Classical Music's Top 10 Dirtiest Secrets

[dlu]

I found these on a website
Do you agree or disagree:

Classical Music Top 10 Dirtiest Secrets

1. Mozart really does all sound the same. (I disagree)

2. Beethoven’s Grosse Fuge is just plain ugly. (I disagree)

3. Wagner’s operas are much better with cuts. (I disagree)

4. No one cares about the first three movements of Berlioz’ Symphonie fantastique. (I disagree)

5. Schoenberg’s music never sounds more attractive, no matter how many times you listen to it. (I disagree)

6. Schumann’s orchestration definitely needs improvement. (I agree somewhat)

7. Bruckner couldn’t write a symphonic allegro to save his life. (I agree somewhat)

8. Liszt is trash. (I DISAGREE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

9. The so-called “happy” ending of Shostakovich’s Fifth is perfectly sincere. (No comment)

10. It’s a good thing that “only” about 200 Bach cantatas survive. (No comment)

[Antnee]

The writer of this list should die....

[dlu]

The writer of this list should die....

Well....I didn't write them....I just found them on a webiste...and yes....die they should!

[xvimbi]

First of all: Nobody should die, because s/he expresses an opinion.

Second, if you actually read the article in question, you will understand why the author presents that list.

That list is a provocative culmination of what the author tries to convey: namely that most people who adore Classical music are so stiff and congested that they must have problems going to the bathroom. He makes an argument that Classical Music lovers should lighten up, that they should not religiously adore every little thing that Beethoven, Bach or Mozart ever wrote, because they did in fact write a lot of pieces of low quality, and he makes a point of saying that a lot more people would be attracted to Classical music if it wasn't presented in a such an arrogant, exclusive and elitist way.

The article is provocative, but I am afraid, he is right.

[dlu]

First of all: Nobody should die, because s/he expresses an opinion.

Your not one to take/understand sarcasm are you?
I'm starting to think it was you who wrote this article, am I wrong?

(WOOO! Don't you just love the ending to Rach3...I'm listening to it right now). heehee

[xvimbi]

Your not one to take/understand sarcasm are you?

Sarcasm is a very tricky thing to convey over the Internet. You didn't seem to get it when you read that article...

[Fastzuernst]

I found these on a website
Do you agree or disagree:

Classical Music Top 10 Dirtiest Secrets

1. Mozart really does all sound the same. (I disagree)
*Only to those who haven't listen enough to his music
2. Beethoven’s Grosse Fuge is just plain ugly. (I disagree)
*This is an opinion, which is fine (we are all allowed to have opinions!) Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
3. Wagner’s operas are much better with cuts. (I disagree)
*Because I am not very familiar with the operas of Wagner (other than the most famous), I would probably enjoy them more if they were cut down a bit. But let me stress- this is because I am unfamilar with them

4. No one cares about the first three movements of Berlioz’ Symphonie fantastique. (I disagree)
*I for one care about the first three movements, so this statement is automaticly a falsehood. Hence the words "No one"

5. Schoenberg’s music never sounds more attractive, no matter how many times you listen to it. (I disagree)
*I don't believe that Schoenberg meant his music to be attractive, it was meant to be noticed. (by the way, this is total speculation on my part)
6. Schumann’s orchestration definitely needs improvement. (I agree somewhat)
*This doesn't fit with the other statements because it is implying that the writer of this list knows something of orchestration, which seems doubtful.

7. Bruckner couldn’t write a symphonic allegro to save his life. (I agree somewhat)
*Is that a crime? Does everything piece of music have to be cut out with cookie cutter?

8. Liszt is trash. (I DISAGREE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
* This is just plain slander, no evidence to back it up.
9. The so-called “happy” ending of Shostakovich’s Fifth is perfectly sincere. (No comment)
*And how does this person know this, were they personally friends with Shostakovich?

10. It’s a good thing that “only” about 200 Bach cantatas survive. (No comment)

*Why? Any contribution by Bach to the music liturature should be welcomed.

[Fastzuernst]

uh oh! That last post was listed as a quote.
everything with a * is my comment!
sorry

[dlu]

Thanks fastzeurnst for answering my original question unlike some people (xvimbi *cough*).

