­

[pies]

­

[donjuan]

So you checked out Grand Galop Chromatique I suppose?  if you like this kind of Liszt, I cant help but recommend Gnomenreigen, one of Liszt's 5 concert etudes.  Or look at Valse Impromptu..

Im making suggestions based on the fact that you want light fun works like Grand Galop Chromatique.  Have a listen to Gyorgy Cziffra recordings of Liszt's light works- he really plays them in the manner in which they are intended. 

donjuan

[pies]

­

[bet33]

liszt is my favorite composer,

BUT,

come on, GRAND GALOP is CRAP...

its this kind of thing that gives liszt a bad name... he has some many amazing works, for piano and some of the great ones for choir, orchestra, organ, etc...

super composer if you know where to look at,

the shallow virtuoso pieces had there purpose, but i wish people would see those pieces for what they were in liszt's life, and not as THE liszt pieces...

those pieces dont define him at all...

with so much amazing music from liszt, i just dont see the point on working on a piece like GRAND...

[faulty_damper]

Random fact:  Search for a picture of Mr. Liszt.  Then look at how beautiful his left eye is.  Then look at how different his right eye is!  It must have fell out while winking at the purdy ladies.

[donjuan]

liszt is my favorite composer,

BUT,

come on, GRAND GALOP is CRAP...

its this kind of thing that gives liszt a bad name... he has some many amazing works, for piano and some of the great ones for choir, orchestra, organ, etc...

super composer if you know where to look at,

the shallow virtuoso pieces had there purpose, but i wish people would see those pieces for what they were in liszt's life, and not as THE liszt pieces...

those pieces dont define him at all...

with so much amazing music from liszt, i just dont see the point on working on a piece like GRAND...

oh come on!!

Grand Galop Chromatique is one of the pieces that originally drew me to the composer.  Its a FUN, light work!  Do you know how exhausting it would be for the audience to listen to a concert of stuff like Ballade No.2, B minor sonata, Funerailles, Mephisto Waltz, Reminiscences de Norma, etc etc??

We need some breathing pieces to have fun listening to without focussing on deep musical interpretation and blah blah blah... to "cleanse the palate", as was said in Iron Monkey.  Pleeeeasssee, dont say Grand Galop Chromatique is crap!!  I have listened to sooo much Liszt and one of the favorites I always come back to (haha along with Robert Le Diable) is Grand Galop Chromatique.
donjuan

[rachlisztchopin]

The Grand Galop Chromatique is not crap! 

[bet33]

i stand by what i said,

I just love his music to much to listen to those pieces,

I know what you mean, but, I must disagree on a purely emtional level... I dont have time for pieces like grand... when we can listen to such great music as the post 1880's liszt, the religious liszt pieces, the symphonies, the 2nd concerto, the sonata, etc etc etc...

I know you guys love liszt as well, have you guys read walker's books?

Ive been getting my hands on as much liszt as possible for the past year or so, im at 100+ cd's... 97% of which i love...

so its not like I dont know, or dont enjoy the majority of the works...

anyway, to each his own...

 

[rachlisztchopin]

so you don't like any of liszt's fun pieces? thats a shame...you need to have some more fun then the usual "serious" classical music...

[donjuan]

To understand Liszt, you must see him in all shades of color (including his different ages and levels of maturity).  Liszt was only 27 when he wrote Grand Galop Chromatique.  I was drawn to such music because of it's trumpeting qualities and young vigor. 

(I really cant say the same about such works as Czardas macabre or the Fountains of the Villa d"Este)

come on, stop being so 2 dimensional and see Liszt - the music, the man, and the legend.  Without the Bombastic Liszt we cant see the whole picture of Franz Liszt.

donjuan

[bet33]

im not being much of anything really,

I see liszt for all he was in all his phases...

but, I have to go with what i feel is the best music, and for me, its the music I mentioned.

Feel free to love whatever you want, I dont mind his show pieces, I just choose to listen to what I feel is more emotional music.

which liszt has alot of.

