Hardest Classical Piece?

[gyzzzmo]

Looks like its only hard to read because it's such a ridiculous notation, i doubt its hard to play.

[ahinton]

Looks like its only hard to read because it's such a ridiculous notation, i doubt its hard to play.

Before judging the quality or appropriateness of the notation of this music, it might be as well to determine whether or not it could have been set out more simply; if not, the problem would therefore appear to be one of whether it is possible for even a listener reasonably accustomed to "new complexity" music to perceive precisely what is notated when it is performed more or less as notated (in the sense of being able to identify any difference/s between what is notated and what is being played). This extract is perhaps a particularly obvious example of this problem but it is neverthless one of many - and one whose only "simplicity" is in the sheer lack of notes in its texture (plenty of examples in Finnissy, for example, have far more notes to the square centimetre that this does).

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Does the term "New Complexity" refer to the notes or the music, or both??

Thal

[john11inc]

Yes, Gordon Downie's "Piano Piece No. 2".  I just spoke to the composer this morning and ordered the sheet music, and he gave me a couple more score samples.  Here are some more snippets from this piece (which I have officially put on the tier 1 list of most impossible piano music ever, No. 3 being almost as hard in a totally different way):














HAH.  Standard-notated 256th notes, btw.  First time I've seen that.

[john11inc]

Before judging the quality or appropriateness of the notation of this music, it might be as well to determine whether or not it could have been set out more simply; if not, the problem would therefore appear to be one of whether it is possible for even a listener reasonably accustomed to "new complexity" music to perceive precisely what is notated when it is performed more or less as notated (in the sense of being able to identify any difference/s between what is notated and what is being played). This extract is perhaps a particularly obvious example of this problem but it is neverthless one of many - and one whose only "simplicity" is in the sheer lack of notes in its texture (plenty of examples in Finnissy, for example, have far more notes to the square centimetre that this does).

Best,

Alistair

I'd say it certainly could be notated more simply in at least one regard, that being the accent markings (2/56 + 1/8 + 3/40?), but I'd also say that it shouldn't be notated any more simply than it is.  This is New Complexity, after all; the point isn't necessarily for the notation to transcend from the pages into the listeners' minds.  Rather, the point being that it's monstrously impossible for the pianist so-as to employ a sense of physicality and struggle between the performer and the music (although in this case, I would think it's more of a mental anguish than a brute struggle), assuming the raison d'etre falls in line with the text-book motives of "New Complexity" writing.  Although, again, in an explanation of the piece he gives a reason for the ridiculous articulation patterns, which is to reaffirm association of temporal distance between the pitches, which causes "durational migration"; basically, to make an even bigger mess of your brain while you play it than normal.

Also, I believe Fur Elise has more notes per square centimeter, even!

[gyzzzmo]

I'd say it certainly could be notated more simply in at least one regard, that being the accent markings (2/56 + 1/8 + 3/40?), but I'd also say that it shouldn't be notated any more simply than it is.  This is New Complexity, after all; the point isn't necessarily for the notation to transcend from the pages into the listeners' minds.  Rather, the point being that it's monstrously impossible for the pianist so-as to employ a sense of physicality and struggle between the performer and the music (although in this case, I would think it's more of a mental anguish than a brute struggle), assuming the raison d'etre falls in line with the text-book motives of "New Complexity" writing.  Although, again, in an explanation of the piece he gives a reason for the ridiculous articulation patterns, which is to reaffirm association of temporal distance between the pitches, which causes "durational migration"; basically, to make an even bigger mess of your brain while you play it than normal.

Also, I believe Fur Elise has more notes per square centimeter, even!

So the composer might have wrote it rather to annoy the pianist instead of giving somebody something to listen to?

[ahinton]

I'd say it certainly could be notated more simply in at least one regard, that being the accent markings (2/56 + 1/8 + 3/40?), but I'd also say that it shouldn't be notated any more simply than it is.  This is New Complexity, after all; the point isn't necessarily for the notation to transcend from the pages into the listeners' minds.  Rather, the point being that it's monstrously impossible for the pianist so-as to employ a sense of physicality and struggle between the performer and the music (although in this case, I would think it's more of a mental anguish than a brute struggle), assuming the raison d'etre falls in line with the text-book motives of "New Complexity" writing.  Although, again, in an explanation of the piece he gives a reason for the ridiculous articulation patterns, which is to reaffirm association of temporal distance between the pitches, which causes "durational migration"; basically, to make an even bigger mess of your brain while you play it than normal.