P.S. Xvimbi...just to let you know before you get hostile again that was sacrastic too.

[xvimbi]

P.S. Xvimbi...just to let you know before you get hostile again that was sacrastic too.

O dear, I didn't get hostile. You don't want to see me get hostile. I merely pointed out that you presented the list out of context. The idea why this list exists was therefore lost. I believe it's important to emphasize this, so that people who answer your post won't get the wrong impression.

Here is the link, in case anybody wants to read the ENTIRE story:

https://www.classicstoday.com/features/0404-editorial.asp

[dlu]

Thanks for the link xvimbi, I couldn't find how to add one to my post, I wouldn't want people to get the wrong impression of the articles author either.
DLu

[dlu]

Ugh....an ice cream truck just went by and it was playing fur elise, please kill me now!

[shatteringpulse]

I think many pianists and classical music aficionados are not objective in their evaluation of some composers and their works, and this lists attempts to shine some light on this through sarcasm, boldness, and revolt. For example, some of the works of Bach are absolutely hideous creations. I don't care how "perfect" or "formal" they are in their composition, they are awful. Some of the Inventions and Sinfonias come to mind. Heck, even some of the WTC, however heretic that is. The KV 333 sonata of Mozart is another sublime work that is indeed a  disaster--but only because of the slow movement--and in my opinion, a weak finale. I don't buy the argument that it is the most "concerto-like" of Mozart's piano sonatas.The middle movement is monotonous and boring. And Mozart does sound quite a bit the same. I never fear going into unknown emotional territory with Mozart. Ever. It's a perfectly comfortable listening and playing experience. It's almost childish, but that is both a good and bad thing. But let's at least say it IS very innocent and straightforward. Much like a child. It's the same happiness or joy expressed through different notes and keys. The classical s onata was saved by Beethoven. Then there are some of Beethoven's wondrous creations. In my opinion, the fugue finale of op. 101 is it's only redeeming quality--and a f antastic one at that. I say the rest of the sonata is just pretty--and I have no idea why some people tout it as this great sonata--I even disagree with Sviatoslav Richter. I dare someoene to argue that the first three movements stack up a gainst the rest of late Beethoven. The rest of the sonata is trivial.

And  then comes the most overrated composer of all, Chopin. I think Debussy did more for piano than Chopin. And whenever I hear something in recital by Chopin, I always believe another c omposer deserves that spot on the r ecital. Why aren't there more Debussy or Prokofiev recitals--or Rachmaninoff. I rarely ever hear Prokofiev's 8th sonata--the greatest of all--instead, I hear the ballades, the polonaises, and the scherzos (most of which i love) played ad nauseum. Where are Debussy's etudes in recital? I only remember Pollini e ver programming them. It really is a shame that Chopin has hijacked, not even t o his knowledge, the entirety (or nearly) piano pedagogy and most of modern recitals by piano students, at least. A lot of pianists aren't even suited to Chopin's style--the hand or body structure is completely at odds with the composer--so why do they p lay Chopin if they weren't meant for it? Ah, because Chopin reinvented the piano. Well so did Liszt. And Brahms. And Rachmaninoff and Debussy and Prokofiev. I think some of our young pianists are crippled by the deluge of Chopin both in technique and in interpretation. What would happen if suddenly we used Prokofiev's works as a substitute to  Chopin? Imagine the different in final technique and aptitude in playing t he works of Prokofiev. Even t he lyrical sections of Prokofiev d on't constitute a flexible w rist and a limp arm. Please. Chopin's elegant playing style, evident from his works, has no place in most of the 20th century. I think the entire pedagogy system must be revamped!

Now I've had my rant lol.

I think it's time pianists started disagreeing genuinely with this obnoxious reverence for some c omposers. And for their scores. Pogolerich's Scherzos are the only ones that have ever excited me because of their extreme nature. Why are so many afraid to take risks and disagree with the musical "foundation"?