[Nordlys]

I know you guys love liszt as well, have you guys read walker's books?

Which books are that?

[bet33]

alan walker, wrote a 3 volume bio on liszt, its a great read... took me a few months to finish, they total about 1400 pages are so...

its really detailed and very nice to understand what liszt did and though on most months of his life...

[donjuan]

liszt is my favorite composer,

BUT,

come on, GRAND GALOP is CRAP...

its this kind of thing that gives liszt a bad name...

hmmm what puzzles me is how you can spend so much time reading about Liszt and then say something about how his own compositions give him a bad name..

What would Liszt say?? [sarcasm] (year: 1838) Liszt:  "uh yes, I composed Grand Galop Chromatique so I can play it in a recital when I invent the piano recital in 2 years so people like bet33 can say I dont know what Im doing and Im giving myself a bad name"..[/sarcasm]

i stand by what i said,

I just love his music to much to listen to those pieces,

well, then you really dont love his music -or understand why he wrote it.

Liszt was much too smart to invent music no one likes.  If it was so "crap(py)", as you put it, would a four hand version of it have been made?  Would the sheetmusic have sold so many copies when it was first published? (yes, I read that somewhere)
Please, defend yourself instead of saying the same thing about how Liszt has many great works like the 2nd concerto and the sonata and we shouldnt focus on anything except those.  Liszt drew his ideas from a source!  He didnt just pull the B minor sonata out of his ass!  He matured through the various stages of his life and it is reflected in his great works. 

So listen to the same old "great" Liszt pieces over and over again if you want, but never say Grand Galop Chromatique is crap.   I didnt spend 2 years learning "crap"!

In spite of everything you have read, I dont think you seem to know there is much more to Liszt than pure emotion.  There is a degree of noise-musical noise and humour- Grand Galop Chromatique is a very goofy piece that is fun to listen to and play.

donjuan

[bet33]

im not gonna sit here and open up a debate with you about franz liszt...

I choose to listen to many of his other works,

and i dont listen to "the common" works are whatever way you put it,

I listen to what i find inspiring as a composer...

I didnt say the virtuoso period of his life wasnt important, I meant that it doesnt involve the music I think represents the greatness that was franz liszt...

the expansion of tonal harmony, taking chromaticism to the brink of atonality...

the further development of form, and so on and so fourth...

[bet33]

let me explain, the BAD NAME quote,

its quite simple, within composer circles, there is still an aura that franz liszt was simply a virtuoso and a bad composer,

they tend to give all the credit to wagner in expanding tonal harmony (being general)... and end up using the "virtuoso" era pieces of liszt as examples of his inability to compose...

of course, they are comparing, a beethoven symphony with grand galop, a STUPID comparison... regardless,

if you look at major works such as the VIA CRUCIS, the christus, even an unfinished piece like ST STANISLAUS...

his take on sonata form, even within works as the symphonic poems,

and so on and so fourth,

you start to understand the historical significance of liszt as a composer, as apposed to his meaning as a pianists (which he was one of the most important figures as well, of course)...

[bet33]

"Please, defend yourself instead of saying the same thing about how Liszt has many great works like the 2nd concerto and the sonata and we shouldnt focus on anything except those.  Liszt drew his ideas from a source!  He didnt just pull the B minor sonata out of his ass!  He matured through the various stages of his life and it is reflected in his great works."


im sorry, are you implying that gran galop was important in liszt's maturation when it came to writing the B minor?

liszt knew how to please the crowd, and he understood at that period in his life what could be acceptable as music to be sold toa  publisher... and what would sell overall...

most of his "personal" music, was booed and jeered off stage...

[pies]

­

[Sketchee]

I don't think Grand Galop Chromatique is one of Liszt's more musical works, but such a light show-offy sentiment is definitely a human emotion.  I don't see why a that kind of feeling shouldn't be expressed in music.  I know when we think of emotional content we think of much more serious emotions, but there is a place in the piano repertoire for the light hearted too.