That's pretty much where it's at, I fear. This whole business of the struggle for the pianist to accomplish what's written was, if I recall, something to which Liszt drew attention in regard to the "difficulty" of some of his own music in terms of its relation to his perception that it should be possible to play such works as the Hammerklavier without being at the edge of one's pianistic abilities when so doing, but in a sense some of the "(now no longer) new complexity" music is designed to take the opposite stance in that the struggle to achieve the well-nigh impossible is a conscious integral part of it. Given that the customary purpose of writing music is so that it may be heard via the medium of the performer, this stance might therefore appear to relegate some of this kind of repertoire either to the category of academic exercise or to that of the performer's effort being more important than the success of the achievement. Some of Brian Ferneyhough's work tends towards the kind of situation where making a mess of the performer's brain (as you put it) seems to be part of its purpose (although there's a lot more to a lot of it than just that, of course). As Busoni said to Sorabji, "music is there to be heard" and I'm afraid that when the setting up of a kind of elemental duel between the demands of the music and the performer's struggles to overcome them leads to near-impossibilities, the object would appear to become self-defeating as music.

Also, I believe Fur Elise has more notes per square centimeter, even!

!!!

Best,

Alistair

[john11inc]

That's pretty much where it's at, I fear. This whole business of the struggle for the pianist to accomplish what's written was, if I recall, something to which Liszt drew attention in regard to the "difficulty" of some of his own music in terms of its relation to his perception that it should be possible to play such works as the Hammerklavier without being at the edge of one's pianistic abilities when so doing, but in a sense some of the "(now no longer) new complexity" music is designed to take the opposite stance in that the struggle to achieve the well-nigh impossible is a conscious integral part of it. Given that the customary purpose of writing music is so that it may be heard via the medium of the performer, this stance might therefore appear to relegate some of this kind of repertoire either to the category of academic exercise or to that of the performer's effort being more important than the success of the achievement. Some of Brian Ferneyhough's work tends towards the kind of situation where making a mess of the performer's brain (as you put it) seems to be part of its purpose (although there's a lot more to a lot of it than just that, of course). As Busoni said to Sorabji, "music is there to be heard" and I'm afraid that when the setting up of a kind of elemental duel between the demands of the music and the performer's struggles to overcome them leads to near-impossibilities, the object would appear to become self-defeating as music.
!!!

Best,

Alistair

All good and mostly true, the rest personal opinion that, obviously, can't be argued with.  But we also have to remember that, despite what the sheet music may look like, we can assume that *some* sort of ruckus is going to come out of the piano, so perhaps we should decide if we enjoy the piece on an aesthetic basis after hearing, rather than before.

Personally, my feelings float between "like" and "rather enjoy" on this one; it's certainly different than what one hears the most of from this group, at least, which has to count for something.  New is always at least a *bit* good.  It has an immediate aesthetic somewhere between Stockhausen's Klavierstuck VI-VIII and Herma to me.


Edit- Also, that freeze frame of Pace is pretty hilarious.

[gyzzzmo]

I'll probably be the cultural barbarian by saying this, but i find this 'music' utter crap. But i suppose if i hadnt had any talent for anything, i'd probably try making money out of composing some random notes too.

[john11inc]

I'll probably be the cultural barbarian by saying this, but i find this 'music' utter crap. But i suppose if i hadnt had any talent for anything, i'd probably try making money out of composing some random notes too.

Would love to know what you are talented at, then

[iroveashe]

This kind of pieces feel to me as the equivalent of a building designed in such a way that only people 10 feet tall and no wider than 12 inches can use.

[ahinton]

All good and mostly true, the rest personal opinion that, obviously, can't be argued with.  But we also have to remember that, despite what the sheet music may look like, we can assume that *some* sort of ruckus is going to come out of the piano, so perhaps we should decide if we enjoy the piece on an aesthetic basis after hearing, rather than before.

