the most over played and overrated composer is...

[thalbergmad]

As soon as I have finished with Bridgewater.

I have a feeling I will need something a little lighter before this Time's Arrow.

Thal

[ahinton]

As soon as I have finished with Bridgewater.

"Bridgewater"? Who he? Leslie of that ilk, by chance, the one-time student of Roberto Gerhard whose piano concerto presumably had what one can only (on the basis of experiences of her Medtner playing) be assumed to have been an inadequate performance from a pianist whose name was not actually Irish Liversausage but who got called that by a certain musician of my acqaintance? (not that I know the piece, of course)...

I have a feeling I will need something a little lighter before this Time's Arrow.

Maybe some Berkeley, then - as in
I shot Time's Arrow into the air;
It fell to the ground -
Hit Berkeley -
Square.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

"Bridgewater"? Who he? Leslie of that ilk, by chance, the one-time student of Roberto Gerhard whose piano concerto presumably had what one can only (on the basis of experiences of her Medtner playing) be assumed to have been an inadequate performance from a pianist whose name was not actually Irish Liversausage but who got called that by a certain musician of my acqaintance?

I followed the Iris Loveridge recording with the score and there are considerable cuts. My own opinion is that there should have been even more cuts resulting in a recording of about 30 seconds, as precious little else was music as I know it. I am not convinced this is worthy of a fresh recording which might be why it has not been done in the 63 years since the premier.

Investigating 20th century British Piano Concerti has not always been a pleasing experience, Bainton, Bax & Bowen being notable exceptions for me.

Oh well, R R Bennett next.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

As for this Time's Arrow, I can only suggest that it would sound better in the vacuum it is attempting to describe.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

Incredibly, I log off from Pianostreets, switch on the telly and there is Anthony Payne.

Small World innit.

Thal

[ivorybabe247]

i personally have to go with beethoven as the most played. or chopin. i think mozart is the most overrated.

[djealnla]

There's a certain class of "cute" French composers such as Satie and Poulenc which are tiresome after listening to them once.

Overrated and overpromoted by a few enthusiasts is the completely pretentious and fake note-writer (not even a composer) Sorabji. John Ogdon was lucky enough to have been able to sight read him just once.

Terry Riley's "In C" stands as an equally horrible parody of note-non-spinning.

Also the noisy Phillip Glass and another of his ilk which offers relentless iterations of the most annoying chords you can imagine.

Stravinsky is like eating sour pickles and stale bread crusts.

Medtner is a pale, anemic Rachmaninoff imitator. Horowitz often talked about playing his material but he rightly never bothered to record any of it except a "Fairy Tale."

John Field's Nocturnes are boring.

Clementi wrote a few snappy things but is rightly largely forgotten.

As to Schumann, you must be a very senstitive and sympathetic musician to grasp his wonderfully crafted, sentimental and homey meldies and structures.

Chopin detractors probably suffer from overexposure. I play at lot of his stuff, but you just run out of interest after a while.

Shostakovitch on the piano is simply awful. I always get the impression he tries too hard to be clever and "wrong-notey." Funny funny, not ha-ha.

Anyone mention Purcell and others of that era?

How about practically any opera? Oh, this is for piano. OK.

Pretty dumb.

[djealnla]

Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, Krenek. Random notes I can invent and play at any time. [Knocks head for not mentioning them before].

Same as above.

[thalbergmad]

One should never listen to Lennox Berkeley without a crate of lager to dampen the senses.

Thal

[redbaron]

Agreed Djealna. A total idiot. And then some. And some more.

[djealnla]

And then some. And some more.

What do you mean by this?

[ahinton]

One should never listen to Lennox Berkeley without a crate of lager to dampen the senses.

Unless, as in my case, the very prospect of a crate of lager is far more likely to bring about a severe irritation of certain of the senses than is anything ever written by Lennox Berkeley.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Even if it was Stella Artois??

Thal

[ahinton]

Even if it was Stella Artois??

Yes. I happen to be allergic to all beers, lagers, ciders and I cannot even look at a shandy without feeling queasy.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

I truly feel sorry for you.

Thal

[berman]

Underrated: Wilhelm Stenhammar
Overrated: Messiaen, Stravinskij, Mussorgsky

[birba]

 

Underrated: Wilhelm Stenhammar
Overrated: Messiaen, Stravinskij, Mussorgsky

 
Couldn't disagree more. 

[sjeon]

Schubert.  I hate is music.

[birba]

I ban you from pianostreet.com.   

[djealnla]

Schubert.  I hate is [sic] music.

Haha, welcome to my world. 

Anyway, I propose the following composers apart from the ones I mentioned previously:

Messiaen, Shostakovich, Chopin, Grieg, Dvořák, MacDowell, Poulenc and Babbitt. Should be enough for another discussion. 

[john11inc]

Messiaen, Shostakovich, Chopin, Grieg, Dvořák, MacDowell, Poulenc and Babbitt.

Messiaen is given a lot of credit where it's undeserved, but his music is often good stuff.  I would say he's academically overidolized, but not from a playing/listening standpoint.

Shostakovich. . . really not sure what to say.  If all you hear are the 5th/10th symphonies, then yes.  But he has written so much good stuff that is underappreciated, it evens out.

Chopin is a good composer, but I am bored of him.  He is only very-slightly better than other, similar composers of his era, but he is a magnet for less sophisticated listeners.  He is overrated in such a way, but I wouldn't say he is "overrated" in the way most people would use the word.

Grieg, Dvorak and McDowell I agree on, although McDowell isn't really played enough for me to consider him "overrated" or "overplayed", in the more general sense of the words.  He's kitschy garbage, and has pretty much stayed relegated to performers/listeners who are into that crap.

Poulenc I would say the same thing as McDowell about, but even more-so regarding how little he is performed.  He's better than McDowell, though.  If you want to go after composers like Poulenc. . . Milhaud, Delius and Dalbavie are more deserving of derision.

Babbitt is a very important composer, historically and academically, but not the most compelling listen.  Exceptionally dry music.  But really, Babbitt is very niche; I certainly can't say he is overplayed.  I'd even say he's underplayed; a lot of his best works aren't the ones that show up the most.  There are a ton of composers from that era that are plenty worse than Babbitt.  Wuorinen is plenty worse; go for him.


Since it's been a while, I'll redo my list:

Schumann, Grieg, Mendelssohn, Haydn, Dvorak, Sibelius, Milhaud, Delius, Rossini, Wagner, Mahler, Brahms, Mussorgsky, Reich, Riley, Clementi, Medtner, Berlioz, Holst, Rota, Delibes, Strauss, Vaughan Williams, Elgar, Weber, Rameau, Reger, Meyerbeer, Dun, Dukas, Harrison, Rorem, Torke, Liebermann, Khachaturian, Pachelbel, Strauss II, Boccherini, Respighi, Mantovani, Gluck, CPE Bach, A. Scarlatti, Donizetti, Corelli, Telemann, Satie, Yun, Couperin and Handel (except the keyboard suites).

Respighi, Telemann, Handel, Haydn, Dvorak, Mendelssohn, Khachaturian and Vaughan Williams are probably what I want to hear NPR say is "next" the very least.

[djealnla]

Messiaen is given a lot of credit where it's undeserved, but his music is often good stuff. I would say he's academically overidolized, but not from a playing/listening standpoint.

I used to like his music, but for me it was just a phase, nowadays I absolutely despise most Regards, the Quartet, while his purportedly "spiritual" orchestral stuff strikes me as shallow (just as Gershwin et al.), and don't even get me started on his use of bird-song. Maybe in the future I will discover some great Messiaen work.

Shostakovich. . . really not sure what to say. If all you hear are the 5th/10th symphonies, then yes. But he has written so much good stuff that is underappreciated, it evens out.

I won't question Shostakovich's talent, which many of his detractors do, but my dislike of his music has much to do with my aesthetic ideas; in my book a consistently mediocre composition is superior to one filled with both brilliant movements and trashy movements. Shostakovich composed some great music, which definitely could have been composed only by a genius, but he is often so uneven even within the same piece, that I regard him as very overrated.

Chopin is a good composer, but I am bored of him. He is only very-slightly better than other, similar composers of his era, but he is a magnet for less sophisticated listeners. He is overrated in such a way, but I wouldn't say he is "overrated" in the way most people would use the word.

My dislike of Chopin is far more complicated. I genuinely enjoy some of his pieces (the Etudes, the Ballades and a few miscellaneous compositions), but some other works by him I consider almost invariably superficial (the Nocturnes and the Mazurkas, for instance). However, it displeases me when he is presented as a master of counterpoint, when even among the early romantics Mendelssohn and probably Schumann as well were both greater in that respect. It also annoys the hell out of me that he overshadows many great (and relatively accessible) piano composers who are heavily neglected (at least among the mainstream public), such as Medtner, Godowsky, late Liszt, Alkan, Sorabji or even Scriabin.

Poulenc I would say the same thing as McDowell about, but even more-so regarding how little he is performed. He's better than McDowell, though. If you want to go after composers like Poulenc. . . Milhaud, Delius and Dalbavie are more deserving of derision.

Perhaps, but Milhaud gets played so little that I would never consider him overrated.

Babbitt is a very important composer, historically and academically, but not the most compelling listen. Exceptionally dry music. But really, Babbitt is very niche; I certainly can't say he is overplayed. I'd even say he's underplayed; a lot of his best works aren't the ones that show up the most. There are a ton of composers from that era that are plenty worse than Babbitt. Wuorinen is plenty worse; go for him.

Boulez once said that a balanced composition has an emotional as well as an intellectual side. While serialism can take some time to insinuate itself into one's mind and I admittedly haven't yet gotten into Babbitt from an intellectual standpoint, I found his music incredibly dry and lacking in emotion; if his music has some intellectual worth, then it's there definitely at the expense of expressivity. Carter, for instance, always wanted to compose intellectual music, yet his work never seems "inhuman" and/or "cold" to me. I've also read criticisms of Babbitt stating that he basically rehashed Webern's techniques and introduced nothing truly original, but that could be false; personally I know next to nothing about "intervallic" serialism.