There's a freely transcribled modern concert band arrangement that's pretty fun.  Yes, music can be fun and fun can even be somewhat musical.  It's just as in the quote Liszt is attributed to saying: "You see that Liszt can be Chopin when he likes, but could Chopin be Liszt?"

[jcromp78]

The Grand Galop is a fun piece of music to hear and to play. I get excitement and joy from it but I don't get moved by it like I would a Schubert Sonata or Beethoven. For Liszt music that moves you I would recommend His Anees De Pelirinage books 1 and 2, also some of the Liebestraume and Consolations. For majestic Liszt pieces try the Ballades or the Sonata.

[Daevren]

I cant stand the grand galop. Its only there to please the layman crowd and make money.

Liszt was much more of a composer than most people realise. The "You see that Liszt can be Chopin when he likes, but could Chopin be Liszt?" says it all, ironically. Chopin is nice, but Liszt was a much better composer than Chopin. And what does the layman know about Liszt? Probably not much, and if they know something then its about Liszt being a great pianist. Most people don't care about some nerd studied Hamlet and then turning it into some 'boring and longwinded' 15 minutes of 'pointless' sounds. And those people that do care about Hamlet often don't care about Liszt, and the people that do care about Liszt don't care about Hamlet. And that is perfectly normal.

Just try to find rare Liszt pieces. Its not very easy to do. There are a whole lot recordings out there of the Bm sonata, the etudes, the first and second concerto, and some other stuff. But he wrote alot more. And that was really important. He saved the organ, expanded harmonic thinking, he was really clever with form, structure, variations, and all the essential composing techniques. He knew how to compose for orchestra. He knew how to create atmosphere.

If you look at Chopin, he just couldn't do that. I am not trying to discredit Chopin, but if you compare the two you can see what is so special about Liszt.

And pieces like Grand Galop should be ignored. Of course Liszt knew what he was doing, writing a crappy crowd pleaser so he could show off all his technique and getting the money so he could write the real stuff. The fact that it sells so well obviously doesn't mean it isn't crap. It means people want it, and people want crappy things all the time, thats normal.

And the fact that someone spend two years practicing that piece is not an argument proving that it is a good piece. Maybe you wasted time learning it, it depends on why you learned it. I cannot play it by far, so at least it was good for your technique. But I wouldn't spend two years learning it just to impress some people ignorant of music, which isn't that hard anyway.

Liszt wrote and played it to prove he was the best pianist of his time. For us it is pretty much useless.

I saw this quote somewhere, it sums it up pretty much:

"Liszt was an experimenter much like Leonardo Da Vinci. They analyzed, formulated and recorded brilliant and visionary ideas that far exceeded the limited scope of their own generation. Thus, they both fell prey to suspect and even ridicule by some of their contemporaries as being dreamers. Only the more astute could realize that the being before them was of a celestial, higher order - the ultimate genius, misunderstood by the masses"

At least that is how I see it.

Good Liszt stuff?

Sinfonische Dichtung/Symphonic Poems
Harmonies Poetiques et Religieuses
Annees De Pelerinage
Totentanz
Faust and Dante Symphonies
Orchestral Songs 
the Oratorios
the opera transcriptions
the Schumann transcriptions
the Beethoven transcriptions
the Bach transcriptions

And then there are alot of hidden gems, very interesting pieces. I am afraid I am quite ignorant about alot of stuff myself.

If anyone can recommend me excellent recordings of the more rarer pieces I am glad to hear.

[donjuan]

And the fact that someone spend two years practicing that piece is not an argument proving that it is a good piece. Maybe you wasted time learning it, it depends on why you learned it. I cannot play it by far, so at least it was good for your technique. But I wouldn't spend two years learning it just to impress some people ignorant of music, which isn't that hard anyway.