And who hear actually ENJOYS listening to Wagner. I love his music because of the light motifs and the complexity of the musical motifs intertwined within the music--and the harmonic aggression he utilizes. But wouldn't you rather listene to ANY Italian opera composer? The human voice was not meant ot sing in German.  

I think fresh musicians, and even more traditional ones, need new opinions--their o wn opinions--on composers. I would argue some of the greats are actually mediocre as they c ome. And some of the neglected composers are far superior to those that are worshipped.

[xvimbi]

I think fresh musicians, and even more traditional ones, need new opinions--their o wn opinions--on composers. I would argue some of the greats are actually mediocre as they c ome. And some of the neglected composers are far superior to those that are worshipped.

Brace yourself, the virtual tomatos are on their way. They'll hit you in your face and splatter all over.

You spoke from my heart!

Let's have some ice cream and sing Für Elise!

[monk]

1. Mozart really does all sound the same.

In a way I can understand how this dude arrives at that claim.
But a) shows this claim that he is a superficial, not very sophisticated listener and b) are there some really genius musicians in history who have a tendency to sound always a bit similar: Bach! Webern! Oscar Peterson! But so what?

2. Beethoven’s Grosse Fuge is just plain ugly.

No, it's just plain a really exciting, grooving piece - for many the first piece of modern music, being 70 years ahead of time. Grosse Fuge ROCKS!

5. Schoenberg’s music never sounds more attractive, no matter how many times you listen to it.

Not everyone is sophisticated and open enough to digest his twelve-tone works.
But his early works (Pelleas & Melisande, Gurrelieder etc.) are just plain beautiful music in a Wagnerian vein.
And he was a real genius who really heard all his stuff in his head! No way a brainy constructivist! (By the way, he never rigorously applied his own 12-tone-technique - for him the sound and his imagination came always first!)

9. The so-called “happy” ending of Shostakovich’s Fifth is perfectly sincere.

Uuuuh, Shostakovich...this guy was talented, but he wrote so much CRAP that I can't really take him serious...His "Jazz suite", for example, is just ridiculous and has nothing to do with jazz.

Best Wishes,
Monk

[xvimbi]

In a way I can understand how this dude arrives at that claim.
But a) shows this claim that he is a superficial, not very sophisticated listener

David Hurwitz is a very renowned and respected classical music critique. If you read his articles, you'll see that he is in fact fighting for the survival of classical music.

With this article, he wants to point out that classical music is not a black and white thing, i.e. you either take it all in, or you leave it. Many people say "Mozart is great", implying "everything by Mozart is great". Such an extreme statement would in fact indicate a not so sophisticated listener. Hurwitz is revealing this by making opposite and just as extreme statements. It is clear that they are meant to provoke, particularly those that stand on the High Thrones of Classical music.

Those people who are offended by this article are exactly the ones Hurwitz is making fun of. They are exactly the ones that give Classical music the bad image that it has.

[steve]

The human voice was not meant ot sing in German.  

I wholeheartedly agree with everything except that one line!  I've always found it surprising how maligned a language German is.  The 5th movement of the Busoni concerto, for example, sounds beautiful, and, perversely, I sometimes find Italian harsh!  Too many vowels, I think.

I think a lot of the sickening idolatry of composers stems from the fact that classical music is so often the realm of an élite clique, for whom it's very important to demonstrate their knowledge: when people first engage with classical music, they feel pressure to conform to the correct opinions in order to be accepted and in order to appear knowledgeable.  Eg people might well say that (I'm not at all pointing the finger at anyone who has said something like this with genuine conviction; I'm merely trying to construct an example) they feel that Beethoven's Appassionata Sonata is played to death, whilst his "Last Three" are the great masterpieces of the genre, even if they've only heard the Appassionata performed once, and lack the musical understanding to fully appreciate opp. 109-111 (and, to be honest, most of us do lack that understanding!).  So the "cult of composers", I believe, comes, partly at least, from people almost learning by rote at an unconscious level what opinion to hold on certain matters.

[ahmedito]

I can agree with some of this stuff as a generalization made to take a stab at some of the classical snob's principles. At the same time, I find it completely wrong to make a judgement without looking at the article.