"Some sort of ruckus" is inevitably going to emerge from the piano whenever anyone attempts to play music like this, of course, although I don't know who else does play this particular work, actually (I've never heard it from any of the usual possibilities such as Nicolas Hodges, Jonathan Powell et al); to what extent even a seasoned listener to contemporary music of various kinds will be able to determine how close such a "ruckus" may be to the composer's notated intentions may, however, be less certain. Of course any credible decision on how we react to a piece must be made after hearing it and not before; I first heard this quite a while back and, having listened to it again, I fear that its disjecta membra-like procedures and gestures still don't do it for me - it just happens not to be my kind of thing. Pace's sense of geography is generally as reliable as it needs to be for this kind of playing (although he overshoots at one point but rescues himself before putting his finger down). The fact that, unlike much so-called "new complexity" piano music, this work is so reliant on each hand playing only one note at a time tends to make Pace's very occasional split notes notice rather more than otherwise they might. One down(ie)side of the kind of notation involved is that it gives the page-turner a lot more work to do that would more usually be the case and one may suppose that such extent of page-turning activity might risk being something of an additional distraction for the pianist who could really do without it when tackling such music. I don't know about the freeze frame but, for the live listener, Pace's sometimes jerky, almost marionette-like physical movements while playing might well be an equal distraction from the individual sounds and what they may add up to; one may suppose that at least some of these movements help him towards correct rhythmic enuncuation, but it's not an especially pretty sight.

Personally, my feelings float between "like" and "rather enjoy" on this one; it's certainly different than what one hears the most of from this group, at least, which has to count for something.

That's probably due in part to the paucity of notes being sounded at any one time, I imagine.

New is always at least a *bit* good.

I cannot see a way to agree with you there; new is new and good is good and sometimes the twain shall meet and sometimes not, a fact which may not actually be lost on the likes of Karl Jenkins but is no doubt discreetly ignored by their bankers.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Interesting clip.

Is it the first time in history where the page turner has worked harder than the pianist?

Thal

[ahinton]

Interesting clip.

Is it the first time in history where the page turner has worked harder than the pianist?

Whilst I don't consider this to be a fair assessment of the duties of the two people involved, I take your point nevertheless (as should in any case have been clear from my own earlier remarks about the page-turning part of this exercise).

Best,

Alistair

[retrouvailles]

Interesting clip.

Is it the first time in history where the page turner has worked harder than the pianist?

Thal

I wouldn't say that. There are some pieces by George Crumb that are not only very good works, but work the page turner to death (and sometimes even call for the page turner to play notes [and not easy passages, either]).

[thalbergmad]

(as should in any case have been clear from my own earlier remarks about the page-turning part of this exercise).

If i had read your remarks, it would have been clear to me.

Thal

[richard black]

I'm afraid the first and last thing I invariably find myself thinking on looking at scores like that Downie is to do with the unutterable arrogance of anyone who thinks that's worth anyone's while to try and unravel. The fact that the occasional Pace comes along and attempts it doesn't alter my view at all.

[ahinton]

If i had read your remarks, it would have been clear to me.

If you haven't (as appears to be the case), how can you be sure of that?

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Well, your posts are clarity itself.

Any snow in your area? I could hardly get out of the drive.

Thal

[ahinton]

Well, your posts are clarity itself.

Thank you. I do try! That said, just as john11inch rightly observes, the time to judge one's reaction to a piece is after hearing it rather than before doing so, I would neither like nor expect my clarity of verbal expression to be taken for granted and would therefore have hoped that you might judge the clarity or otherwise of my remarks about the page-turner's rōle with scores such as this one after having read them rather before doing so, much as I am flattered by your evident willingness to take them on trust!

Any snow in your area? I could hardly get out of the drive.

Fortunately not; even the nearby Black Mountains have yet to turn white. It seems that, so far, the east and south-east of England and parts of Scotland have had the worst of it, although how long it may be before it moves sufficiently far west to cause problems between here and the south coast I cannot be certain; I can only hope that the route from here to Portsmouth will be relatively trouble free this coming Monday, as I will be taking a ferry from there to France. I hope that the weather problems in Gravesend clear up rapidly.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Are there any nests in the works of Messiaen??

[retrouvailles]

Are there any nests in the works of Messiaen??

I am sure there are some nested tuplets in Messiaen somewhere. It isn't that odd. Even Chopin and Rachmaninoff, among many other common practice composers, have used them. Why do you ask specifically about Messiaen?

[pianowolfi]

I am sure there are some nested tuplets in Messiaen somewhere. It isn't that odd. Even Chopin and Rachmaninoff, among many other common practice composers, have used them. Why do you ask specifically about Messiaen?

