Misuse of the word interesting

[mcgillcomposer]

Why is it that many people claim something to be 'interesting' just by virtue of it being modern? I know that not everyone is guilty of this, but I hear it often enough to be annoyed by it. It is just as ridiculous as someone who says Mozart is interesting because he wrote music near the end of the 18th century. What are your thoughts?

[thalberg]

Well, I think anything new is interesting just because it's new.  It's also a non-committal way for people to comment on something when they're afraid of looking stupid. 

[mcgillcomposer]

Well, I think anything new is interesting just because it's new.  It's also a non-committal way for people to comment on something when they're afraid of looking stupid. 

True - but it can also result in undue praise ... if a relatively intelligent individual knows this, he or she can create something that is rather complex or obscure so that many people will not understand it. This can easily gain them praise, even if the creation is, deep down, not very good.

[counterpoint]

  It's also a non-committal way for people to comment on something when they're afraid of looking stupid. 

"Interesting" sometimes is an equivalent to "strange" 

[pianochick93]

I know quite a few "interesting" people then...

[mcgillcomposer]

I know quite a few "interesting" people then...

haha!

[thalberg]

True - but it can also result in undue praise ... if a relatively intelligent individual knows this, he or she can create something that is rather complex or obscure so that many people will not understand it. This can easily gain them praise, even if the creation is, deep down, not very good.

Of course, that is very common.  Many people are smart but not creative.  So they create very complex smokescreens to hide behind.  They know if they can confuse the hell out of everyone, they can hide their incompetence.  Truly profound things are almost always said in a way that people can understand.

[stringoverstrung]

Of course, that is very common.  Many people are smart but not creative.  So they create very complex smokescreens to hide behind.  They know if they can confuse the hell out of everyone, they can hide their incompetence.  Truly profound things are almost always said in a way that people can understand.

Concurred.

True genius is explaining the most difficult things in 5 words.

eg Mozart once said:
"Je cherche les notes qui s'aiment"

[mcgillcomposer]

eg Mozart once said:
"Je cherche les notes qui s'aiment"

I love it.

[counterpoint]

eg Mozart once said:
"Je cherche les notes qui s'aiment"

   Perhaps he was very young, when he said this (3 or 4)

Later he often searched notes that pull at the nerves 

[hodi]

interesting thread.

[richard black]

As far as I'm concerned, 'interesting' is most often code for 'I thought it was crap but I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings'. You know, like when someone says, 'What did you think of my performance' and you answer 'Isn't Bach a wonderful composer?'

[thalberg]

As far as I'm concerned, 'interesting' is most often code for 'I thought it was crap but I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings'. You know, like when someone says, 'What did you think of my performance' and you answer 'Isn't Bach a wonderful composer?'

Yeah.....the comment I've seen most often for bad performances is "Congratulations."  Said with a smile and hug.  No compliments, just "Congratulations."   

[amanfang]

Thal, you'd better not say "congratulations on an interesting performance" tomorrow at my recital...   

[thalberg]

Mwahahaha..........now I know how to taunt you.

[indutrial]

Why is it that many people claim something to be 'interesting' just by virtue of it being modern? I know that not everyone is guilty of this, but I hear it often enough to be annoyed by it. It is just as ridiculous as someone who says Mozart is interesting because he wrote music near the end of the 18th century. What are your thoughts?

My thoughts passively remind me that every second I spend reading this thread could have been used for something...anything more interesting.

[mcgillcomposer]

My thoughts passively remind me that every second I spend reading this thread could have been used for something...anything more interesting.

Is your life really so empty and pathetic that you have to take out your anger and frustration on an online forum? I read through your other posts and the vast majority of them only aim to insult people.

The thread in question may not appeal to you, but it does not mean that the question posed is irrelevant or uninteresting - unless, of course, you are so self-centered that you think the world revolves around your ideas.

In any case, in a society where 'art music' is quickly becoming a stuffy, elitist, microbial fart in the much broader sphere of 21st century music, I think it is important to question those whose praise comes pre-packaged in a quadrosyllabic utterance.