MONK!, I always thought you a knowledgable musician who´s opinions I thought I could respect. Your comment on Shostakovich, simply based on his Jazz suite not being Jazzy enough (how much actual contact do you think he did have with jazz?) makes me want to puke. Are you even familiar with his music? The piano, cello and violin concertos, the viola sonata, the symphonies (my favorites being the 5th, the 12th and the 15th) the Preludes and Fugues and his Quintet and Trio? If you have heard his music, I really cant understand such a negative opinion of one of the greatest composers in history fomr one of the people on this forum who I thought was one of the most knowledgable here.

[DarkWind]

1. Mozart really does all sound the same.

Yep.

2. Beethoven’s Grosse Fuge is just plain ugly.

Never heard it.

3. Wagner’s operas are much better with cuts.

I'm not sitting through 3 hours worth of music. Even some of the most famous composers of the past have said things along that line.

4. No one cares about the first three movements of Berlioz’ Symphonie fantastique.

I like Un Bal as well, but that's just about it.

5. Schoenberg’s music never sounds more attractive, no matter how many times you listen to it.

12 tone serialism is terrible, and there's a reason no one performs this stuff.

6. Schumann’s orchestration definitely needs improvement.

Never heard of his orchestration.

7. Bruckner couldn’t write a symphonic allegro to save his life.

Never listened to Bruckner.

8. Liszt is trash.

Please die.

9. The so-called “happy” ending of Shostakovich’s Fifth is perfectly sincere.

Never listened to it.

10. It’s a good thing that “only” about 200 Bach cantatas survive.

Yep.

[Antnee]

Please die.

See... Darkwind's with me here...

Just kidding guys... Everyone has made some excellent points. Just because we are 'into' classical music doesn't mean we should worship everything written. We should recognize good music when we hear it and recognize garbage when we hear it. However a few comments are purley opinionated (well, almost all of them) and have been the cause for many debates between musicians and the like for many years. But some of what he says is completely true. So, all in all, we must accept somehow accept these 'secrets'.

-Tony-

[ahmedito]

1. Mozart really does all sound the same.

Its called style. And yes, I agree. For someone who is not a musician MOST, not all, of Mozart's work sounds extremely similar, even if it is extremely pretty.


2. Beethovens Grosse Fuge is just plain ugly.

It´s ugly to analize. We had to analize that thing for a semestral exam, its one of the hardest things to analize harmonically and formally you will find. Its one of my favorite Beethoven works. Of course, those last string quartets are really anything but pretty.


3. Wagners operas are much better with cuts.

Hell yeah. If you disagree, try having to sit through the whole ring cycle in a single day for a class. UGH! I had a contemporary musical history teacher who was an absolute Wagner nut. The first month of his class was devoted to watching all the Wagner operas... they are SO much better with cuts, dont disagree until you have to sit through Tristan und Isolde. Its beautiful somtimes, but its WAY too long and repetitive (this coming from a guy who loves 20th century minimalism, 4-8 hour works from Steve Reich  I can stand).


4. No one cares about the first three movements of Berlioz Symphonie fantastique.

Nah. Although when I was an adolescent that was the only part I liked. After we had to analize it in class it the other movements suddenly became a lot more interesting. I think teenagers (at least me) tend to like the noisy stuff more.  


5. Schoenbergs music never sounds more attractive, no matter how many times you listen to it.

This one is a toughie. The funny thing with Schoenberg is that the really famous cool stuff he wrote is before he actually perfected his serialist system. Im a big fan of Pierrot Lunaire, but I have never liked his later works. For full-fledged serialism give me Webern or Berg any day.


6. Schumanns orchestration definitely needs improvement.

Yep. Thats a fact. His symphonies are horribly orquestrated from any point of view I can think off. They actually tend to teach you that fact in music school. Of course, its Schumman, so they get played.


7. Bruckner couldnt write a symphonic allegro to save his life.

I agree. I love Bruckner, but most Allegros he wrote always came out sounding slow, religious and Largoish, which is exactly what appeals to us Bruckner fans. Of course, look at the second movememnt of the 7th symphony. Thats about as close to an allegro as he is going to get.