Perhaps he thought where there's a bird there must be a nest

[ahinton]

Perhaps he thought where there's a bird there must be a nest

Indeed - and one could so easily see that one coming! (it was surely only a matter of time) - not that a tuplet is a known ornithological term, however...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

It appears I am becoming too predictable (to some)

Thal

[retrouvailles]

Perhaps he thought where there's a bird there must be a nest

Wow, I am an idiot. How did I not catch the joke? Heh.

[furtwaengler]

(Whatever I wrote here did not make a lick of sense, and I know that.)

[gyzzzmo]

The fun of these pieces is that the audience has no idea if the performer is hitting wrong notes, so its excellent for the novice player who wants some stage experience

[john11inc]

The fun of these pieces is that the audience has no idea if the performer is hitting wrong notes, so its excellent for the novice player who wants some stage experience

The fun of these pieces is that the audience, after the performance, throws a big party, enjoying its exclusivity.  (You're not invited.)

Oh, also because the music is good; not everyone judges music solely on "omg octaves".

[samjohnson]

Oh, also because the music is good; not everyone judges music solely on "omg octaves".

How do you judge music?  Precisely what are the qualities of the 'New Complexity' (besides originality and exclusivity) that make it enjoyable/worth listening to?

I have asked this question to many and am yet to receive a good answer.

[john11inc]

How do you judge music?  Precisely what are the qualities of the 'New Complexity' (besides originality and exclusivity) that make it enjoyable/worth listening to?

I have asked this question to many and am yet to receive a good answer.

You haven't gotten a good answer (according to you) because your question is horrible and vague.  You need to tell me which of these questions you're asking:

1- What are the defining ideologies and aesthetics of New Complexity music?
2- What makes seemingly random music enjoyable to you?
3- Why is this music "worth listening" to, i.e. what sociological purpose does it serve?
4- Are the defining ideologies and aesthetics of New Complexity merit enough to enjoy this music?
5- Are the defining ideologies and aesthetics of New Complexity apparent aurally?

[samjohnson]

You haven't gotten a good answer (according to you) because your question is horrible and vague.  You need to tell me which of these questions you're asking:

1- What are the defining ideologies and aesthetics of New Complexity music?
2- What makes seemingly random music enjoyable to you?
3- Why is this music "worth listening" to, i.e. what sociological purpose does it serve?
4- Are the defining ideologies and aesthetics of New Complexity merit enough to enjoy this music?
5- Are the defining ideologies and aesthetics of New Complexity apparent aurally?

Why don't you assume that I am asking all of them (even though you can be sure I would never say something so pretentious and unlettered as they all are, or as nonsensical as number three happens to be..) and inform the admittedly uninformed.

Thank you in advance,

sj

[john11inc]

Why don't you assume that I am asking all of them (even though you can be sure I would never say something so pretentious and unlettered as they all are, or as nonsensical as number three happens to be..) and inform the admittedly uninformed.

Thank you in advance,

sj

First, I'd like to know what/who is unlettered.  Also, why number three is apparently "nonsensical" to you.  Consequently, if it is nonsense, I'd like to know why I should bother to answer it.

I'd also like to know why I should bother to answer any of your questions, given your tone.  You're not exactly coming off as receptive, so to speak.  I am not interested in entertaining you by giving you legitimate answers to legitimate questions for the sole purpose of you attempting to diffuse them and engage in some pointless lexicofellatio with me (which we both know would truly be autofellatio, despite what I may say, an endeavor you're free to indulge in without my assistance).

[richard black]

How do you judge music?

Based on whether I like it - and specifically, whether I like it enough, and deeply enough, to want to listen to it again and again and again. I think that's really the only honest answer anyone can give!

[scottmcc]

john, instead of attacking the questioner, perhaps you could try to answer the question?  seriously, if you can't answer a basic, honest question about your beloved new complexity, how can you really claim to be one of its biggest exponents?  or are we falling back into the standard pro-modernist argument that anyone who doesn't recognize the supposed genius of the work in question is clearly just not smart enough/good enough/large-genitaled enough, and not that the work in question is somehow deficient?

I'll pose a question of my own:  if you can't understand a piece of music just by listening to it, is it any good?

[john11inc]

I'll pose a question of my own:  if you can't understand a piece of music just by listening to it, is it any good?

It's a stupid question, because what you may be able to understand and what I may be able to understand is entirely different.  Your argument is based on the false premise of a juxtaposition of infallibility and subjectivity.