Since it's been a while, I'll redo my list:

Schumann, Grieg, Mendelssohn, Haydn, Dvorak, Sibelius, Milhaud, Delius, Rossini, Wagner, Mahler, Brahms, Mussorgsky, Reich, Riley, Clementi, Medtner, Berlioz, Holst, Rota, Delibes, Strauss, Vaughan Williams, Elgar, Weber, Rameau, Reger, Meyerbeer, Dun, Dukas, Harrison, Rorem, Torke, Liebermann, Khachaturian, Pachelbel, Strauss II, Boccherini, Respighi, Mantovani, Gluck, CPE Bach, A. Scarlatti, Donizetti, Corelli, Telemann, Satie, Yun, Couperin and Handel (except the keyboard suites).

Out of this list, I'd like to see you justify the inclusion of Schumann, Mendelssohn, Haydn, Wagner, Mahler, Medtner, Reger, Liebermann and Pachelbel. Preliminarily, I will state my belief that virtually no romantic music is as good as Mahler's Symphonies Nos. 6 and 9; the same goes for Wagner's Tristan and Ring.

[john11inc]

I used to like his music, but for me it was just a phase, nowadays I absolutely despise most Regards, the Quartet, while his purportedly "spiritual" orchestral stuff strikes me as shallow (just as Gershwin et al.), and don't even get me started on his use of bird-song. Maybe in the future I will discover some great Messiaen work.

I'm not a big fan of the Quartet.  If you have some random hatred of bird song, there's not a lot I can recommend to you, although I hope you see how arbitrary something like that is.  Same thing as saying "I hate X interval, Y key signature or Z tempo".

I won't question Shostakovich's talent, which many of his detractors do, but my dislike of his music has much to do with my aesthetic ideas; in my book a consistently mediocre composition is superior to one filled with both brilliant movements and trashy movements. Shostakovich composed some great music, which definitely could have been composed only by a genius, but he is often so uneven even within the same piece, that I regard him as very overrated.

I'm not sure how uneven he is as how varied he is, although I'm not entirely disagreeing with you.  I think that's coming down more to subjective taste than objective dislike.  But then again, it might just be the pieces you're listening to.  Really don't know; what do you think of his Piano Sonata No. 2, Symphony Nos. 7/15, Cello Concerto No. 1 and Violin Concerto?  Those are probably the most consistently strong works, IMO (along with a couple of the quartets, but I'm too lazy to go listen through them to figure out which ones).

My dislike of Chopin is far more complicated. I genuinely enjoy some of his pieces (the Etudes, the Ballades and a few miscellaneous compositions), but some other works by him I consider almost invariably superficial (the Nocturnes and the Mazurkas, for instance). However, it displeases me when he is presented as a master of counterpoint, when even among the early romantics Mendelssohn and probably Schumann as well were both greater in that respect. It also annoys the hell out of me that he overshadows many great (and relatively accessible) piano composers who are heavily neglected (at least among the mainstream public), such as Medtner, Godowsky, late Liszt, Alkan, Sorabji or even Scriabin.

Seems like that has less to do with Chopin's music, as much as it has to do with his audience.  As well, I'd venture a guess that your opinion on Chopin's counterpoint is too heavily influenced by this forum; that crap started up here after someone posted a link to a couple of essays a year or so ago, but I don't hear it anywhere else.  As in, nowhere else at all.  And I would agree that it is crap.

Perhaps, but Milhaud gets played so little that I would never consider him overrated.

My local NPR station loves him, for some reason.

Boulez once said that a balanced composition has an emotional as well as an intellectual side. While serialism can take some time to insinuate itself into one's mind and I admittedly haven't yet gotten into Babbitt from an intellectual standpoint, I found his music incredibly dry and lacking in emotion; if his music has some intellectual worth, then it's there definitely at the expense of expressivity. Carter, for instance, always wanted to compose intellectual music, yet his work never seems "inhuman" and/or "cold" to me. I've also read criticisms of Babbitt stating that he basically rehashed Webern's techniques and introduced nothing truly original, but that could be false; personally I know next to nothing about "intervallic" serialism.

Babbitt is a mixed bag from a listening aspect.  Listen to his Piano Concerto No. 1, and then his Piano Concerto No. 2.  No. 1 is an extremely "dry" and pointillist work, while the second is very sonorous.  You'll find that disparity in his output a lot.  The thing is, it's those "dry" works that have been recorded more, because they're the ones that are more famous.  As I said, Babbitt is really more famous from an academic standpoint, and it's his early work that gets played more (because that's where his ideas were, of course), which is sort of a shame.  As an aside, Babbitt made a number of innovations to Serial processes (the most important of which is the fact that he invented Total Serialism; he was writing in the idiom before Boulez, and even before Messiaen's little experiments), although he became very much a figurehead and proponent of Modern music in general, and did a lot of writing/teaching.  He also had some very important residencies.  Hence why we still hear about him.  He also predated a lot of Goehr's, Goeyvaert's, Wuorinen's, Pousseur's and Stockhausen's "innovations", and had a pretty impressive resume of "important" students.  He was also at the forefront of electronic music in America.

Totally unrelated, but I think your comment about Carter is a bit misguided.  Carter was/is vehemently anti-intellectual.  It's a bit ironic that you bring him up, as Babbitt and Carter were very much as Stockhausen and Cage were to Boulez.

Out of this list, I'd like to see you justify the inclusion of Schumann, Mendelssohn, Haydn, Wagner, Mahler, Medtner, Reger, Liebermann and Pachelbel. Preliminarily, I will state my belief that virtually no romantic music is as good as Mahler's Symphonies Nos. 6 and 9; the same goes for Wagner's Tristan and Ring.

Not upset about Brahms?  So anyway, and superficially:

Haydn- C Major, C Major, C Major, C Major, C Major, C Major, C Major, C Major, C Major, B Major.  Repeat six hundred times and you have his output.  His music is repetitive, meticulous, overly refined, often devoid of emotional value and his works are too-often extremely similar and derivative.  His music is painfully safe and seems to, somehow, simultaneously lack exploration in formula and form and immediacy and spontaneity.  It is morning radio music, and more specifically, Sunday morning.

Pachelbel- Repeat.

Mendelssohn- Repeat, with the addendum of he has a couple (and I might even be using that word literally, just to be clear) of pieces I can actually find a reason to like.  The Octet is one of them, and that's the only one that comes to mind, but I just assume there has to be at least one more.

Wagner/Mahler- I like Wagner more than Mahler by quite a bit, firstly.  But they are both one thing, and in the case of Mahler, one thing only: massive blobs of FFFF.  Wagner's melodic ingenuity and orchestration puts him a couple steps above Mahler, IMO, but I mean. . . the Symphony of 1000 is the perfect example of why I hate them; it seems to beg the question of "how big, bold and loud can we get".  I can listen to some seriously aggressive and noisy stuff, but when it's just so tonic and unnecessary, and constant, I find it obnoxious.  I don't get the interest in listening to a nine billion hour piece by Mahler at all.  With Mahler, I think he is trying to evoke something I'm just not interested in, nor are my ears.  With Wagner, he's just *** exhausting.

Reger- Just worthless.  A relic, clinging to the past, combining what I view to be the worst aspects of early Romantic music with the worst aspects of late Romantic music.  From the first, excessive and easily anticipated harmonic/modal structures, that never cease and lack any form of spontaneity or surprise, and from the latter, a constant density that wears the listener down and beats him into a pulp.  I don't care how excellent he was at counterpoint; if he didn't do something interesting with it, then why should I be interested?  His works are certainly "interesting" from the standpoint of difficulty, but that doesn't make a good piece, and I'm just not the type to find a 40 minute set of variations fun to listen to just for what might come up if I analyze them later on.

Schumann- Something of a combination of the reasons I dislike Reger and Mendelssohn; it should be obvious which ones match.  Add a "too dry" and that's about it.

Medtner- Medtner I don't despise, like the others you mentioned.  I just think he's overrated, that's all.  I think he's a fad.  He has some decent works, and a ton of mediocre ones.  The Night Wind Sonata is a good example of the sort stuff he can do that I really hate: incredibly repetitive, an admittedly pretty (but idiomatic) language, zoloft-inducing melodrama that has no end, and nothing to contrast with.  But as I said, I like some of his stuff; I just think he's too easy to like, if you get what I mean, and I think the sudden influx of recordings have bestowed him a new, annoying fan base that he doesn't quite deserve.

Liebermann- Lowell Liebermann is a Neoromantic composer, and he ain't exactly Carl Vine or John Corigliano, who have such incredible skill for composition that they have an honest place in music.  For me to have absolutely any respect for a Neoromantic composer, they pretty much have to be, and even Vine is pretty hit or miss.  Liebermann is a sell-out, and he doesn't have the skill or inspiration to show me something new, so I just can't be bothered to feel anything about him other than disgust.  Besides that, I simply don't like his music; he seems to get lost in his own work a lot of the time.  He'll set up an ok motif, but then has no idea how to go somewhere with it.

[djealnla]

I will comment on your post selectively (that is, if I have something to add or I disagree with what you wrote):

I'm not a big fan of the Quartet.  If you have some random hatred of bird song, there's not a lot I can recommend to you, although I hope you see how arbitrary something like that is.  Same thing as saying "I hate X interval, Y key signature or Z tempo".

I would agree it might be a bit random, but in general I find it (and most of Messiaen's music as well) uninventive. I still think that some parts of the Vingt Regards are extraordinary, though.

I'm not sure how uneven he is as how varied he is, although I'm not entirely disagreeing with you.  I think that's coming down more to subjective taste than objective dislike.  But then again, it might just be the pieces you're listening to.  Really don't know; what do you think of his Piano Sonata No. 2, Symphony Nos. 7/15, Cello Concerto No. 1 and Violin Concerto?  Those are probably the most consistently strong works, IMO (along with a couple of the quartets, but I'm too lazy to go listen through them to figure out which ones).