8. Liszt is trash.

Hell no. Liszt is not trash. Even so, I can think of the top of my head at least 10 Liszt works which are total garbage... of course, I can also think of 10 works which are among the greatest masterpieces ever written. So much contradiction, youve got to love him.


9. The so-called happy ending of Shostakovichs Fifth is perfectly sincere.

Listen to it. It might be, why not. So many people like to catalog Shostakovich as the suffering bloke that his happy music is automatically taken for sarcasm. He suffered, but give the man a rest.


10. Its a good thing that only about 200 Bach cantatas survive.

I can never agree on that. You can find tons of his cantatas which are just rewrites or badly pulled.... try writing one a week. But, anything Bach wrote is, in some way, something that makes music better today. Even if its just music theory.

[Max]

1. Mozart really does all sound the same.

It's because he wrote a lot of it using a formula.

2. Beethoven’s Grosse Fuge is just plain ugly.

Not decided..

3. Wagner’s operas are much better with cuts.

Yup.

4. No one cares about the first three movements of Berlioz’ Symphonie fantastique.

Not true at all!

5. Schoenberg’s music never sounds more attractive, no matter how many times you listen to it.

While I don't like his stricter serialism, his early works are incredible..

6. Schumann’s orchestration definitely needs improvement.

As does Chopins.

7. Bruckner couldn’t write a symphonic allegro to save his life.

Hehe...

8. Liszt is trash.

NO

9. The so-called “happy” ending of Shostakovich’s Fifth is perfectly sincere.

It's kind of happy but longing..

10. It’s a good thing that “only” about 200 Bach cantatas survive.

Well I'm not a big fan, so no comment!

[monk]

Hi Ahmedito,

I know that many people like Shostakovich.
And he was really talented, and some of his stuff is great.

But among the great, well-known composers he was probably the one whose oeuvre had the biggest share of ...um... yes, tasteless stuff. Even more than Mahler  

I tend to agree with Bartok who openly laughed at Shostakovich in his "Concerto for Orchestra". In the 4th movement, suddenly a clumsy quote of Shostakovich's 7th Symphonie appears (sounding like "Heut' gehn wir ins Maxim's", an old German pop song), and after it's over, the winds "laugh". Hilarious!

Best Wishes,
Monk

[super_ardua]

1. Mozart really does all sound the same.
Erm...no.  He wrote some interesting stuff but the earlier stuff is not all that great.

2. Beethoven’s Grosse Fuge is just plain ugly.
Disagree

3. Wagner’s operas are much better with cuts.
Sometimes.  If the orchestra don't tire out,  after 5 or something hours the listeners will.  A bit of Wagner is good, but not three or more hours.   His music is very complex.

4. No one cares about the first three movements of Berlioz’ Symphonie fantastique.
Not really

5. Schoenberg’s music never sounds more attractive, no matter how many times you listen to it.
Never listened to it

6. Schumann’s orchestration definitely needs improvement.
Never listened to that

7. Bruckner couldn’t write a symphonic allegro to save his life.
Never listened to that either

8. Liszt is trash.
Get a life.

9. The so-called “happy” ending of Shostakovich’s Fifth is perfectly sincere.
No comment

10. It’s a good thing that “only” about 200 Bach cantatas survive.
I must disagree

[Peachy_Keen]

This article insults my artistic integrity! He is jealous because all classical musicians are geniuses and instead of writing beautiful piano concertos he is using his very minor talent with words to insult people! Bach was a genius, and everything he wrote reflects that. Unless you are deaf, Mozart is very dynamic. This my friends is why plebes should not be allowed onto the internet.

I vote that we take our pianos onto his lawn and violently bang them. The discord shall surely drive him away.

[DarkWind]

This article insults my artistic integrity! He is jealous because all classical musicians are geniuses and instead of writing beautiful piano concertos he is using his very minor talent with words to insult people! Bach was a genius, and everything he wrote reflects that. Unless you are deaf, Mozart is very dynamic. This my friends is why plebes should not be allowed onto the internet.

I vote that we take our pianos onto his lawn and violently bang them. The discord shall surely drive him away.