Let me pose a question to you, now.  And answer it, unless you'd like to make a hypocrite of yourself (referring to the rest of the body of your post, which is already hypocritical, as it is an attack on me and this music while simultaneously bitching that I attack).


If someone asks a stupid question, does it deserve an elaborate response?

Another question.


If music is too easy to understand and you can anticipate nearly everything that will happen in it, like the works of Bach or Chopin, why would a person enjoy it?  Wouldn't it be like reading a children's book?


Oh.  Before you try to answer, I'm just going to save us both some time and let you know what aren't answers:

"It's pretty".  So?  Pretty to what effect or cause?
"It lifts the spirit".  Ever heard of an atheist?
"It makes me happy".  Doesn't make me happy; must be something subjective there.
"It's well-composed".  I doubt many would be able to tell based purely from hearing.

[samjohnson]

Once one gets passed how obnoxious they are, one can find people who consider themselves to be much smarter than they actually are very entertaining, especially if everyone can see it but them.

[alpacinator1]

Do modern pieces count as "classical"? Personally, I'd say they don't. And as far as the baroque, classical and modern eras go, the msot difficult that I'm aware of is Mereaux's etudes (not sure which one)

[retrouvailles]

Do modern pieces count as "classical"? Personally, I'd say they don't.

Why not? They are still in the classical tradition, in that they are written by composers with the intent of having many people perform them. Sure, they are different sometimes, and you don't always understand them, but they are still considered "classical", or concert music for a better term.

[iroveashe]

If music is too easy to understand and you can anticipate nearly everything that will happen in it, like the works of Bach or Chopin, why would a person enjoy it?

Why wouldn't they? Do you not enjoy your favorite food even if you know what it'll taste like? Do you value the aspect of surprise more than the capability of enjoying a piece (or story, or anything for that matter) over and over again, always discovering new things in a work you thought you "already knew what would happen"? (because you might know what will happen regarding the sound you're hearing, but not what will happen to yourself when you do, unless you listen to music mechanically). I like being surprised, but if I have to choose between something that only works on that element alone at the expense of being coherent or sacrificing many other elements (like movies that rely purely on plot twists); and something more balanced, I choose the 2nd.
 

Wouldn't it be like reading a children's book?

I haven't read Romeo & Juliet and I already know how it ends. Would you consider for that simple reason that Shakespeare was in fact writting children's books?

[gep]

Once one gets passed how obnoxious they are, one can find people who consider themselves to be much smarter than they actually are very entertaining, especially if everyone can see it but them.

Your posts are indeed quite funny sometimes!

[gep]

I think that, in a very basic sense, the question of this thread is futile in the extreme, for how do you define "hard", let alone "hardest"? Hardest to play? Hardest to understand? Hardest to listen to?
Technically, someone at Book One, Lesson One of piano playing will find a Haydn Sonata hard, while for others Ferneyhough will not be a great problem. From a technical point of view, a Bach Invention may not be hard, but perhaps even the greatest pianist may admit (s)he hasn't been able to plumb the full depth of Bach's workings. Personally, I would find it way harder to sit through the whole six hours of Feldman's Quartet II than the six hours of Sorabji's Sequentia Cyclica, even when the latter may be harder in a technical sense.
Also, there is the issue of personal taste, personal growth and learning and personal intention. If Ketelby is the outer edge of your liking, Mahler will be hard. If Blue Danube is the hardest piece you've encountered, Turangalīlā may be a shocker. If you are a person who will listen to a new piece for 5 seconds and then dismiss it (and the whole work of its composer along the way) totally and forever, most music will remain difficult for you.
Life is a learning  process (if not to a depressingly large amount of people...), and what is hard today may be easier tomorrow. When I first heard Messiaen I was baffled, didn't understand it one bit. But through repeated encounters I started to understand the workings behind it and found that I liked it better and better. Nowadays, I seem to have grown beyond Messiaen, not least through my encounters with Sorabji, whose coloristic, harmonic and rhythmic inventiveness makes Messiaen's seem rather pale and formulaic.

Keep your ears and minds open, and the mountain now looming before you may become a mere hill when eventually climbed.

gep

[john11inc]

Once one gets passed how obnoxious they are, one can find people who consider themselves to be much smarter than they actually are very entertaining, especially if everyone can see it but them.