Of the aforementioned works I have heard Symphonies Nos. 7 & 15, the 1st Cello Concerto and several Quartets. The 1st Cello Concerto is probably the only piece out of these I find engaging. It's really hard to explain my dislike for some of his music (well, actually it isn't, but I don't want to say something stupid), but I think he sometimes uses dissonances just for the sake of using them. A perfect example of the Shostakovich I dislike is his Piano Quintet in C minor; it has a fantastic opening movement, while the remaining four movements are either overly populist or include a pointless quotation of the first movement. Some people might find that kind of music appealing, I simply don't.

Seems like that has less to do with Chopin's music, as much as it has to do with his audience.  As well, I'd venture a guess that your opinion on Chopin's counterpoint is too heavily influenced by this forum; that crap started up here after someone posted a link to a couple of essays a year or so ago, but I don't hear it anywhere else.  As in, nowhere else at all.  And I would agree that it is crap.

Well, this thread is called "the most over played and overrated composer is...", and I was talking about his fans/promoters; your opinion on Medtner's fanbase illustrates the basis for my attitude towards Chopin. In my book he is certainly overplayed, as he takes attention away from some of the composers I mentioned in my previous post here. Rosen's claims are nonsense, I agree on that - Chopin certainly wasn't a greater master of counterpoint than Beethoven.

Babbitt is a mixed bag from a listening aspect.  Listen to his Piano Concerto No. 1, and then his Piano Concerto No. 2.  No. 1 is an extremely "dry" and pointillist work, while the second is very sonorous.

OK, I'll check it out.

Totally unrelated, but I think your comment about Carter is a bit misguided.  Carter was/is vehemently anti-intellectual.  It's a bit ironic that you bring him up, as Babbitt and Carter were very much as Stockhausen and Cage were to Boulez.

My position is based on the following:

What Elliott Carter always wanted to write was music that was cerebral as opposed to emotional. Just as it is more difficult to read someone’s thoughts than their emotions, so it is more difficult to understand music that is cerebral rather than emotional.

Source: https://www.overgrownpath.com/2009/11/radical-traditionalist.html

Not upset about Brahms?  So anyway, and superficially:

Nah, I have a mixed opinion about Brahms. His orchestral music makes me yawn about as much as a pretty mediocre baroque concerto; his chamber music, on the other hand, is mostly enjoyable, as conservative as it may be in many regards.

Haydn- C Major, C Major, C Major, C Major, C Major, C Major, C Major, C Major, C Major, B Major.  Repeat six hundred times and you have his output.  His music is repetitive, meticulous, overly refined, often devoid of emotional value and his works are too-often extremely similar and derivative.  His music is painfully safe and seems to, somehow, simultaneously lack exploration in formula and form and immediacy and spontaneity.  It is morning radio music, and more specifically, Sunday morning.

Well, I can't help disagree. I used to feel that way about both Haydn and Mozart, but I started to enjoy the music of both once I managed to get past the whole "it's all in a major key" attitude.

Pachelbel- Repeat.

Here I disagree even more, especially because only one work by him is known to the public at large (even musicians in general are familiar only with the Canon & Gigue). His work also influenced Bach (at least that's what I read somewhere), so I definitely value him at least a bit.

Wagner/Mahler- I like Wagner more than Mahler by quite a bit, firstly.  But they are both one thing, and in the case of Mahler, one thing only: massive blobs of FFFF.  Wagner's melodic ingenuity and orchestration puts him a couple steps above Mahler, IMO, but I mean. . . the Symphony of 1000 is the perfect example of why I hate them; it seems to beg the question of "how big, bold and loud can we get".  I can listen to some seriously aggressive and noisy stuff, but when it's just so tonic and unnecessary, and constant, I find it obnoxious.  I don't get the interest in listening to a nine billion hour piece by Mahler at all.  With Mahler, I think he is trying to evoke something I'm just not interested in, nor are my ears.  With Wagner, he's just *** exhausting.

I agree that Mahler's 8th Symphony is overcomposed (just like Beethoven's Missa Solemnis), but there is much more to Mahler than that. We are of course dealing with late romanticism, so emotional restraint is a tad unexpected (even Bruckner indulged a bit in having massive climaxes in his Symphonies), but if Mahler's 4th Symphony, his 7th Symphony, large portions of the 9th and virtually the entire DLVDE make you think of relentless orchestral banging, then I don't know what to say.

Medtner- Medtner I don't despise, like the others you mentioned.  I just think he's overrated, that's all.  I think he's a fad.  He has some decent works, and a ton of mediocre ones.  The Night Wind Sonata is a good example of the sort stuff he can do that I really hate: incredibly repetitive, an admittedly pretty (but idiomatic) language, zoloft-inducing melodrama that has no end, and nothing to contrast with.  But as I said, I like some of his stuff; I just think he's too easy to like, if you get what I mean, and I think the sudden influx of recordings have bestowed him a new, annoying fan base that he doesn't quite deserve.

I admit I have a somewhat troubled relationship with the Night-Wind Sonata; the first movement is just fine, but when I get into the middle of the second movement, I find myself almost invariably wondering whether he couldn't come up with something more remarkable. The Sonata-Ballade, the Sonata Romantica, as well as the Sonata Minacciosa are greater and more inventive pieces, I think. I certainly can't agree with the claim that he is repetitive and easy to like, and I'm sure many others think the same that I do. I would say, however, that he had trouble with making good contrast; for example, in his 2nd Piano Concerto he has a very light and "easygoing" finale (as opposed to the previous two movements), but I also think that that's the movement from that Concerto which has the smallest amount of substance of all.

An additional thought (I still haven't posted, though): Some of Medtner's use of the Sonata-allegro form may require an exceptional insight from the performer. I always liked his Sonata Tragica, but I found the recapitulation unnecessary and longsome. However, when I heard this piece performed by Tozer, I could appreciate the way Medtner wrote this piece; he truly managed to nail the part prior to the recapitulation (as well the beginning of the rec.) in such a way that Medtner's intentions could be understood. I also think the same of the following rendition of the Night-Wind Sonata (i.e., it illuminates the purpose of the piece's structure very well):

&feature=related

[john11inc]

Of the aforementioned works I have heard Symphonies Nos. 7 & 15, the 1st Cello Concerto and several Quartets. The 1st Cello Concerto is probably the only piece out of these I find engaging. It's really hard to explain my dislike for some of his music (well, actually it isn't, but I don't want to say something stupid), but I think he sometimes uses dissonances just for the sake of using them.

I don't understand your objection.  Can you amplify and/or cite specific instances of this?

Well, this thread is called "the most over played and overrated composer is...", and I was talking about his fans/promoters; your opinion on Medtner's fanbase illustrates the basis for my attitude towards Chopin.

No.  I qualified my statements regarding Medtner, beyond what I viewed to be a momentary surge in his popularity.

What Elliott Carter always wanted to write was music that was cerebral as opposed to emotional. Just as it is more difficult to read someone’s thoughts than their emotions, so it is more difficult to understand music that is cerebral rather than emotional.

You're misunderstanding that statement, not that it's exactly clear (or especially correct, even).  There is a difference between "cerebral music" and "academic music"; one could say Bach is cerebral, but one wouldn't say he is "academic".

Well, I can't help disagree. I used to feel that way about both Haydn and Mozart, but I started to enjoy the music of both once I managed to get past the whole "it's all in a major key" attitude.

What key the pieces are in was not a specific facet of my dislike of Haydn; it was merely an illustration to paint a broader picture. . . to evoke what one associates with writing in such a way.  My distaste for Haydn is complex, and certainly not worth "getting over", as I have put a lot of work into cultivating it <:

Here I disagree even more, especially because only one work by him is known to the public at large (even musicians in general are familiar only with the Canon & Gigue). His work also influenced Bach (at least that's what I read somewhere), so I definitely value him at least a bit.

If that's the only work you know of his, then to say his value as a composer, and the number of performances his work(s) receive, is justified, you are saying it is based solely on his Canon and Gigue.  You are necessarily saying that the number of times that idiotic piece is played is justified, and that it is a piece so, incredibly good that it deserves to be played that number of times.  Whether or not he influenced Bach is irrelevant to the topic.  Pachelbel influenced Bach who influenced CPE Bach who influenced Mozart who influenced Beethoven who influenced Liszt who influenced Schoenberg who influenced Ferneyhough.  Do you like Brian Ferneyhough?

I agree that Mahler's 8th Symphony is overcomposed, but there is much more to Mahler than that.

Everything else you said after that is unnecessary, because I disagree.  I could list pieces of Shostakovich and go, "well, I don't know what to say if you don't like them," but that doesn't mean it has value.  Just like you proved.

I admit I have a somewhat troubled relationship with the Night-Wind Sonata; the first movement is just fine, but when I get into the middle of the second movement, I find myself almost invariably wondering whether he couldn't come up with something more remarkable. The Sonata-Ballade, the Sonata Romantica, as well as the Sonata Minacciosa are greater and more inventive pieces, I think.

The first movement of the Night Wind Sonata would be fine if it was 6 minutes long, instead of 20.  And the "difference" between the first and second movements is basically nil.  Even Carter's Sonata has more tonal variety.  But the Night Wind Sonata was just an example; while it's a particularly good example, I feel the same way about many of his pieces, including the Sonata-Ballade.  The Sonata Minacciosa is much more variable, but wholly underwhelming.  The Sonata Reminiscenza and Sonata Tragica are swoony trash.  There is simply a lot to hate after you've gotten over the kitsch.  Too much for a composer to be as loved as he is, IMO.

I certainly can't agree with the claim the he is repetitive and easy to like, and I'm sure many others think the same.

Ah, yes, because everyone hates Rachmaninov and early Scriabin.  Such a difficult aesthetic.  Refer back to the Night Wind Sonata, regarding repetition.  Sorry, but as arresting as the harmonies might be, they kind of lose their edge the 800th time they show up in the piece.

[djealnla]

I don't understand your objection.  Can you amplify and/or cite specific instances of this?

See below (I might elaborate on this when I have more time).