  I didnt learn it to impress people; I learned it because it's one of my favorite pieces of Liszt, and I have listened to so much Liszt- good, bad, mature, noisy, you name it and no matter what I never get tired of Grand Galop Chromatique, although I quickly get bored from listening to Sursum Corda or the Malediction concerto.  and it's not because I dont understand it- its because sometimes its fun to listen to music rather than study it like a boring textbook.  Music is made for people, and if people like it, then it isnt crap.  You come off as a snob when you say "layman" crowd, so dont walk around like your farts dont stink and accept the fact that one of the reasons that Liszt's music was so famous was because it was so easy to enjoy- by anyone!  To enjoy music, we shouldnt have to take university courses.  Composers like Sorabji will never share the same fame as Liszt because his compositions are too complex to be enjoyed by the average person. 

I suppose you hate Scherzo und marsch too then..

donjuan

[Sketchee]

I think saying that only ignorant people can enjoy Liszt's Grand Galop is silly.  Telling people what that they "should" only follow your taste in music (or in anything) will always come off as a silly statement, IMHO.  I don't think anyone here is claiming that this is Liszt's greatest work, just that it's a fun piece. I think that beyond it's surface razzle dazzle, it just has a fun and whimsical character overall.

Yes, Liszt wrote more deeply musical pieces.  Beethoven wrote more than Fur Elise, Debussy wrote more than Claire de Lune, etc.  I'm not sure how that proves or even supports that one "shouldn't" play these pieces.  One can play whatever music he or she wants for whatever reason makes it worthwhile to them.  These types of pieces can be played as musical pieces and not as technical excercises.  The Chopin Etudes and Beethoven Sonatas can be and too often are played as unmusical showoff pieces; that's something that's up to the player and not the selection of pieces themselves.

It would be just as silly to play pieces to please the musical elite as it would be just playing pieces that please the musically inept.  It just shows that no matter what you play, if you play it well someone will enjoy it.

[donjuan]

Im not very good with words, but I know I agree with Sketchee 100%.  Thanks for hitting the nail on the head

[Daevren]

Maybe its because some people see music as something holy, something religieus.

Of course Grand Galop was fun for me to listen to the first two times. I remember seeing the Cziffra video and turning it off halfway because it was just horrible to my ears.

I am not telling anyone they should only follow my taste. My point is that people should follow music.

Music isn't made for people, music is made for the sake of art. Ask any artist. Music itself is the goal. Thats why people get so passionate about it. Its pure love and dedication.

Of crouse most of the people listening to music don't know alot about it. I never said there is something wrong with layman enjoying something. Of course anyone can like that piece, but objectively it doesn't have much musical value.

When you say you need to listen to music for the fun of it and not 'study it as a textbook' then you misunderstand the people that do the latter. Its not boring study. It is an incredible journey, it can't be described very easily. Its like worshipping the music, instead of just sitting and enjoying it you take in everything, every little detail. You want to know and understand every property. Its like love. And how can you say love is like studying a boring textbook?

And when you say it equal silly to play music to please the music elite you miss the point entirely. Its not about the crowd, its about the music, its about the music.

[bernhard]

I cant stand the grand galop. Its only there to please the layman crowd and make money.

If anyone can recommend me excellent recordings of the more rarer pieces I am glad to hear.

Leslie Howard recorded the whole piano works for Hyperion. Over 90 CDs.

https://www.hyperion-records.co.uk/details/liszt1.asp

Naxos is also recording all of Liszt’s piano works (but with a different pianist for each CD).

https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0000014FJ/104-3513470-6340728?v=glance


Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[Daevren]

I was already aware of those. But I don't think Leslie Howard plays those pieces that well. Of course it was his choice to play them all, not play a few better than anyone else. I respect that, someone needs to do the dirty work.

[mh88]

look at the Transcendental Etudes....especially #7.

[Sketchee]

Maybe its because some people see music as something holy, something religieus.

Of course Grand Galop was fun for me to listen to the first two times. I remember seeing the Cziffra video and turning it off halfway because it was just horrible to my ears.

I am not telling anyone they should only follow my taste. My point is that people should follow music.