No, actually I find you merely obnoxious.  By the way, I'd like to know your IQ.  Because it's a lot lower than mine.  So if I'm stupid, I want to know what, exactly, that makes you.  A rock?  A pine cone?

Why wouldn't they? Do you not enjoy your favorite food even if you know what it'll taste like? Do you value the aspect of surprise more than the capability of enjoying a piece (or story, or anything for that matter) over and over again, always discovering new things in a work you thought you "already knew what would happen"? (because you might know what will happen regarding the sound you're hearing, but not what will happen to yourself when you do, unless you listen to music mechanically). I like being surprised, but if I have to choose between something that only works on that element alone at the expense of being coherent or sacrificing many other elements (like movies that rely purely on plot twists); and something more balanced, I choose the 2nd.
 I haven't read Romeo & Juliet and I already know how it ends. Would you consider for that simple reason that Shakespeare was in fact writting children's books?

Godddddddddd.  ARGGGGGGGG.

How can you people misunderstand everything I say all the time?  I don't think it's possible for that to happen.  If you all are as smart as you say, you would understand.  You wouldn't need me to write a novel every post to fill in every, single semantic and logical blank and address every, possible, illogical contingency known to man (and monkey, and dog, and cat).

It's just not possible.  That's why I've come to the conclusion that a combination of things is happening for this to happen so often:

A- You're not as smart as you think you are
B- I'm not explaining things thoroughly enough
C- You're not familiar with forensic form
D- You're illogical beings
E- You're just plain ignoring it


Eating pizza has nothing to do with it.  That's a sensory response.  Music works on an intellectual plane.  PIZZA DOES NOT EQUAL SCHOENBERG.  If classical music and a pepperoni pizza stand on the same, intellectual pedestal to you, there is something wrong.

Your Romeo and Juliet example is just as bad, if not worse.  Fine, you enjoy the book "for the ride".  You have to explain what that means, now, for that to be an argument.  Why do you enjoy the ride?  Because it's written beautifully or because it tells a nice story?  You have to explain how that's not subjective (which you can't do).  Personally, I don't like most Shakespeare, and that play is no exception.  So obviously it is subjective.  Also, there's a difference between knowing what's going to happen at the end because you've learned it, and knowing what's going to happen in the end because of the inevitable conclusion you infer from the work itself.

I think that, in a very basic sense, the question of this thread is futile in the extreme, for how do you define "hard", let alone "hardest"? Hardest to play?

Yes, it's a stupid, stupid question, but it's not that subjective.  Hardest to physically play.  This can be quantified by the speed at which X action must be taken in coordination with Y action and the number of simultaneous coordinations.

[iroveashe]

No, actually I find you merely obnoxious.  By the way, I'd like to know your IQ.  Because it's a lot lower than mine.  So if I'm stupid, I want to know what, exactly, that makes you.  A rock?  A pine cone?

If you're smart, you know an IQ test is not a very good tool to measure intelligence and you wouldn't need a higher number to prove it to anyone.

How can you people misunderstand everything I say all the time?  I don't think it's possible for that to happen.  If you all are as smart as you say, you would understand.  You wouldn't need me to write a novel every post to fill in every, single semantic and logical blank and address every, possible, illogical contingency known to man (and monkey, and dog, and cat).

It's just not possible.  That's why I've come to the conclusion that a combination of things is happening for this to happen so often:

A- You're not as smart as you think you are
B- I'm not explaining things thoroughly enough
C- You're not familiar with forensic form
D- You're illogical beings
E- You're just plain ignoring it

There is one much more simple explanation: if everyone keeps misunderstanding you, then the most logical explanation is that the problem is with you; furthermore if you already know how much people misunderstand you, and you don't change the way you communicate then you're pretty much setting yourself up to this situation, which either you're doing on purpose because you enjoy saying things that make you look so eloquent on the internet like

Godddddddddd.  ARGGGGGGGG.

or you're just oblivious to that fact because of something like, I don't know, a huge ego blocking your view.

Eating pizza has nothing to do with it.  That's a sensory response.  Music works on an intellectual plane.  PIZZA DOES NOT EQUAL SCHOENBERG.  If classical music and a pepperoni pizza stand on the same, intellectual pedestal to you, there is something wrong.

If you think Music works only on an intellectual level you're missing out a lot.