No.  I qualified my statements regarding Medtner, beyond what I viewed to be a momentary surge in his popularity.

I will simply quote what you said previously:

Medtner- Medtner I don't despise, like the others you mentioned.  I just think he's overrated, that's all.  I think he's a fad.  He has some decent works, and a ton of mediocre ones.  The Night Wind Sonata is a good example of the sort stuff he can do that I really hate: incredibly repetitive, an admittedly pretty (but idiomatic) language, zoloft-inducing melodrama that has no end, and nothing to contrast with.  But as I said, I like some of his stuff; I just think he's too easy to like, if you get what I mean, and I think the sudden influx of recordings have bestowed him [Medtner] a new, annoying fan base that he doesn't quite deserve.

You're misunderstanding that statement, not that it's exactly clear (or especially correct, even).  There is a difference between "cerebral music" and "academic music"; one could say Bach is cerebral, but one wouldn't say he is "academic".

I never made mention of academic music, on both occasions I described Carter as a primarily intellectual composer.

If that's the only work you know of his, then to say his value as a composer, and the number of performances his work(s) receive, is justified, you are saying it is based solely on his Canon and Gigue.  You are necessarily saying that the number of times that idiotic piece is played is justified, and that it is a piece so, incredibly good that it deserves to be played that number of times.

I said he isn't overrated, that's all. Only a tiny fraction of his output gets any attention.

Whether or not he influenced Bach is irrelevant to the topic.  Pachelbel influenced Bach who influenced CPE Bach who influenced Mozart who influenced Beethoven who influenced Liszt who influenced Schoenberg who influenced Ferneyhough.  Do you like Brian Ferneyhough?

Pachelbel gets treated (almost all the time) by serious fans of classical music as a worthless composer, who gave the world of classical music nothing besides an overplayed and uninteresting piece, while I tried to show (by pointing at the fact that his works influenced Bach's music and the fact that he composed more music than just that one overplayed piece) that such a judgment on his output and his overall value (this includes his importance in music history) is unfair.

Everything else you said after that is unnecessary, because I disagree.  I could list pieces of Shostakovich and go, "well, I don't know what to say if you don't like them," but that doesn't mean it has value.  Just like you proved.

WRONG. I said I view him as overrated because my aesthetic ideas dictate that a consistently mediocre composition is superior to one with both great and awful movements. I dislike many of his pieces because I don't find his use of dissonances very interesting. You can go back to my post and see the following:

I won't question Shostakovich's talent, which many of his detractors do, but my dislike of his music has much to do with my aesthetic ideas; in my book a consistently mediocre composition is superior to one filled with both brilliant movements and trashy movements. Shostakovich composed some great music, which definitely could have been composed only by a genius, but he is often so uneven even within the same piece, that I regard him as very overrated.

I never claimed to dislike all of Shostakovich's music, as you are presently implying.

You, on the other hand, said that all of Mahler's music consists of quadruple fortes. There is no anology between our claims:

Wagner/Mahler- I like Wagner more than Mahler by quite a bit, firstly.  But they are both one thing, and in the case of Mahler, one thing only: massive blobs of FFFF.  Wagner's melodic ingenuity and orchestration puts him a couple steps above Mahler, IMO, but I mean. . . the Symphony of 1000 is the perfect example of why I hate them; it seems to beg the question of "how big, bold and loud can we get".  I can listen to some seriously aggressive and noisy stuff, but when it's just so tonic and unnecessary, and constant, I find it obnoxious.  I don't get the interest in listening to a nine billion hour piece by Mahler at all.  With Mahler, I think he is trying to evoke something I'm just not interested in, nor are my ears.  With Wagner, he's just *** exhausting.

The first movement of the Night Wind Sonata would be fine if it was 6 minutes long, instead of 20.  And the "difference" between the first and second movements is basically nil.  Even Carter's Sonata has more tonal variety.  But the Night Wind Sonata was just an example; while it's a particularly good example, I feel the same way about many of his pieces, including the Sonata-Ballade.  The Sonata Minacciosa is much more variable, but wholly underwhelming.  The Sonata Reminiscenza and Sonata Tragica are swoony trash.  There is simply a lot to hate after you've gotten over the kitsch.  Too much for a composer to be as loved as he is, IMO.

Ah, yes, because everyone hates Rachmaninov and early Scriabin.  Such a difficult aesthetic.  Refer back to the Night Wind Sonata, regarding repetition.  Sorry, but as arresting as the harmonies might be, they kind of lose their edge the 800th time they show up in the piece.

You claimed to like him a bit, now I'm left with the impression you loathe his music passionately. Nice. Good job at ignoring my other points (though I imagine you'll claim my arguments have no merit). What Medtner pieces do you like?

Anyway, perhaps someone might quote what Sorabji said regarding this "trashy" piece?

[john11inc]

Sorry, but you're just not understanding much, or you're refusing to do so.  Feel free to quote Sorabji; I'll quote Adorno, Hegel, Eco, Sciascia and Duchamp.

I'm not going to respond to that blob like I normally would, because it's all over the place, you're quoting/misinterpreting/manipulating chunks from several posts, and you omit the vast majority of relevant information to present a biased viewpoint.

Firstly, you did not qualify your statement(s) regarding Shostakovich allegedly using "unnecessary dissonance", whatever that may mean.  You didn't even define such a bizarre and seemingly arbitrary word combination.  Considering that's the only part of your post that I quoted, it's obvious that's what I'm referring to.  To attempt to direct my statement to something else, so-as to demerit it, means you're either a bit slow to not understand that's what I was referring to, or you're not interested in worthwhile discussion.  Either way, it kind of makes me disinterested in continuing this, and I probably won't after this post.

I don't understand why you're quoting my comments about Medtner, at that juncture.  What are you talking about?  Can you please be more clear?  Are you saying that you consider Shostakovich a "fad"?  Did you forget to respond to something?  You quoted three passages and didn't explain how they're related.  As well, I don't think there has been (read: there hasn't been) a "sudden influx" of Shostakovich recordings; he's been popular throughout his career, so you're either misinformed or you're talking about something that's not germane to your "point", whatever that might have been trying to be.

Regarding Carter, we were talking about the differences between his ideology and Babbitt's.  I don't care what word you used; if I used your word in a different way (as I did, and explained I did, and mentioned the fact that you were misunderstanding your own quotation; again, you're either not quite up to this discussion, or you're going way out of your way to twist things around) then I made it adequately clear how I was using it.  Besides, I didn't even use "intellectual" in the first place.  I used "cerebral" and "academic".

Regarding Pachelbel, you misworded yourself.  You go way out of your way to talk about how nobody knows any of his work except the Canon, and now you're saying we should be talking about his entire output.  Listen: if the Canon is the only work people know, then that's the only work they're using to judge his value.  It doesn't matter if you think that's an incorrect way to assess him.  That is, simply, the state of affairs.  I thought you understood that, but I guess not only do you not understand that, but you also worded yourself completely backwards, before, if that's what you were trying to get at.  Not my fault I didn't magically assume you actually meant the opposite of what you really said.

At this point:

WRONG. I said I view him as overrated because my aesthetic ideas dictate that a consistently mediocre composition is superior to one with both great and awful movements. I dislike many of his pieces because I don't find his use of dissonances very interesting. You can go back to my post and see the following:

Lollllllll.  Caps lock?  Makes me picture this:

Nobody cares what you said.  It has nothing to do with what you're responding to.  Jesus; I don't even know what to say.  You're responding to this:

"I could list pieces of Shostakovich and go, "well, I don't know what to say if you don't like them," but that doesn't mean it has value.  Just like you proved."

Again, there isn't an intelligent way to misunderstand what I was saying, so unless you're unintelligent, you're going way, way, way out of your way to try to twist these words into something you can use.  "Value" obviously refers to statements, not the music of Shostakovich.  Please try harder to follow.  I can say anything I want, but if the statement isn't qualified, then the statement has no value.  This selected fragment of a larger post obviously refers to the fact that I listed pieces by Shostakovich, which you still claimed to dislike, as well as the reverse happening with your list of works by Mahler, vis-a-vis your comment:

but if Mahler's 4th Symphony, his 7th Symphony, large portions of the 9th and virtually the entire DLVDE make you think of relentless orchestral banging, then I don't know what to say.

Whereupon, similarly, I disagreed with your feelings about the works you cited.  There is nothing complicated, obtuse, esoteric or difficult about how that comment was presented, so I really don't know how you could misunderstand it so fully.

Nobody said you dislike all of Shostakovich's music.  Again, you're very confused.  I am referring to the inherent lack of value in making statements, such as the one I was originally directing the one you quoted at.  You claim that there is not a sufficient parallel between our statements, and then proceed to note statements that aren't the ones I'm referring to.  I am referring to your listing out of those Mahler pieces, and my listing out of those Shostakovich pieces.  Again, that was made clear.

Finally:

You claimed to like [Medtner] a bit, now I'm left with the impression you loathe his music passionately. Nice. Good job at ignoring my other points (though I imagine you'll claim my arguments have no merit). What Medtner pieces do you like?

What points?  You made no points.  Here is exactly what you said (ah, the magic of the internet, where I can quote you):

I admit I have a somewhat troubled relationship with the Night-Wind Sonata; the first movement is just fine, but when I get into the middle of the second movement, I find myself almost invariably wondering whether he couldn't come up with something more remarkable. The Sonata-Ballade, the Sonata Romantica, as well as the Sonata Minacciosa are greater and more inventive pieces, I think. I certainly can't agree with the claim that he is repetitive and easy to like, and I'm sure many others think the same that I do. I would say, however, that he had trouble with making good contrast; for example, in his 2nd Piano Concerto he has a very light and "easygoing" finale (as opposed to the previous two movements), but I also think that that's the movement from that Concerto which has the smallest amount of substance of all.