You are the same kind of person this article is targetted at. Maybe if you read some of the replies, you would realize that this man is a grand classical connosieur, who is fighting for the preservation of classical music, and more likely than not knows much more about it than you do.

In my opinion, all of Mozart does sound the same. The only thing that ever sounds different is the Fantasia in D Minor, or the Requiem, anything like that. But just about everything of his I listen to are just the same thing in a different tempo, structure, or musical instrumentation. They all have that little B+E chord, then a D followed by the C. Just about every single work. If I were listening to Mozart on Radio in the middle of the work, I would immediately know who was composing it, if I just listen to that little sequence like that, maybe transposed around into a different key. He also likes to add a bit of chromaticism and go, say, C-D-E-F-F#, holds that note for a bit, then goes to a G. Something along those lines are heard in just about every single of his works.

[shatteringpulse]

This article insults my artistic integrity! He is jealous because all classical musicians are geniuses and instead of writing beautiful piano concertos he is using his very minor talent with words to insult people! Bach was a genius, and everything he wrote reflects that. Unless you are deaf, Mozart is very dynamic. This my friends is why plebes should not be allowed onto the internet.

I vote that we take our pianos onto his lawn and violently bang them. The discord shall surely drive him away.

How does this violate your personal artistic integrity? And are you seriously implying with no substantiation that music is on a higher plane than literature and language?

But please, do expound upon the absolute genius of EVERY Bach piece. Are you sure you can't think of some that are blatantly of inferior quality to other composers, lesser composers, or Bach's other works?

[Fastzuernst]

This list is not being taken for what it is, someone's opinion. He is giving fodder to those who have don't care about classical. I definately believe that he is just trying to get a rise out of those of us who have made the study of classical music our lives, in which he has succeeded!
The main problem that I see with this list is that it was created to give validation to those who have found classical music pretentious, those who don't know anything about classical, or those who just plain hate it.

I had someone close to me send me this list months ago to try to convince me to give up classical at start working on "popular music" (to him, this is James Tayor, and the Beetles!) I got a kick out of ihis suggestion because not only did this list fit his mentality  he accually believed it!(even though he couldn't tell the difference between a Mahler and Mozart)
Not to mention his idea of "popular music" is 30 yrs old!
I then encouraged him to listen to top40 music so he could see what is popular these days. Needless to say, he didn't like it.
Obviously there will be people who don't understand why we dedicate our lives to classical music (and I use the word classical to include modern composers as well), but we shouldn't have to rationalize it if it is our passion.
At the same time I think that a list like this can spark good debate as to- Why we like the first three movements of Symphony Fantastique, or why Liszt's piano literature still popular with pianist, or why is Schumann considered a bad orchestrator.

This list can be turned into a debate as to why these pieces, or composers have survived and others have disappeared.
Obviously, this list has served its purpous, to spark dialogue!

[DarkWind]

EVERYONE LISTEN!


Stop thinking that the writer is one of those "Durr, Fur Elise good!" people that don't know anything about classical music! If you had actually read a few of these posts, you'd notice that he actually fights for the preservation of classical music. Search his name on google. You will notice the first link is to his reviews of classical music. Read one. You will notice he knows tons of classical music, much more than you. He is trying to get you to confess that some of these things are just plain true, as much as you don't want to admit. Some of them you may disagree with, but there are some you just have to agree with, and only the brave do.

[Fastzuernst]

I am pretty sure most of us know this already, but I guess you felt the need to state the obvious

[dlu]

EVERYONE LISTEN!


Stop thinking that the writer is one of those "Durr, Fur Elise good!" people that don't know anything about classical music! If you had actually read a few of these posts, you'd notice that he actually fights for the preservation of classical music. Search his name on google. You will notice the first link is to his reviews of classical music. Read one. You will notice he knows tons of classical music, much more than you. He is trying to get you to confess that some of these things are just plain true, as much as you don't want to admit. Some of them you may disagree with, but there are some you just have to agree with, and only the brave do.

BRAVO DARKWIND BRAVO!!!
It is my fault for not stating this in the beggining. But it did spark some interesting debate that I wouldn't think I would have enjoyed if I had said this in the first place.