Your Romeo and Juliet example is just as bad, if not worse.  Fine, you enjoy the book "for the ride".  You have to explain what that means, now, for that to be an argument.  Why do you enjoy the ride?  Because it's written beautifully or because it tells a nice story?  You have to explain how that's not subjective (which you can't do).  Personally, I don't like most Shakespeare, and that play is no exception.  So obviously it is subjective.

Of course I can't explain it if I haven't read the book. But I can explain it on a more general level: the reason I can enjoy a story or piece of music so much even if I've been through it already is simple: because I love it. Now for that to happen the work has to meet certain conditions, between which there's the element of context (originality regarding the time the work was created and all the factors surrounding it related to it, which are not part of the work itself), but it is far from being the most important aspect; I also consider some less subjetive feats, like the fact that some composers were able to make hours of music out of a very very simple theme, and elaborate it coherently which I respect even if my sensorial response to that theme is not exactly nice at the beginning; and also some purely subjective aspects like what that work means to me on a personal level. One card that does not come into play however when judging a piece of Art is how smart or intellectual it makes me feel.

Hardest to physically play.  This can be quantified by the speed at which X action must be taken in coordination with Y action and the number of simultaneous coordinations.

How about the fact that someone might have a different brain configuration which permits them to play X action easier than another person who might simply have longer arms and fingers and finds the coordination of X and Y easier to obtain than the first person? That is pretty much the very definition of subjective.

[john11inc]

If you're smart, you know an IQ test is not a very good tool to measure intelligence and you wouldn't need a higher number to prove it to anyone.

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.

There is one much more simple explanation: if everyone keeps misunderstanding you, then the most logical explanation is that the problem is with you.

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.

Blah blah blah

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.

How about the fact that someone might have a different brain configuration which permits them to play X action easier than another person who might simply have longer arms and fingers and finds the coordination of X and Y easier to obtain than the first person? That is pretty much the very definition of subjective.

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.

[thalbergmad]

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.  

It has got to the stage that i think neither of you know what the hell you are arguing about.

Thal

[john11inc]

It has got to the stage that i think neither of you know what the hell you are arguing about.

Thal

Do you need me to explain it to you like you were a little baby?

[thalbergmad]

I would rather you didn't.

You are beginning to sound like Hinty.

Thal

[iroveashe]

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.

Never seen someone use so many words to explain excuses as to why they won't use a lot of words to explain their point of view.

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.

Okay, so you stopped reading at "I love it". I specifically pointed out some traits that are more and some that are less subjective, I never claimed that music is either completely subjective nor completely objective. Yet, you read what I write, you assume and guess things about me and you base your arguments on that imaginary view of me, completely missing the point. If I were to do the same, and if I was as arrogant and predjudiced as to believe I can know a person by reading 5 posts on an online forum, I'd guess that on one hand, 90% of your posts are excuses regarding why you won't bother coming down from intellectual land to explain to us mortals your point of view (as if there was something wrong with simple, concise, yet enlightening explanations, but apparently that's beyond your capability to express); and 99% of your posts contain insults and exaggerations claiming that everyone except you is an idiot, closing the door to a civilized discussion, and rejecting the possiblity that you could be wrong, which smells like insecurity.

But as I said, that's just an assumption.

[john11inc]

Hey.  Watch.  I can quote only select parts of your post as well:

99% of your posts contain insults

you're just oblivious to that fact because of something like, I don't know, a huge ego blocking your view.

Never seen someone use so many words to explain excuses as to why they won't use a lot of words to explain their point of view.

It would take a lot longer to explain something to you than to write that.

Okay, so you stopped reading at "I love it".

Nope.  Again, this is where you are incapable of inferring anything that I don't write.  I can say, "I judge music based on X, Y, Z" and it is equally as valid as what you wrote, and thus my music is equally as valid.  Why do I have to write that?  You can't assume that?  You didn't realize the flaw in your argument there?

if I was as arrogant and prejudiced as to believe I can know a person by reading 5 posts on an online forum...

If you were smart, you'd know...

closing the door to a civilized discussion...

you're doing it on purpose because you enjoy saying things that make you look so eloquent on the internet like...

Remember what I said about just saying stuff?  It doesn't just make you wrong, it invalidates what you say later on.


At this point, you have three options:

1- Go away.
2- Continue with this sadomasochism of yours.
3- Actually ask me the question you're complaining I'm not answering, civilly.