An additional thought (I still haven't posted, though): Some of Medtner's use of the Sonata-allegro form may require an exceptional insight from the performer. I always liked his Sonata Tragica, but I found the recapitulation unnecessary and longsome. However, when I heard this piece performed by Tozer, I could appreciate the way Medtner wrote this piece; he truly managed to nail the part prior to the recapitulation (as well the beginning of the rec.) in such a way that Medtner's intentions could be understood. I also think the same of the following rendition of the Night-Wind Sonata (i.e., it illuminates the purpose of the piece's structure very well):

&feature=related

You have a sea of subjective, unspecific comments directed at particular works, followed by something about his execution of Sonata form, and all of the others I actually did respond to, or you were simply repeating something I had already said.  I'm sorry if you thought you were making a "point" by talking about Sonata form; I found it so tangential and unimportant I simply didn't respond to it, because it was a waste of time.  I'm still not going to talk about; god help you if that's how you judge a piece of music.  I mean, it's just so banal and unimportant I know I won't be able to deride it civilly.  I mean, honestly, you're talking about Sonata form in a late Romantic, two movement sonata, a single sonata of. . . what is it. . . 15(?) sonatas, not to mention the rest of his work.  Tangential and insignificant.

Regarding which of Medtner's pieces I like, not many, but a lot of the Faerie Tales are nice.  I'm not going to go rushing through his discography, to pointlessly namedrop some of his works.

[thalbergmad]

Oh I do love it when John pays a visit.

I wonder how long this one will last

Thal

[djealnla]

Sorry, but you're just not understanding much, or you're refusing to do so.  Feel free to quote Sorabji; I'll quote Adorno, Hegel, Eco, Sciascia and Duchamp.

I didn't know any of them was familiar with Medtner's music. But anyway, let's get past that and discuss this topic.

I'm not going to respond to that blob like I normally would, because it's all over the place, you're quoting/misinterpreting/manipulating chunks from several posts, and you omit the vast majority of relevant information to present a biased viewpoint.

No. I didn't omit anything crucial; in fact, when dealing with your opinions concerning Medtner and Mahler, I quoted whole paragraphs. If that strikes you as manipulation through omission, then feel free to post the relevant part(s) of your statement(s) which I allegedly omitted. By the way, I consider myself patient, but to call my post a blob strikes me as very offensive and completely unnecessary. Not that you care, of course.

Firstly, you did not qualify your statement(s) regarding Shostakovich allegedly using "unnecessary dissonance", whatever that may mean.  You didn't even define such a bizarre and seemingly arbitrary word combination.  Considering that's the only part of your post that I quoted, it's obvious that's what I'm referring to.  To attempt to direct my statement to something else, so-as to demerit it, means you're either a bit slow to not understand that's what I was referring to, or you're not interested in worthwhile discussion.  Either way, it kind of makes me disinterested in continuing this, and I probably won't after this post.

I said I don't find his use of dissonances interesting. I admit the word combination "unnecessary dissonances" is inappropriate and confusing, so I retract it. It's simply my personal opinion and it's also largely colored by my experience with his String Quartets, which I have heard performed by the Emerson String Quartet. Perhaps their performances of them was what I found annoying; to be sure of that, I would have to hear more performances of those pieces.

I don't understand why you're quoting my comments about Medtner, at that juncture.  What are you talking about?  Can you please be more clear?  Are you saying that you consider Shostakovich a "fad"?  Did you forget to respond to something?  You quoted three passages and didn't explain how they're related.  As well, I don't think there has been (read: there hasn't been) a "sudden influx" of Shostakovich recordings; he's been popular throughout his career, so you're either misinformed or you're talking about something that's not germane to your "point", whatever that might have been trying to be.

I said Chopin is overrated because he receives too much attention, attention which he doesn't deserve and which other, lesser known composers could be receiving. You said this is not related to the issue with which this thread deals, and then I pointed out you spoke of Medtner in the same way. You said he is overrated because he is getting more fans than he deserves, which is the same as what I said about Chopin.

I never tried to imply Shostakovich is a fad by using comparisons with your attitude towards Medtner. I don't know how this confusion came about. Notice also, that I'm not calling you anything and complaining about your grasp of my words (which you enjoy doing).

Regarding Pachelbel, you misworded yourself.  You go way out of your way to talk about how nobody knows any of his work except the Canon, and now you're saying we should be talking about his entire output.  Listen: if the Canon is the only work people know, then that's the only work they're using to judge his value.  It doesn't matter if you think that's an incorrect way to assess him.  That is, simply, the state of affairs.  I thought you understood that, but I guess not only do you not understand that, but you also worded yourself completely backwards, before, if that's what you were trying to get at.  Not my fault I didn't magically assume you actually meant the opposite of what you really said.

Sure, but it's inaccurate. It's certainly not the way I'd go about judging a composer. Tell me, when you first hear a piece by a new composer, do you immediately proceed to say he is decent/mediocre/great/bad/awful? In my mind it's not a wise decision, but if you think Pachelbel can be justifiably judged on the basis of only one piece, well, fine. Also, I didn't say the opposite of anything. Just read my post again. It may have been the opposite of the way you understood my post, but not of the way in which I meant it and which I explained later.

Again, there isn't an intelligent way to misunderstand what I was saying, so unless you're unintelligent, you're going way, way, way out of your way to try to twist these words into something you can use.  "Value" obviously refers to statements, not the music of Shostakovich.  Please try harder to follow.  I can say anything I want, but if the statement isn't qualified, then the statement has no value.  This selected fragment of a larger post obviously refers to the fact that I listed pieces by Shostakovich, which you still claimed to dislike, as well as the reverse happening with your list of works by Mahler, vis-a-vis your comment:

Whereupon, similarly, I disagreed with your feelings about the works you cited.  There is nothing complicated, obtuse, esoteric or difficult about how that comment was presented, so I really don't know how you could misunderstand it so fully.

Nobody said you dislike all of Shostakovich's music.  Again, you're very confused.  I am referring to the inherent lack of value in making statements, such as the one I was originally directing the one you quoted at.  You claim that there is not a sufficient parallel between our statements, and then proceed to note statements that aren't the ones I'm referring to.  I am referring to your listing out of those Mahler pieces, and my listing out of those Shostakovich pieces.  Again, that was made clear.

OK, let's simplify it (I could complain about the fact that you did not address the difference between our statements, but forget that):

Do you think Mahler's DLVDE or his Symphonies Nos. 4 and 7 consist of nothing but "massive blobs of FFFF"? And if you do not think that, then why did you use such a sweeping generalization?

What points?  You made no points.

You said Medtner is too repetitive, I pointed out that the inner logic of his music and the purpose of his repetitiveness can be obfuscated by inadequate performances and cited an example of that (or at least something which I view as an example of that). Since you are so well versed in logic, could you at least tell me which part of my argument was faulty, please? Did I use a flawed premise? Was my point about the Sonata-allegro form a non-sequitur? Or did I make some other logical mistake?

[djealnla]

Oh I do love it when John pays a visit.

I wonder how long this one will last

Thal

Well, he has more or less told us in advance how much he is enjoying this discussion:

Either way, it kind of makes me disinterested in continuing this, and I probably won't after this post.

The interesting thing is that he doesn't mind having long discussions with people he deems complete idiots, but he is not willing to talk with me (although I'm probably still too stupid for him, considering his IQ is supposed to be 205). Just look at this, for instance:

Nobody here is talking about the piece any more.  You made a post that was about the ideology of the piece, and then switched half-way through to being about me again.  If you want to talk about me, then let's not blame it on me.  Do you literally need me to copy/paste all the comments that are transpiring in this thread for you as evidence, are you actually unaware of the fact that you and others are concentrating on me instead of the music, or are you just trying to make a point?  Frankly, whether or not your "point" means anything to anyone does not concern me, because it obviously doesn't mean anything to me, which I would hope would be your "point" in the first place.  If it's exhibition, I suggest you start thinking about your own actions as well as mine.  If you want to discuss the piece of music, make a comment about it.  Not a comment about me, or what you think I am, or things I've said, or things you've interpreted about me from some online interaction.


You said I am not a sociopath "because I want to kill everyone" and "because I don't even remember my own actions".  Again, is this exhibition rhetoric, or do you honestly believe yourself?  If you think anyone who vaguely speaks English and doesn't have Autism is going to interpret that comment as sincere, you need to evaluate your use of the language.  Social Darwinism is a philosophy invented by someone far smarter than me or you; take it up with them.  I also severely doubt you understand what it is.


You are not understanding that comment.  It directly proceeded the remark about the execution of what I labeled as "vitriol".  It has nothing to do with your playing or your offense.


I don't know my history, apparently.  I have over 100 posts on this account, now.  If you tally those that are constructive and those that are argumentative, you will find it leans hugely in favor of being constructive.  Let's also keep in mind that all but one post are constructive, if we disregard the fact that all, other argumentative posts I've made are in response to other people behaving the exact, same way as I do.  Like I said, less four letter words, same meaning.  But no, everyone else is a saint and I am Satan, because I give slightly less of a sh*t about your feelings and slightly less of a sh*t about what is "acceptable insulting practice".  Do you have any idea how stupid that is?  "Acceptable insulting practice".  That's what this whole ideology you have is about.  I can be more coy, guiled, sarcastic and condescending than anyone you will ever meet, but it's less fun for me because when I go for it, people usually don't even realize I'm insulting them.  Much less fun.  Keep that in mind; I am under more attack than you are, for being an attacker.  That is why this is stupid beyond recognition.  It is playground psychology you and the others like you have.  I don't know how old you are, but apparently you have a lot more growing up than I do when it comes to removing yourself from a confrontation and realizing what it actually is.  Even if my dialog is often immature, at least I understand what this is.  Also, if I remember correctly, I apologized (I doubt you know how rare that is, and you might not care); you could have let it die, but you brought it back up.  You did.