Yes, people should follow the music but unfortunately you don't get to dicate what music is. It's horrible to your ears so therefore it's not music?  You said that you listened to recordings, you didn't like it and therefore it's not music?  Perhaps you're not explaining this correctly or I'm misunderstanding, because it comes off as presumptuous.  Okay, you didn't like it.  How does this effect it's validity as music to the anyone but yourself?

Music isn't made for people, music is made for the sake of art. Ask any artist. Music itself is the goal. Thats why people get so passionate about it. Its pure love and dedication.

Of crouse most of the people listening to music don't know alot about it. I never said there is something wrong with layman enjoying something. Of course anyone can like that piece, but objectively it doesn't have much musical value.

You make a lot of statements, but in musical terms you haven't explained why these pieces don't have musical value.  Even if you had, I might be looking for different elements of music that you may not personally appreciate.  You are stating opinions and claiming that they are objective will not make them so. Again, saying that only ignorant people can enjoy Liszt's Grand Galop is silly.  That someone must be a layman not to appreciate what has so far been your opinion.  I don't deny that it isn't a deeply moving piece, but when I say it is a fun piece I mean it is a piece that expresses fun and whimsy in music.  I think it's effective in that although it's not a standout masterpiece among Liszt repertoire.  Musical value is not something that can be objective.  In critiquing a work of art, one can present their reasons for not liking the work and then from that state their personal conclusion.  Others can evaluate these reasons, accept the conclusion or draw their own conclusion.  Stating your own personal conclusions as fact without support, however, is not a presentation of knowlege but just silliness.

"Ask any artist"?  Who are these artists and what if I am able to find someone who is an very knowlegable artist who disagrees? It would be much simpler to explain your point of view rather than saying that we should take your word for it.  A history teacher wouldn't just tell their students that Alexander was a great man, he would explain what he did and let the students make the connection; in the same manner, for me to understand your ideas it would help to explain what about the music do you find unmusical.  You're using very abstract terms such as "art" and "music".  I don't think your reasons for enjoying music are bad ones, but when you make these very bold statements as to what the purpose of music is or should be for everyone who isn't a "layman", it doesn't convince anyone of anything.  What is you're reasoning behind these conclusions?

When you say you need to listen to music for the fun of it and not 'study it as a textbook' then you misunderstand the people that do the latter. Its not boring study. It is an incredible journey, it can't be described very easily. Its like worshipping the music, instead of just sitting and enjoying it you take in everything, every little detail. You want to know and understand every property. Its like love. And how can you say love is like studying a boring textbook?

It isn't at all that one shouldn't study a textbook on music, only that this isn't the only way to enjoy music on an intelligent level.  Just because someone doesn't love music in the same way you do doesn't make you wrong, but it also doesn't make your way right for everybody.

And when you say it equal silly to play music to please the music elite you miss the point entirely. Its not about the crowd, its about the music, its about the music.

Yes, it is about the music.  No one said it was about the crowd.  It was specifically said that it's not about the crowd.   You even just quoted my statement just now, but did you read it?  I said it's not about the crowd in the very statement you repeated.  The music elite and the musically inept are simply extreme examples of members of the crowd.  

[Daevren]

I am not saying everyone that likes the Grand Galop is a layman. Also, I don't think I need to point out what is wrong with the piece from a musical perspective.

It all comes down to why you think Grand Galop is a fun piece. The reason most people think its a fun piece are based on non-musical things.

And yes, you can try and measure musical value objectively, to some extent. Music is based on physics, which is universal for everyone in this universe, then its based on the way the human brain works, in terms of language, memory, hearing etc. This is about the same for all humans. So the biggest part of music is objective. Thats why music is such a great art form imo.

A person that makes things that are considered art by others but does so not because he loves art isn't an artist.

Yes, I am using abstract terms. Because I am talking about love. Love for art. I assume every 'artist' loves art. At least, in my mind that is part of the definition of what an artist is.