[pies]

I would describe a piece as interesting if it were somehow original and requiring a few more listenings to make any sound judgment about it.

[liszt1022]

"Interesting" is used to describe pieces at "new compositions" recitals. It means "I don't like/understand it." So I hope you don't hear it TOO much - I see you're a composer by your forum name.

[indutrial]

Is your life really so empty and pathetic that you have to take out your anger and frustration on an online forum? I read through your other posts and the vast majority of them only aim to insult people.

Good lord...I hope it feels just scintillating to nail me down. To be perfectly frank, I'm far from angry and frustrated at my lot in life and I'm very proud to say that I have no emotion whatsoever invested in this or any other similarly bullshit-smeared web forum. I would have to say my attitude on this site has definitely gone a little sour, and that's probably because barely any of you ever talk about anything that doesn't sound like pedantic nonsense with no beginning or end, little fueling stations for everybody's fragile little egos.

Forums are a good old distraction while I'm at the office, and it would be nice if a forum about piano music would actually involve positive and inspired discussions about piano literature rather than read your tiresome and intellectually useless thoughts on why music is called "interesting" and how intellectually-driven composers are really using "complex smokescreens" and such.

If you're sensitive to the fact that art and music are elitist in nature, then give it up and go join the masses and listen to Green Day, follow American Idol, and make sure to catch Transiberian Orchestra's $200-a-seat Christmas spectacular. Classical music has been an insular scene for over 100 years and will continue to become more  insular until the end of time. Since our mass-entertainment society has forced art to turn inward on itself, art has developed exponential complexity (look at the 20th century to the present). As with anything from literature to music, the critical discourse that attempts to contextualize art (which is usually hard to take seriously) will take years to acclimate itself and so it will be perpetually harder and harder for someone to immediately form a cogent opinion on a new work. Of course "interesting" is often a dodge, but a lot of you sound paranoid and would like to think everyone's got negative intentions whenever they say anything that's not transparent. I think Pies' definition says it best and that it's not the snub-nosed "utterance" you're describing.

[mcgillcomposer]

Forums are a good old distraction while I'm at the office, and it would be nice if a forum about piano music would actually involve positive and inspired discussions about piano literature rather than read your tiresome and intellectually useless thoughts on why music is called "interesting" and how intellectually-driven composers are really using "complex smokescreens" and such.

The whole point of this thread is to encourage criticism that is based in the tangible elements of music, and not abstract notions. I think you may have misinterpreted my purpose in posting this thread - or perhaps I was unclear and too quick to pull the trigger.

In any case, I would also like a forum that contains interesting discussions of the piano literature. I just think that overtly making fun of those who post 'lighter' topics is the wrong way to go about it. Perhaps we can both be more constructive and focus on posting the types of threads we are both after.

[indutrial]

The whole point of this thread is to encourage criticism that is based in the tangible elements of music, and not abstract notions. I think you may have misinterpreted my purpose in posting this thread - or perhaps I was unclear and too quick to pull the trigger.

Well, I wasn't really trying to start any piefights on here. I just think that the tangible notions of music, which might mean the things that immediately spark a layman's reaction of good, bad, ugly, beautiful, etc...., have really been severely depreciated because laymen are just too god-damned scatterbrained, preoccupied, anxious, overcaffeinated and mentally dull to formulate adequate opinions on things anymore. I liked Thalberg's comment on another thread that someone could be playing the Waldstein and the average listener may be thinking about his next burger instead of actually hearing the music. I wouldn't put classical listeners much higher than that. I've been to enough recitals in NYC and Philly to get the feeling that a lot of people are there out of habit or a sense of duty and are just going through their typical jaded artiste motions. So a commoner's opinion on music is in question because they don't have the attention span for anything that they can't pump their fist to and the artiste's opinion is compromised by their pretentious malaise. End result...who cares what people say when it's boiled down to one word. Even if someone used a slightly less ambiguous term like "good" or even "marvelous", it's possibly total bullcrap.