"Padowan" is common language.  I have seen one and a half Star Wars movies in my life and I know the word; therefore it is understandable for me to assume something (you are not the only one with that right), which was that most people know what the word means.  Also, I don't particularly see a difference; a need for patience is merely the abridged version of the comment which you will go on to call highly constructive.  I can not believe you wrote a huge paragraph berating me because you had to look up a word, and subsequently misinterpreted the meaning of my comment.  That is beyond ridiculous.  Just outrageous!  That is like trying to order food in a French and then screaming at the waiter when he brings you a steak, when you tried to order fish, not knowing French.  It's exactly the same.  I am not obligated to leave your video any comment, much less obligated to leave an extensive one.  If you wanted to know what I meant, you should have asked, not make wild assumptions about me insulting you.


Because, contrary to overwhelmingly popular belief, I am not "pompous" or "pretentious", and leaving a comment like that is just such.  My taste in music may be "pretentious", and I am most certainly arrogant, but I am not those things.  Had you engaged me and asked me what the meaning of my comment was, I would have then explained it to you.
 
I don't think my manners are constructive to anything other than my own enjoyment, as doing what Alistair does in the face of ignorance, for instance, is less fun for me.  The words that I actually type can be constructive; you just have to pay attention to them instead of the way I'm saying them.  Your choice; most people don't.  You come on this forum for enjoyment, and so do I.  I'm not going to ruin my own time by being harassed and just taking it, which is what's happening.  Where's the sympathy for me, eh?  I bite back, I don't bite first; this is almost without variance.  I just bite harder, and I get all the sh*t.  It's so stupid.  Just painfully stupid.  Nobody pays attention to the context of my arguments; all you see are how many times I used the words "***" or "idiot", which is more than the other guy, which means I'm the evil one.  Seriously, go find all the infamous threads of me tearing people up; I never start it.  On here, for example.  Go look in the "polls" sub-board of "Miscellaneous", "Hardest Classical Piece", and you'll find your little posse trying to start sh*t with me, going out of their way to piss me off.  So, excuse me if I get pissed off.

And Thal's idiotic argument that I post these threads to "show off my knowledge" or to "instigate trouble" is asinine.  Trouble comes to me, I don't make it.  Seriously.  Look through the history of all my accounts.  That's:

Skeptopotamus
Soliloquy
I_love_Xenakis
I_heart_Xenakis
s_bussotti
Ikedian
ferret_dance
meowmix
Oeillade

Probably others.  If you actually care this much.  You will see that I'm not the one who starts these fights; I'm just the one who ends them.  Just like I apologized to you to try to end it, which is not my typical strategy, so to speak.  But you brought it back up, and then bitched that it was being brought back up.  What do you think is going to happen if you respond to this post in a civil manner?  Do you think I will still be nasty?  If you respond like you just did, of course I will.  But if you act the way you're telling me I'm supposed to act all I'm going to do is say "fine" and let it be done, which is what I always do.  It's not me: it's you.


Let's take a look:
https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=35908.msg412743#msg412743
https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=26169.msg412665#msg412665
https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=26169.msg412671#msg412671
https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=26169.msg412677#msg412677
https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=26054.msg412623#msg412623
https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=26054.msg412607#msg412607
https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=26054.msg412435#msg412435
https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=35841.msg412721#msg412721

Undeniable harassment.  So, excuse me if I don't deal with you civilly.  Or, these people.  Like I said, that one, big post had a lot of displaced anger from them to you which I already apologized for, mistaking (possibly) you for being in their crowd, so to speak.  So, if these people harass me, I am not allowed to retaliate?  Are you the Gestapo or something?  You like to insinuate that I'm crazy, but I want to know what sort of crazy, self-serving world it is you're trying to force on me.  Because I don't want any part of it.  I might seem crazy to you, but that's only because I'm sane enough, not rooted in sociostigma enough, to see what is actually going on.

This is another example of what I mean:

An IQ test is a perfect way to measure intelligence.  It's not a way to measure social skills, wisdom or knowledge.  These are not intelligence, and are thus not applicable to intelligence.  If you honestly think IQ tests don't signify anything, I can't honestly think of why that would be.  Sounds pretty self-serving.  Like, if you think someone with Down's Syndrome is going to score the same as Richard Dawkins, then just what.  Otherwise, they do have meaning.  Maybe my example is extreme, but it's true.  Do you need for me to categorize the syllogisms for you and explain it?  I think you might.


Yes, the problem is with me.  Allow me to immediately quote myself, here:

"Do you need for me to categorize the syllogisms for you and explain it?  I think you might."

Notice that I didn't, however.  The problem here is that you need me to explain everything to you like you're a little baby to understand what I'm saying.  I refuse to do that because it's a waste of my time, and then I'd need to explain my explanation, and explain the explanation of my explanation etc., bordering on ad infinitum for you to understand.  I'd have to categorize the syllogisms, then I'd have to explain what a syllogism is, then I'd have to show you the Aristotlean model of analytics, then I'd have to explain that, then I'd have to explain the terms used in it, then I'd have to explain the terms used in defining the terms, then I'd have to actually do the categorizing again, using the newly founded semantic relationship between the constraints of my supporting definition(s) and explanation, then I'd have to propose the argument, then I'd have to dismantle your rebuttal, then I'd have to explain my rebuttal, then I'd have to go through the whole process again.  I'd probably have to bring Russell and Wittgenstein into it at this point, which I don't want to do.  Then you'd think you were right because you don't understand what's going on and you would just argue with me forever, which is the same thing that's going to happen anyway.  Same thing happening right now.  So, since you're just going to think you're correct, I'm not going to bother explaining it to you like that, because I don't pander to your type.  The people whose opinions are valid to me, that meaning the people who can understand what I have to say without me having to go through all this, will see that I am correct and that you are incorrect.  I do not care if you think you are correct, because you are not one of those people, therefore your opinion does not matter to me.  So I have no motive to assist you at the expense of my effort.  I'm also not going to explain that paragraph.

So, the problem here is that you don't understand me because I do not submit my arguments in a fashion that is congruent with your ability to comprehend their mechanisms, because you are unfamiliar with the mechanisms and incapable of making the necessary inferences that the people who I care about would be able to understand/make.


So, it's good because you love it.  Do you realize how stupid that is?  How in the world is that not subjective?  I mean, that's the definition of subjective.  "I love it".  Also, you need a reason to love it.  You don't love something for no reason.  It's impossible.

And, yes, music is purely intellectual.  You are just taking the word "intellectual" into an improper form.  You don't love music with your fingers, you love it with your brain.  "Love" is a mental state: mental.  Want the roots for "mental"?  Do I honestly need to explain further?

By your logic, all I need to say about the works of Ferneyhough to make them as valid as the works of Beethoven is "I love it".  DONE.  Wow, you could have saved me so much time!  If only I was as wise and well-versed in debate forensics as you.


Yes.  Also, someone with seven arms might find one piece easier than someone with one arm.  Someone with small hands might find playing parallel 10ths harder than someone with large hands.  What is your point?  Pieces that fall into the category of "the most difficult piece of music" transcend normal abilities of pianists to the point of being feasibly impossible to perform as notated, for the longest/most frequent/most intense durations.  One pianist might find jumping from A5 to A8 easier than another does, while one pianist might find that easier to do with the left hand (bad example, but you get the point.  Well, nah, probably not).  This isn't the point; the point is, what would be the most difficult piece for a pianist with an average and well-rounded technique.  It's stupid to say that the works of Kiyama are easy because someone might have a lot of experience as a sideshow performer playing the piano with his feet.  By your argument, someone might have a mental handicap in which the exercises of Hanon make him vomit; that would mean that Hanon exercise No. 1 is as hard as Finnissy's Solo Concerto No. 4.

That's your logic.  Your so-called logic.  That is the difference between me and you; you waste time because you don't think out what you say.  You just say random crap that you think suits your argument at the time; I'm sure your next post will be an entirely new argument, likely contradicting the one you just proposed, as you will have no way to back up the one you just made.  You'll just keep saying new, stupid things over and over again, continuing to think you're so enlightened, even though every time I respond I will show you how wrong you are.  That's the habit you, and all the people like you, have.  You're like a child trying to play chess; you don't think ahead, you don't take your argument in any direction, much less the number of directions necessary to insure that it is a strong one.  You don't follow the argument to its logical conclusion.  You're basically playing the lottery, trying to get lucky and hoping you say something smart.  But just like playing the lottery, the odds are pretty slim.  You say something, anything, that is in contradiction to what I say and you think that is an argument.  Idiotic.


Also, an addendum.  Here's another thing you don't think about: I want to know why you are posting, and why you are posting what you're posting.  Any action formed in any part of the brain (just so you don't derail this into BS about the reptilian brain or some garbage) is reaction to a stimulus.  What about me is stimulating you, and what is the meaning of your response?  What are your goals, here?  What is your intended outcome, what outcome would you consider perfect, and what is the worst outcome?  How and why are your actions leading you towards the hopeful outcome, or are they?  To what do you intend to gain?

I'm thinking about these things; you are not.  Given that, how can you "win"?  After all, "winning" is surely the outcome you're after.  And on that note, what would you consider "winning"?  Why is it winning, and why do you want it?  If you do win, will be worth it?  How can you be sure that, if these are things I'm thinking about, I'm not in complete and utter control?  Don't you think I can easily anticipate you?  Are you not aware of the amount of experience I have in this situation?  If so, isn't it safe to assume you're only going to do what I want you to do?  How does that fit into your plan?

Maybe you should do less saying and more thinking.  C'mon kid, put some effort into it.  It's more fun for me that way.

[djealnla]

I don't know how I managed to fail to notice this, but:

Sorry, but you're just not understanding much, or you're refusing to do so.  Feel free to quote Sorabji; I'll quote Adorno, Hegel, Eco, Sciascia and Duchamp.

Sure, go ahead and quote Adorno, who would disagree with your take on Mahler.  

[john11inc]

I didn't know any of them was familiar with Medtner's music. But anyway, let's get past that and discuss this topic.

That's nice.  I'm sure most of them are/were, but I can't say, specifically.  Either way, good job at not changing tactics.  Considering what I was quoting did have the word "Medtner" in the sentence, surely it must have been about Medtner, and not about aesthetic valuation, as you were referring to my diction (unless you don't know how to parse a sentence correctly, and meant to talk about Medtner).

