As soon as I have finished with Bridgewater.
I have a feeling I will need something a little lighter before this Time's Arrow.
"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?
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.
Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, Krenek. Random notes I can invent and play at any time. [Knocks head for not mentioning them before].
And then some. And some more.
One should never listen to Lennox Berkeley without a crate of lager to dampen the senses.
Even if it was Stella Artois??
Underrated: Wilhelm StenhammarOverrated: Messiaen, Stravinskij, Mussorgsky
Schubert. I hate is [sic] music.
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.
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).
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 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.
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.
Perhaps, but Milhaud gets played so little that I would never consider him overrated.
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.
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.
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'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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I agree that Mahler's 8th Symphony is overcomposed, but there is much more to Mahler than that.
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 the he is repetitive and easy to like, and I'm sure many others think the same.
I don't understand your objection. Can you amplify and/or cite specific instances of this?
No. I qualified my statements regarding Medtner, beyond what I viewed to be a momentary surge in his popularity.
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".
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?
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.
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.
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:
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.
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?
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
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 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.
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.
What points? You made no points.
Oh I do love it when John pays a visit.I wonder how long this one will last Thal
Either way, it kind of makes me disinterested in continuing this, and I probably won't after this post.
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:SkeptopotamusSoliloquyI_love_XenakisI_heart_Xenakiss_bussottiIkedianferret_dancemeowmixOeilladeProbably 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#msg412743https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=26169.msg412665#msg412665https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=26169.msg412671#msg412671https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=26169.msg412677#msg412677https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=26054.msg412623#msg412623https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=26054.msg412607#msg412607https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=26054.msg412435#msg412435https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=35841.msg412721#msg412721Undeniable 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.
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.
I didn't know any of them was familiar with Medtner's music. But anyway, let's get past that and discuss this topic.
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 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 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).
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.
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?
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?
Oh I do love it when John pays a visit.
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:
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
Regarding intellectual superiority, it is a factual statement that, in comparison to a random person, I will usually be superior.
What I loathe are unqualified statements, and unqualified egos.
. 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.
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.
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?
Only goes to show how little you understand. Do you really think I want you as my friend? gep
The most overrated composer/(music-destoyer) is Boulez. I HATE HIS SO CALLED "MUSIC" AND I CAN´T STAND HIM FOR A MINUTE.!!!!!
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'm glad you retract it. However, you still haven't explained what you originally meant by it.
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 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?
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.
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.
A mechanical purpose or ideology for repetition is not germane to the acousmatic, aesthetic experience. This is why I find such an argument irrelevant.
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.
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.
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.
Topic: the most over played and overrated composer is... 