[mcgillcomposer]

End result...who cares what people say when it's boiled down to one word. Even if someone used a slightly less ambiguous term like "good" or even "marvelous", it's possibly total bullcrap.

You're right - good point.

[mcgillcomposer]

Well, I wasn't really trying to start any piefights on here. I just think that the tangible notions of music, which might mean the things that immediately spark a layman's reaction of good, bad, ugly, beautiful, etc...., have really been severely depreciated because laymen are just too god-damned scatterbrained, preoccupied, anxious, overcaffeinated and mentally dull to formulate adequate opinions on things anymore.

By the tangible elements of music, I meant things that can be objectively (more or less) judged, such as: the quality of the counterpoint, the context of the harmony and whether or not it works, the formal structure, orchestration, etc.

[indutrial]

By the tangible elements of music, I meant things that can be objectively (more or less) judged, such as: the quality of the counterpoint, the context of the harmony and whether or not it works, the formal structure, orchestration, etc.

While certain audience members may be adept enough to pick those elements up in considerable detail, they still have to be filtered through that individual's subjective opinion, which can laced with confusion, uncertainties, or just a bored or sour mood. The best objective opinions of a piece generally come much later, in bits and pieces, when the score is analyzed by multiple people in multiple places, and more importantly, performed by other groups. If the initial group is too hungover or something, it will make the composer's premiere sound like an atrocious piece when it might not be bad at all.

When I've seen or heard a remarkable piece for the first time, I never would dare pretend to think that it was time for me to comment on the compositional ideas and motives, etc... If a composer worked on a string quartet for over a month, it should definitely not take one listen to comment on such things. It takes a real unseemly haughtiness, or a teacher's hubris, to nutshell things in that way.

If I like a piece, I generally say nothing to the composer, but I clap and cheer very enthusiastically.

[bob3.1415926]

By the tangible elements of music, I meant things that can be objectively (more or less) judged, such as: the quality of the counterpoint, the context of the harmony and whether or not it works, the formal structure, orchestration, etc.

Trying to be objective is pretty futile really, even if you are able to comment objectively on these qualities you list above, whether or not they make a piece good/bad/interesting is utterly subjective, and hence so are any conclusions you draw.

[mcgillcomposer]

Trying to be objective is pretty futile really, even if you are able to comment objectively on these qualities you list above, whether or not they make a piece good/bad/interesting is utterly subjective, and hence so are any conclusions you draw.

So based on this view, subjective opinion is the only thing that differentiates the level of mastery between, say, Beethoven's Op. 111 and Philip Glass' 'Trilogy' sonata?

I wonder what any number of great musicians would have to say about that.

[bob3.1415926]

So based on this view, subjective opinion is the only thing that differentiates the level of mastery between, say, Beethoven's Op. 111 and Philip Glass' 'Trilogy' sonata?

In all honesty, of course it is. There is no objective basis by which we can measure 'level of mastery.' There isn't a scale for it or a unit of measurement, so of course it is subjective.
That said, I'm a big fan of subjective opinion. You shouldn't dismiss it as if it's worthless. Subjective opinion created things like The Human Rights Act. It can be a wonderful thing.

[mcgillcomposer]

In all honesty, of course it is. There is no objective basis by which we can measure 'level of mastery.' There isn't a scale for it or a unit of measurement, so of course it is subjective.
That said, I'm a big fan of subjective opinion. You shouldn't dismiss it as if it's worthless. Subjective opinion created things like The Human Rights Act. It can be a wonderful thing.

Well, it is true that there is no empirical method to measure the quality of a piece of art. This said, I think we can both agree that it is often possible to distinguish between the quality of two subjective opinions.

Also, I think that a certain amount of weight must be given to conclusions that are frequently reached by people who demonstrate an active expertise in their area of study. For example, several great composers have described the brilliance of Beethoven's 9th symphony in detail ranging from a few words, to several pages. This sort of commonality seems to say something beyond mere subjectivity, no?