[Peachy_Keen]

How does this violate your personal artistic integrity? And are you seriously implying with no substantiation that music is on a higher plane than literature and language?

But please, do expound upon the absolute genius of EVERY Bach piece. Are you sure you can't think of some that are blatantly of inferior quality to other composers, lesser composers, or Bach's other works?

Bach is a genius and you are a fool for not recognizing that! That applies to you too, DarkWind!

"Music" does not exist on a higher plane than literature or language. It would be foolish to say that it does. However, Music written by one of the immortal classical composers DOES transcend whatever paltry definitions or categorizations you can give it.

You can stand on a heap of Mozart's works and say "this is bad", "this is the same", your fickle judgements giving you the illusion of command, no more valid than your favorite color, or fabric, or soda flavor.

Would you tell a Buddhist monk who has been meditating for twenty years that his meditation is no better than a man's who started twenty minutes ago? What if that man told you that the monk's genius, while impossible to emulate, is not genius at all? I suppose the two of you would run up to that Buddhist monk and try to kick him in the crotch, eh?

[xvimbi]

Bach is a genius and you are a fool for not recognizing that! That applies to you too, DarkWind!

I think you are a bit too extremist here. Nobody disputed that Bach was a genius. It was only said that not EVERYTHING that Bach wrote is ingenious. A lot is in fact trivial, and that goes for all the other great composers too. There is nothing wrong with that, and nobody is assuming command over the work of the Great Masters by saying that some of it is, well, not so great.

In fact, genius or not, it would be utterly foolish, narrow-minded and a sign of immaturity and mental helplessness to worship everything the Great Masters (or any authority, musical, political or religious, for that matter) ever did without proper reflection and critical evaluation.

[Peachy_Keen]

I think you are a bit too extremist here. Nobody disputed that Bach was a genius. It was only said that not EVERYTHING that Bach wrote is ingenious. A lot is in fact trivial, and that goes for all the other great composers too. There is nothing wrong with that, and nobody is assuming command over the work of the Great Masters by saying that some of it is, well, not so great.

In fact, genius or not, it would be utterly foolish, narrow-minded and a sign of immaturity and mental helplessness to worship everything the Great Masters (or any authority, musical, political or religious, for that matter) ever did without proper reflection and critical evaluation.

And my point is Bach's work deserve the respect of any master's creation, and in that recognize the genius of the "master" reflected in the work, whether we as individuals recognise it as beautiful or not.

Yes perhaps I was a tad extremist with those remarks. But they are still both fools!!!!!

You are free to label his works as "trivial" or "ugly" as you like, because that is the nature of freedom, but it does not keep you from being a fool.

[xvimbi]

You are free to label his works as "trivial" or "ugly" as you like, because that is the nature of freedom, but it does not keep you from being a fool.

Did you just insult me ?
I just want to make sure before I lash out...

[dlu]

Did you just insult me ?
I just want to make sure before I lash out...

Oooooooooooooooohhhh! This is gettin' good! And yes xvimbi, I think Peachy_Keen just inusulted you! Time for some lashing!

[shatteringpulse]

What if I told you that I think Prokofiev is a greater composer than Bach? Yes, GREATER, not as great. A definite superiority, and not just aesthetically or by my own taste. And that I could substantiate it. Would you ever agree?

Do you consider Ligeti a genius, Peachy?

[DarkWind]

Bach is a genius and you are a fool for not recognizing that! That applies to you too, DarkWind!

"Music" does not exist on a higher plane than literature or language. It would be foolish to say that it does. However, Music written by one of the immortal classical composers DOES transcend whatever paltry definitions or categorizations you can give it.

You can stand on a heap of Mozart's works and say "this is bad", "this is the same", your fickle judgements giving you the illusion of command, no more valid than your favorite color, or fabric, or soda flavor.

Would you tell a Buddhist monk who has been meditating for twenty years that his meditation is no better than a man's who started twenty minutes ago? What if that man told you that the monk's genius, while impossible to emulate, is not genius at all? I suppose the two of you would run up to that Buddhist monk and try to kick him in the crotch, eh?