What music should be? To me that is a very easy question. Music can be alot of things, but the only thing that matters to me is music being musical. What does that mean? It means how structured and ordered the elements of melody, harmony and rhythm are. Because music is for a large part a objective artform you can define what those things are. You can pretty objectively determine what a unit of structured or ordered harmony would be.

This is not an easy thing to do, but I believe the laws of nature allow this. Of course many people tried before, people like Schenker. So someday I am going to try to make a system that can objectivly measure the musicality of music by counting the structures of ordered melody, harmony and rhythm.

I don't understand why people always want to tell me that people who don't see music like I do are bad people. All my best friends know nothing about music, but they listen to it anyway, and they still enjoy it. And I love them, they are perfect humans. I don't see the problem.

Wow, I almost lost this post because the session tiemed out, or something.

[donjuan]

Of course Grand Galop was fun for me to listen to the first two times. I remember seeing the Cziffra video and turning it off halfway because it was just horrible to my ears.

hmm I think the basis for our argument could just be due to our contrasting tastes.  On the great pianists video I must have watched Cziffra play Grand Galop Chromatique at least 20 times on the first sitting.  I love that video- It's the most amazing thing I have ever seen.  It changed the way I looked at adrenaline and triumph in piano music and performance.

I was reading what Sketchee wrote and now I understand "musical value" and how there is discrepancy in our definitions of the concept. To evaluate a composition's worth, you tend to go through lists of required elements - harmony, melody, rhythm, etc - Whereas I simply judge a piece of music by the way it makes me feel.  You remind me of a stingy figure skating judge who looks for the wrong rather than the right.

donjuan   

[Daevren]

I can enjoy music without thinking about those things, thats what I do most of the time. Maybe I even like music for non-musical reasons sometimes(wow, I sound like a christian talking about having lustful sex).

By the way, a non-musician can get away with judging music on its weakest element. A musician must judge music on its strongest element. Because while non-musicians can just enjoy themselves. Musicians also need to learn, which I find very enjoyable in itself too. So if a piece of music has an element that might interest the musician (and maybe plenty of elements which annoy him very much) he needs to ignore the bad elements and learn from the good elements.

[Sketchee]

I am not saying everyone that likes the Grand Galop is a layman. Also, I don't think I need to point out what is wrong with the piece from a musical perspective.

It all comes down to why you think Grand Galop is a fun piece. The reason most people think its a fun piece are based on non-musical things.

While it may be true that most people may feel that way, I'm only pointing out that people can like musical things about it

And yes, you can try and measure musical value objectively, to some extent. Music is based on physics, which is universal for everyone in this universe, then its based on the way the human brain works, in terms of language, memory, hearing etc. This is about the same for all humans. So the biggest part of music is objective. Thats why music is such a great art form imo.

While music is based on those things, I don't see how musical value is being defined by any of those nonobjective things in your above posts.  The human brain, language, memory, and hearing are big enough variables to make musical value from the human point of you.  Yes you can theoretically use chemicals in the brain to explain why one person likes something, while another doesn't.  However, on the musical level this doesn't support how any of the ideas presented are objective.  They're you're ideas.  Yes they were generated by your brain, memory, language, and hearing, but the same can be said of my views on musicality.

A person that makes things that are considered art by others but does so not because he loves art isn't an artist.

Yes, I am using abstract terms. Because I am talking about love. Love for art. I assume every 'artist' loves art. At least, in my mind that is part of the definition of what an artist is.

These abstract terms, however, don't communicate your ideas.  While I understand that you love art. Also, again, you brought up the idea that others are involved.  The people you are talking to have in this thread has specifically said several times that we do not like these pieces as crowdpleasers.  While these abstract terms apply to music, they don't support your ideas as objective or even as ones that are supported.

What music should be? To me that is a very easy question. Music can be alot of things, but the only thing that matters to me is music being musical. What does that mean? It means how structured and ordered the elements of melody, harmony and rhythm are. Because music is for a large part a objective artform you can define what those things are. You can pretty objectively determine what a unit of structured or ordered harmony would be.

