are non-Dutch)?
About rabbity baxter's question, of course you dont need intelligence to listen to music, i can imagine however that you need some intelligence to be able to identify it as being music. This minimum intelligence level is however very low since babies are already known to appreciate music.
I must say I'm a bit surprised that so many people insist that listening to music does not require (much) intelligence. True, you only need working ears to listen to it, but what I meant (and mean) with listening is something on the line line "fully appreciating/understaning/being able to follow/etc. that what you are listening to". Babies are quite fond of music in the sense that they respond rather strongly to music that is rhythmically pronounced (more Orff than Wagner, say). But the more you are able to understand the music the more fully you can appreciate what the composer has done. A small black-and-white photograph of a Rembrandt painting gives you some idea about the painting, a colour version more so, a full-sized one even more, standing in front of said picture to look at it yet more still and if you were able to actually touch the painting in order to feel the texture perhaps still more, although in the last case you might find you got a really good understanding of jail-life in a hurry. And if you are a painter yourse you will be able to understand even more
Likewise, the more concentrated you listen to a piece of music, the more you hear. Listening more concentrated means using more brainpower. Listening fully concentrated means using your intelligence (i.e. mental capacity) to its limits. And I fully acknowledge having limits in my intelligence when it comes to Listening (not the L!) to music, if only because I lack the ability to play music myself. It can be quite frustrating when you have to struggle and strain in order to try to fully hear everything (how/what/why/etc). As said earlier, I was at a concert featuring the complete late Beethoven Quartets, and listening to them was quite exhausting hard work, mentally.
This minimum intelligence level is however very low since babies are already known to appreciate music.
They do indeed, but babies don't have low intelligence! They learn to speak a language quite quickly, try to do so that quick later in life in school!
What perhaps is more interesting is the fact that music (and classical music in particular) is known to enhance some of your cognitive abilities.
I've heard about that too, listening to a piece by Mozart (whom you refer to too) seems to enhance (temporarly?) ones abilities in math. So perhaps I should put Mozart on when doing my tax returns...
Especially your spatial visualization ability is enhanced by listening to and making music.
This is intriguing, never heard that before, do you have a link to some more info on this?
I'm no brain expert but i can imagine this has to do with the fact that music usually has a logical structure. If one (unconsciously) identifies this logical structure, u put your brains at work.
This sounds logical(!). Turn that around and you get that putting your brains at work you might better "see" that logic in music. So it may be a self-enhancing mutual benefit.
You get expectations of whats coming next based on what you've heard beforehand. This is probably one of the reasons why Mozart is often mentioned in this context. His music always sounds logical to me (probably one of the reasons i start to find it boring not long afterwards).
Now this is quite funny, because Mozart for me isn't the musical god he seems to be for so many. Of course, he was a musical genius, but for some reason I don't respond to his music so much. I like Haydn more, perhaps in his music your expectations get not always (quite often, actually) fulfilled. And I like the humour he put in.
So concluding i do think you need a certain intelligence to identify music,
True, but I was talking about appreciating (which is not necessarily the same as liking, by the way) music.
but i think every human is capable of doing so.
Almost, there is a condition called something like "amusa" (don't know the correct term), in which people cannot distinct different pitches, or percieve a rhythm. Tonedeafness so to say. But besides that, you're probably correct.
Classical music is known to enhance your intelligence in some ways,
I think it does, and that it works the other way round too, as said. But training your brain is always a good thing, and listening to (classical) music quite a good one in general.
but luckily that does not mean all those pompous pricks are smarter than metalheads .
True. In fact, I think I read somewhere that "metalheads" have are, of all pop-lovers, most likely to appreciate classical music, perhaps because some of that type of music can be quite complex. Besides that, smarting pricks are to be avoided whenever possible!
Quote from: hansscherff on Today at 09:34:09 AM
but luckily that does not mean all those pompous pricks are smarter than metalheads .
Unfortunately, there are some here who appear to think they are.
Thal
Only if you are determinded to understand those "some" in that way. Whatever music you like or not has nothing to do with whether you are smart or not. But I will and do stand by my opinion that you need (to use) a certain level of intelligence to (fully) appreciate a certain music. Britney Spears requires less than Anton Bruckner, even though Madam Spears may be more pleasing to the eye....
-
I will give a reply to this later this week when i'm not at work and will see if i can find any literature you requested.
-
Can't talk at the moment.
I am absolutely exhausted after listening to a concerto by Burgmuller.
Speak later.
Thal
-
Can't talk at the moment.
I am absolutely exhausted after listening to a concerto by Burgmuller.
Speak later.
Thal
As I can imagine...
Perhaps you could try Maxwell Davies' Piano Concerto for refreshments? Or else Synaphaï could have you up and going again? After all, it would be a shame to miss you, even for 5 minutes!
-
Or else Synaphaï
That would be one way of getting rid of me.
Thal