Are you implying that I said Bach was a tasteless fool? He wasn't, and in my opinion he made the hardest piano music ever, cause counterpoint is difficult. But 200 cantatas is more than anyone will listen to. I'm sure you haven't even listened to about a 100... He had to write them in a week. They might be good, but nothing of incredible quality. Bach was not God, might I remind you. He was a human just like you and me. And guess what? Humans make mistakes! SURPRISE OF THE CENTURY! Not everything Bach composed was perfect, believe it or not. Listen, my favorite composer is Ravel. I basically worship him, I love his music to death. But, I'm not afraid to admit that I think his Daphnis and Chloe isn't incredibly interesting, and his Rhapsodie Espagnole could use a more interesting introduction. You follow Bach blindly like a classical elitist, which harms you and your image more than you think it helps you. Oh, and calling me a fool was a cheap shot, that does nothing but insult a few others and make you look ridiculous.

I am pretty sure most of us know this already, but I guess you felt the need to state the obvious

Oh, you are so silly!

[Peachy_Keen]

No, I am not, and have never implied that you said Bach was a tasteless fool.

The quantity of the music he has written has nothing to do with my argument.

I never said that Bach was god, I said he was a genius. That does not mean that there are no other geniuses, or that Bach has precedence over any other genius.

I never implied or said that I do believe that Bach was perfect, or that his compositions were perfect.

I would appreciate it if you would cease reminding me that Bach was a human being. I am entirely aware that he is not a chimpanzee or a titanium automaton from Jupiter.

You do not know who I am, but after reading a few paragraphs of my writing you feel that you can legitamately call me a blind elitist, which is a very serious and personal accusation. How does that make you any better than what you accuse me of being?

If you would like to continue this argument please quote the relevant sections of my post that you are referring to. I would hate to see you continue to so flagrantly and deliberately misinterpret my arguments.

[DarkWind]

Bach is a genius and you are a fool for not recognizing that! That applies to you too, DarkWind!

---------------------------------------------------------------------

You can stand on a heap of Mozart's works and say "this is bad", "this is the same", your fickle judgements giving you the illusion of command, no more valid than your favorite color, or fabric, or soda flavor.

I never called Bach a musical normality, yet you call me a fool because I said that thankfully there are only 200 cantatas left? This is implying that you wish there are more, and no one really does. You imply that all these cantatas are supposed to be like magnificent wonders that need to be found. Then you start making accusations about me, thinking that I feel grand and majestic just because I call Mozart very similar in all his works. I do not ask for anything when I say all of Mozart's works sound almost the same. Oh and guess what? I never called him bad either, which makes your statement all the more worse. However, if the above was not what you meant, I'm sorry for the attack. (although calling me a fool is still cheap )

[Peachy_Keen]

Yes, I am calling you a fool for being grateful that only 200 of his cantatas remain. Just because they exist does not mean that you have to listen to them, and if you've never heard the lost pieces how can you be grateful they no longer exist? You're condemning music you haven't even listened to.

As far as the second quote goes, that's why I used the words "You can". If you are not, then obviously the rest of the sentence doesn't directly apply to you. Everyone makes mistakes, but please read a little more carefully next time.

[DarkWind]

Yes, I am calling you a fool for being grateful that only 200 of his cantatas remain. Just because they exist does not mean that you have to listen to them, and if you've never heard the lost pieces how can you be grateful they no longer exist? You're condemning music you haven't even listened to.

As far as the second quote goes, that's why I used the words "You can". If you are not, then obviously the rest of the sentence doesn't directly apply to you. Everyone makes mistakes, but please read a little more carefully next time.

The "you can" was used in such a way as to insinuate that I was doing so, giving a hypothetical situation. Calling me a fool just because I'm grateful that only 200 cantatas exist? I never really meant grateful, and I apologize for doing so, it was more along the lines of, OK, that's really more than enough than I'll be hearing. I never tried to say they would be terrible, although being in written in a week, there are quite a few other piece's I'd rather listen to. But if I was actually condemning these pieces, as you said I was, then you have great reasons to call me a fool.