No. I didn't omit anything crucial; in fact, when dealing with your opinions concerning Medtner and Mahler, I quoted whole paragraphs. If that strikes you as manipulation through omission, then feel free to post the relevant part(s) of your statement(s) which I allegedly omitted. By the way, I consider myself patient, but to call my post a blob strikes me as very offensive and completely unnecessary. Not that you care, of course.

I already did mention specific things you failed to mention, in my post above, particularly pertaining to comments made in previous posts that were necessary to contextualize proceeding comments.  Do you want me to do it again, for some reason?

I said I don't find his use of dissonances interesting. I admit the word combination "unnecessary dissonances" is inappropriate and confusing, so I retract it. It's simply my personal opinion and it's also largely colored by my experience with his String Quartets, which I have heard performed by the Emerson String Quartet. Perhaps their performances of them was what I found annoying; to be sure of that, I would have to hear more performances of those pieces.

I'm glad you retract it.  However, you still haven't explained what you originally meant by it.

I said Chopin is overrated because he receives too much attention, attention which he doesn't deserve and which other, lesser known composers could be receiving. You said this is not related to the issue with which this thread deals, and then I pointed out you spoke of Medtner in the same way. You said he is overrated because he is getting more fans than he deserves, which is the same as what I said about Chopin.

Except for the fact that nobody was talking about Chopin, at that point, hence why your statement was incomprehensible, to the point by which you had hoped it would make.

I never tried to imply Shostakovich is a fad by using comparisons with your attitude towards Medtner. I don't know how this confusion came about. Notice also, that I'm not calling you anything and complaining about your grasp of my words (which you enjoy doing).

I never said that you did.  I said it was a possibility, among others.  Please read your previous post to see why I would say that; you have two blocks of text quoted next to one another, with no extrapolation between them.  One is about Medtner, and one is about Shostakovich, with the comments about Medtner being a "fad" reoutlined in bold lettering.  Care to explain why?

Sure, but it's inaccurate. It's certainly not the way I'd go about judging a composer. Tell me, when you first hear a piece by a new composer, do you immediately proceed to say he is decent/mediocre/great/bad/awful? In my mind it's not a wise decision, but if you think Pachelbel can be justifiably judged on the basis of only one piece, well, fine. Also, I didn't say the opposite of anything. Just read my post again. It may have been the opposite of the way you understood my post, but not of the way in which I meant it and which I explained later.

It doesn't matter.  Pachelbel isn't overrated because you think he's a good composer.  He's overrated because a billion people like his stupid Canon.  Those people aren't thinking about the rest of his repertoire.  Therefore, he is overrated.  Would you prefer the term "overappreciated, given knowledge of those who appreciate him"?  Perhaps that alternate and expanded definition of "overrated" illustrates the point.

Do you think Mahler's DLVDE or his Symphonies Nos. 4 and 7 consist of nothing but "massive blobs of FFFF"? And if you do not think that, then why did you use such a sweeping generalization?

Yes.  Do you think I am being literal when I say "FFFF", or do you think I am using it figuratively?  Would you prefer "dense", "heterophonic" and "monochromatic"?  They are pointless works, to me.  Whatever their point is, I'm not interested in it, nor are my ears interested in the ride.  This is a subjective opinion, and I never claimed it to be anything but that.  However, there are certainly more works by Mahler that fit my case than yours.

You said Medtner is too repetitive, I pointed out that the inner logic of his music and the purpose of his repetitiveness can be obfuscated by inadequate performances and cited an example of that (or at least something which I view as an example of that). Since you are so well versed in logic, could you at least tell me which part of my argument was faulty, please? Did I use a flawed premise? Was my point about the Sonata-allegro form a non-sequitur? Or did I make some other logical mistake?

A mechanical purpose or ideology for repetition is not germane to the acousmatic, aesthetic experience.  This is why I find such an argument irrelevant.  I do not find a notable difference in voicing, sonority or chromaticism in the recording you posted to have my feeling on the work change.  Logical errors abound in your posts.  There are surely more than a handful in my own.  Even Wittgenstein or Kripke would count themselves incredibly lucky to write even such a small amount of material on aesthetics and subjective interest in works of music and avoid any fallacies.  It's pointless to list them out.  There would be tens - maybe even 100+ -, and calling them by their formal names (no pun intended) would be a massive waste of time, as the more important ones have already been noted.

Oh I do love it when John pays a visit.

Do you ever feel like the boring in-law who vastly overstays his welcome?

The interesting thing is that he doesn't mind having long discussions with people he deems complete idiots, but he is not willing to talk with me (although I'm probably still too stupid for him, considering his IQ is supposed to be 205). Just look at this, for instance:

I'm glad you care so much to surf through my previous posts; if you get closer and closer to that proverbial corner, will you literally start to bark?  I'm sorry, but I won't be bothering with reciprocation.  I do hope you aren't under the delusion that you can embarrass me: I'm not interested in being nice, so your excerpts do very little, not that I think anyone here was getting the impression I was especially worried about my moral standing.  Quite useful what you did there, isn't it?

My IQ might be 205.  Personally, I think that number's a bit high.  I scored a 220 on the Sigma VI Supplement, but only 187 on the actual Sigma Test (Version 4).  205 is an average: I've typically scored 190-195 on high ceiling tests.  The 220 pushes it up a bit.  I might have tacked on a few points for "x or higher", admittedly, as I broke the ceiling on two of Hoeflin's.  An honest self-appraisal would put me in the low 190's, to be honest.  Thanks for bringing that up!  You know, it's hard to fit into a conversation, but if you're going to oblige me like that. . .

Regarding whether you're an idiot or not.  I'd say no, but I think you vastly overvalue the difference between yourself and someone with more. . . pedestrian sensibilities. . . when it comes to how someone like me views and interacts with someone like you.

I have not read Adorno's work on Mahler, but I know enough about it to be dissuaded from giving it much value.  It is in direct opposition to nearly all of his own teachings, and has little to do with reason, and much to do with fan-gushing.  From what I understand, it is flowery idolization of Mahler's lack of concession to trend and his works' strong sense of evocation.

[thalbergmad]

Do you ever feel like the boring in-law who vastly overstays his welcome?

More like a hotelier who puts up with big headed twats knowing their visit will be a short one.

Thal

[john11inc]

More like a hotelier who puts up with big headed twats knowing their visit will be a short one.

Thal

I just picture you moping in the corner of a hotel lobby, pining about how you wish you went to school so you could afford those nice suits all of your guests wear, but then go console yourself in the company of the kitchen staff, talking about their "excess" you secretly wish you had, intermittently bemoaning how your tips have been steadily declining, lately.  Couldn't possibly be your fault; blame it on the jerks!

Of course, the irony in that is that you used to drive a TVR, if I'm not mistaken?  Well, only for the enjoyment of it, of course (certainly not compensation, and I'm not talking about penile).  I feel kind of bad ragging on you, given what I know about some of your issues (and I'm feeling above pot shots, at the moment), but maybe you shouldn't bring it on yourself, unless you enjoy it for the same reasons you try to deride me of.  Just jealous that I'm better at it, or don't you like my style?  Erudition over a delusive, causal, self-preserving "brevity is the soul of wit" get on your nerves?

[thalbergmad]

I just picture you sitting at a large table in a restaurant waiting for someone to speak so you can immediately shoot them down and assert your superiority. When everybody ignores you at the after dinner dance, you blame it on them as it couldn't possibly be anything to do with you. After all, you have such a high IQ.

Of course, the irony is that you used to drive a SAAB, if I am not mistaken. Well, only for the enjoyment of it (nothing penile).

Please do not feel bad about ragging on me and if you want to tell the entire forum about my homosexual phase, please feel free. You might come out with something funny.

Anyway, I am pleased to advise that I was cured shortly after.

Luv

Thal

[john11inc]

A 1989 Saab; I think there is a big difference between the connotations of "Saab" and "1989 Saab".  I wasn't referring to your homosexual phase; why would I rag on you about that?  I mean, I'm plenty of things, but hypocrite is not one of them.  I was talking about some of the to-remain-unnamed issues that surrounded that.  I was not implying that I would bring them up, although I figured you would interpret it that way.  I was too lazy to fix it.  Originally, I wrote that phrase referring to the "penile" comment, but then it was stretched away from that comment.

I don't think you understand me.  Regarding intellectual superiority, it is a factual statement that, in comparison to a random person, I will usually be superior.  However, I do not go out of my way to hoist that around.  Enjoyment from activities in which such occurs is not derived, primally and innately, from the act of "being" and/or "appearing" and/or "feeling" superior.  I do not have a need to do so.  Occasionally, but rarely, I might mention my academic credentials, but not simply for the sake thereof, but instead to qualify a statement.  As well, I very rarely do that unless someone else has brought it up.  I'm not completely uninhibited, or ignorant to how such statements look.  Of course, this is typically overlooked, based on people's laziness to assess situations, and instead cling to incomplete, simple, social cues and paradigms.

I enjoy arguing, philosophy, logic and linguistics.  Combine these interests with a long-winded writing style and I can superficially appear to qualify for how you describe me.  I do not enjoy stupidity or slowness, but I don't loathe them.  What I loathe are unqualified statements, and unqualified egos.  Most egos are unqualified, particularly from my generation.  They make me resentful; being knowledgeable is hard work, so why should I allow someone to pretend they've done the work I actually have?  When I encounter such, I often reduce to a harsh tone more quickly than most, because, while I almost never get "angry" (and certainly never over something on the internet), I am quick to become frustrated or exasperated.  Sorry, but this is a character flaw I have been incapable of fixing.  And, of course, one quickly realizes there isn't a point in continuing the conversation with a person who exasperates you; I realize this.  I just enjoy the activities of the aftermath, as well.  Never is the intent to pleasure my ego by engaging in conflicts in which I feel superior over; I enjoy the conflict itself.  It falls into place among many of my interests.

[thalbergmad]

Honest and enlightening post.

Thanks for that.