[indutrial]

Also, I think that a certain amount of weight must be given to conclusions that are frequently reached by people who demonstrate an active expertise in their area of study. For example, several great composers have described the brilliance of Beethoven's 9th symphony in detail ranging from a few words, to several pages. This sort of commonality seems to say something beyond mere subjectivity, no?

Objectivity is at best an average of everyone's views and often runs very close to becoming a popularity contest. Just because a lot of people agree on what denotes a 'level of mastery' or something like that doesn't make it law. Objectivity only truly holds water in heavily-limited abstract scenarios, like in fields like arithmetic where it is not really useful or constructive to say something subjective like "I think 2 + 2 = 5." In music, the objective good vs. evil that I've grown used to seeing usually stems from righteous conservatism, righteous avant-gardism, or somebody just trying to gain stronger justification in their own views.

While I certainly agree with you that Philip Glass's work is an overbloated joke and a shameless display of pretentious horseshit, both of those observations (and any claims that I back up with theories or other reasonings) are still just subjective views from my private little world. Someone who likes Glass's work would likewise be justified. It should really be about what pleases your ears. What else can music really be about besides what you yourself think of it?

[bob3.1415926]

I don't like defining objectively as an average of everyone's point of view. This is probably because I'm a snob. But if you think about it, the average of views is probably that 'Hit me baby One More Time' is better than anything in Beethoven's catalogue (the average person is a fool!) So anything that leads to this conclusion is out in my book.
But yes, I have developed a v high opinion of academics and their works, and I see your point that there seems to be a lot more to say about many of Beethoven's works (rightly so) than other 'compositions', this quantity seems perhaps objectifiable, but I wouldn't be brave enough to dive in and say it is (I don't like being wrong, so I try to remain moderate).

[indutrial]

I don't like defining objectively as an average of everyone's point of view. This is probably because I'm a snob. But if you think about it, the average of views is probably that 'Hit me baby One More Time' is better than anything in Beethoven's catalogue (the average person is a fool!) So anything that leads to this conclusion is out in my book.
But yes, I have developed a v high opinion of academics and their works, and I see your point that there seems to be a lot more to say about many of Beethoven's works (rightly so) than other 'compositions', this quantity seems perhaps objectifiable, but I wouldn't be brave enough to dive in and say it is (I don't like being wrong, so I try to remain moderate).

Well, I wasn't trying to say that there's a lot more to say about Beethoven's work as much as I was simply suggesting that a lot more has been said about it, hence it carries the stronger objective illusion of an overwhelmingly positive existence. This is underpinned by tons of theoretical and critical acclaim, which only makes the illusion more pungent.

Something that is particularly annoying on this site, and amongst music students I've met, are the individuals who've either not explored music beyond the objective "classics" that are marketed to them by culture and by conservative *** teachers who hate to think that music ever continued to change after Saint-Sean and Gershwin, or who have had a bad reaction with some form of avant-garde music (Cage, Stockhausen, Zorn) and use it as blanket reasoning to spurn new compositions.

Even the twentieth century is treated like this sometimes. I had contacted a former high school teacher who taught music history about the various research projects I've been taking on (studying Alexandre Tansman, L'Ecole de Paris, and modern Belgian and Dutch composers who I found to be of interest) and he basically told me that all of that is a complete waste of time and that I should only focus on a few figures (Bartok, Debussy, Schoenberg, Ives, etc..) who I'd obviously spent plenty of time studying already. I was frankly let down and I found this very unprofessional of him and haven't bothered trying to talk to him again. The whole gist of this story is that the objective qualification of things like music, art, and literature should not be indulged in, because it's really a weak leg to stand on, unless you're willing to degrade music into a popularity contest.

[pies]

a

[faulty_damper]

Very interesting replies, this thread.  Interesting is quite flexible and ambiguous and at the same time allows someone to respond and NOT respond at the same time.  Interesting, isn't it?

[pianochick93]

Does that mean that your last post may or may not count towards your post count, as it is both a response and not a response?