Thal

[john11inc]

I don't want to make it sound like I'm not aware of my flaws, though.  There are infinitely more respectful ways to go about saying what I have to say.

[gep]

Do you ever feel like the boring in-law who vastly overstays his welcome?

Can't answer for Thal (he can do that quite well, I think), but you provide exellent examples of having one.

Regarding intellectual superiority, it is a factual statement that, in comparison to a random person, I will usually be superior. 

A laugh a day keeps the doctor away they say. So I aint in need for one the whole year now, if that's true...

What I loathe are unqualified statements, and unqualified egos.

So how do you live with yourself, I ask?

.  And, of course, one quickly realizes there isn't a point in continuing the conversation with a person who exasperates you; I realize this.  I just enjoy the activities of the aftermath, as well.  Never is the intent to pleasure my ego by engaging in conflicts in which I feel superior over; I enjoy the conflict itself.  It falls into place among many of my interests.

And you make lots and lots of friends, of course!

My IQ might be 205.  Personally, I think that number's a bit high.  I scored a 220 on the Sigma VI Supplement, but only 187 on the actual Sigma Test (Version 4).  205 is an average: I've typically scored 190-195 on high ceiling tests.  The 220 pushes it up a bit.  I might have tacked on a few points for "x or higher", admittedly, as I broke the ceiling on two of Hoeflin's.  An honest self-appraisal would put me in the low 190's, to be honest.

But you do not brag about it, thankfully... At least yours is a case that proves high IQ has absolutely nothing to do with being a worthwhile person. Sadly, I'm way dumber than you are, but you know what, I've at least got a personality that isn't pathological...

Enjoy yourself, nobody else does... No, that is not true; of course you will attract some who enjoy being with you, but then, so does horse dung, and for the same reason

gep

[thalbergmad]

Oh no, we were just beginning a new era of understanding and I think you might have taken us back a step .

Thal

[john11inc]

And you make lots and lots of friends, of course!

Only goes to show how little you understand.  Do you really think I want you as my friend?  

[gep]

Only goes to show how little you understand.  Do you really think I want you as my friend?  

Only goes to show how little you understand.  Do you really think I want you as my friend? 

gep

[john11inc]

Only goes to show how little you understand.  Do you really think I want you as my friend?  

gep

I don't know if that is a better example of your misunderstanding of logic or of English.  Please, oh please, in italics, because it makes sentences so cool, explain how that is germane.

Even better, please explain what I meant by my statement.  Surely you don't just randomly respond to things you don't even understand!

[magio]

The most underrated composer is me and the most overrated is the one i wish i was!

[chopinmozart7]

The most overrated composer/(music-destoyer) is Boulez. I HATE HIS SO CALLED "MUSIC" AND I CAN´T STAND HIM FOR A MINUTE.!!!!!

[ahinton]

The most overrated composer/(music-destoyer) is Boulez. I HATE HIS SO CALLED "MUSIC" AND I CAN´T STAND HIM FOR A MINUTE.!!!!!

And just how much - and which works - of Boulez have you listened to? I am no unequivocial admirer of Boulez's music myself, but your statement, which goes beyond mere personal opinion, seems to me to take little account of the entirety of Boulez the composer and may, I suspect, be based almost entirely upon just some of the works that he wrote in the two decades or so from the late 1940s. The sheer absurdity of your description of this eminent conductor as a "music-destroyer" is all too self-evident.

Best,

Alistair

[richterfan1]

Prokofiev

[djealnla]

I already did mention specific things you failed to mention, in my post above, particularly pertaining to comments made in previous posts that were necessary to contextualize proceeding comments.  Do you want me to do it again, for some reason?

I'll reread it and see if I get it or not.

I'm glad you retract it.  However, you still haven't explained what you originally meant by it.

I might buy a few Shostakovich scores to grasp better what I dislike about his use of dissonances. For now I'd say I dislike them because they are employed in such a way that they do not allow me any relief. However, this statement is still too vague, considering I enjoy extremely aggressive music like Xenakis' Synaphaï.

Except for the fact that nobody was talking about Chopin, at that point, hence why your statement was incomprehensible, to the point by which you had hoped it would make.

I was using an analogy; I was comparing my reasoning with yours.

I never said that you did.  I said it was a possibility, among others.  Please read your previous post to see why I would say that; you have two blocks of text quoted next to one another, with no extrapolation between them.  One is about Medtner, and one is about Shostakovich, with the comments about Medtner being a "fad" reoutlined in bold lettering.  Care to explain why?

OK, I get you now (at least I hope I do). The "see below" remark does not refer to what follows immediately, it refers to a later portion of the text. Perhaps I shouldn't have written it, the paragraph would have been clearer.

It doesn't matter.  Pachelbel isn't overrated because you think he's a good composer.  He's overrated because a billion people like his stupid Canon.  Those people aren't thinking about the rest of his repertoire.  Therefore, he is overrated.  Would you prefer the term "overappreciated, given knowledge of those who appreciate him"?  Perhaps that alternate and expanded definition of "overrated" illustrates the point.

Let me use a different analogy. Some random guy comes to you and says: "Classical music sucks." You reply: "What classical music have you heard?" He says: "I have heard Für Elise, Rondo alla Turca and that slow piece called Elvira Madigan. It's banal, sleep-inducing, relies on simple harmonies, and it's filled with clichés. I'd much rather listen to the music of Joy Division." Would you take such a person seriously? You would probably tell him that he is ignorant of music history and should listen to more classical music. According to your logic, I could say the following: "Uninteresting pieces like Brahms' Lullaby, Beethoven's Für Elise, Pachelbel's Canon or Liszt's 2nd Hungarian Rhapsody get played so often and so much more than they deserve to be played, that I can say without the slightest shadow of a doubt that classical music is overrated and overplayed." To me, that is absurd.

Yes.  Do you think I am being literal when I say "FFFF", or do you think I am using it figuratively?  Would you prefer "dense", "heterophonic" and "monochromatic"?  They are pointless works, to me.  Whatever their point is, I'm not interested in it, nor are my ears interested in the ride.  This is a subjective opinion, and I never claimed it to be anything but that.  However, there are certainly more works by Mahler that fit my case than yours.

I would prefer it. There's a large difference between disliking something because you perceive it as monotonous and because it's filled with sheer percussiveness.

A mechanical purpose or ideology for repetition is not germane to the acousmatic, aesthetic experience.  This is why I find such an argument irrelevant.

OK, it's a non-sequitur then, right?

Logical errors abound in your posts.  There are surely more than a handful in my own.  Even Wittgenstein or Kripke would count themselves incredibly lucky to write even such a small amount of material on aesthetics and subjective interest in works of music and avoid any fallacies.

Aren't such discussions pointless in that case? Is there even such a thing such as objective dislike?

I'm glad you care so much to surf through my previous posts; if you get closer and closer to that proverbial corner, will you literally start to bark?  I'm sorry, but I won't be bothering with reciprocation.  I do hope you aren't under the delusion that you can embarrass me: I'm not interested in being nice, so your excerpts do very little, not that I think anyone here was getting the impression I was especially worried about my moral standing.  Quite useful what you did there, isn't it?

I wasn't seeking to embarrass you; rather, I chose to show that you apparently prefer dealing with fools instead of mildly educated people. I do not surf through your past posts regularly, but I do happen to frequently read threads in which you have contributed.

My IQ might be 205.  Personally, I think that number's a bit high.  I scored a 220 on the Sigma VI Supplement, but only 187 on the actual Sigma Test (Version 4).  205 is an average: I've typically scored 190-195 on high ceiling tests.  The 220 pushes it up a bit.  I might have tacked on a few points for "x or higher", admittedly, as I broke the ceiling on two of Hoeflin's.  An honest self-appraisal would put me in the low 190's, to be honest.  Thanks for bringing that up!  You know, it's hard to fit into a conversation, but if you're going to oblige me like that. . .

220 would pretty much make you the smartest person in the world, which isn't impossible, but I have reasons for doubting that.

Regarding whether you're an idiot or not.  I'd say no, but I think you vastly overvalue the difference between yourself and someone with more. . . pedestrian sensibilities. . . when it comes to how someone like me views and interacts with someone like you.

I didn't ask you about my intelligence. For what it may or may not be worth, I took one IQ test today and scored 142, which would place me (based on your estimates of yourself) some 50 points below you.

I have not read Adorno's work on Mahler, but I know enough about it to be dissuaded from giving it much value.  It is in direct opposition to nearly all of his own teachings, and has little to do with reason, and much to do with fan-gushing.  From what I understand, it is flowery idolization of Mahler's lack of concession to trend and his works' strong sense of evocation.

 

[djealnla]

I don't want to make it sound like I'm not aware of my flaws, though.  There are infinitely more respectful ways to go about saying what I have to say.

No problem at all, your reply to my now-no-longer last post was completely fine.

[gep]

The most overrated composer/(music-destoyer) is Boulez. I HATE HIS SO CALLED "MUSIC" AND I CAN´T STAND HIM FOR A MINUTE.!!!!!

Stepping aside the rather overheated and pretty nonsense second sentence, I must disagree with the first too. I would agree that in some 20th Centrury music the "method" seems more important than the resulting music (think total serialism, computer-generated music [Xenakis' ST-pieces]; but also "socialist realism' at its worst and such), but in Boulez's case that happens only to a few, and rather early pieces. I do not know all that much of his music, but what I know I generally like, such as Pli selon Pli (of which I have an earlier version and the, at present, final one), or Le Marteau sans Maître. There is much beauty and such to be found in his music, but appreciating it needs some acoustic fine tuning in the ears. That Boulez sounds so much "harder" or even more "alien" may be very much due to lack of experience. Beethoven III is much more well known (or at least much more heard...) than Le Marteau, but in its day, Beethoven III was as much a violation of "general taste" as Le Marteau was at its inception.
Pli selon Pli may be harder work to appreciate than, say, L.Mozart's Toy Symphony, but it is, at least for me, infinitely easier to appreciate than about 99,99999999% of all "Pop"-drizzle I had/have the misfortune of not being able to avoid....

all best,
gep