This is not an easy thing to do, but I believe the laws of nature allow this. Of course many people tried before, people like Schenker. So someday I am going to try to make a system that can objectivly measure the musicality of music by counting the structures of ordered melody, harmony and rhythm.

While one can discuss whether a structured harmony is and we can all agree that, for example, Grande Galop Chromatique uses chromatic scales, that in no way tells us whether this harmony is effective.  If I find a certain unit of structured or ordered harmony of this piece music and you don't, then what? Who decides which structure is musical and which is not?  In the system which you propose, who will decide which structures are musical?  A survey of which pieces are considered music for common elements?  There are few pieces that are universally appreciated as musical.  Great composers are commonly quoted as disliking the music of other great composers.  Who decides which one is greater?

I don't understand why people always want to tell me that people who don't see music like I do are bad people. All my best friends know nothing about music, but they listen to it anyway, and they still enjoy it. And I love them, they are perfect humans. I don't see the problem.

I'm not saying that you are calling them bad people.  I just find your view elitist in that you are saying that opposing views are unmusical objectively and absolutely.  If they are objective, you haven't communicated this in nonobjective terms.

[Sketchee]

I was reading what Sketchee wrote and now I understand "musical value" and how there is discrepancy in our definitions of the concept. To evaluate a composition's worth, you tend to go through lists of required elements - harmony, melody, rhythm, etc - Whereas I simply judge a piece of music by the way it makes me feel.  You remind me of a stingy figure skating judge who looks for the wrong rather than the right.

These are just terms used to communicate what one likes about a piece.

I'm not saying that you have to listen pointing out each of these elements as you listen to enjoy music.  I sure don't.  When talking about music however, if you want others to be able to understand your musical thoughts though there had to be some common ground.  I guess it's the spoken language of music.  We can use any number of terms.  If I said about some piece "I love that part where it's suddenly loud and then gets soft" without using the term dynamics, that thought is clearly communicated.  That doesn't mean someone else will think it's cool or musical, but they can understand why I do.

[Sketchee]

I can enjoy music without thinking about those things, thats what I do most of the time. Maybe I even like music for non-musical reasons sometimes(wow, I sound like a christian talking about having lustful sex).

By the way, a non-musician can get away with judging music on its weakest element. A musician must judge music on its strongest element. Because while non-musicians can just enjoy themselves. Musicians also need to learn, which I find very enjoyable in itself too. So if a piece of music has an element that might interest the musician (and maybe plenty of elements which annoy him very much) he needs to ignore the bad elements and learn from the good elements.

Where the difference between two musicians lies is which they feel is the strongest element.  That's subjective.

[Daevren]

Of course not eveyone is going to see everything the same way. But at a basis I think it is explaineble why someone likes something. The whole story about strong and weak musical elements was just a reply about Dunjuan's 'figure skating judge'-story.

Another point that needs to be understood is that the largely universal part in music is the starting point of every subjective interpretation of people. Like you said, two people can listen something, hear the same thing and one person will like it while the other won't. But they still hear exactly the same.

I think this discussion has gotting a bit out of hand. Its a bit pointless this way.

If I haven't enough explained why I agree with Bet33 I will try again. But those abstract discussions about those strange concepts, I think we have a new topic for those.

[donjuan]

good point about the conversation getting out of hand.  Poor pies here just wants a few recommendations of great pieces to look at.  We could have avoided this whole thing if he didnt mention Grand galop Chromatique..
donjuan

[Daniel_piano]

let me explain, the BAD NAME quote,

its quite simple, within composer circles, there is still an aura that franz liszt was simply a virtuoso and a bad composer,

Are we still worried about what the snob composer circles think of anything
These composers are dead
The 21century has wiped the music quarters from these sad, presumptuos, fake-intellectual individuos, so no one care what they think

Music was never meant to be a serious, philosophycal, manieristic, intellectual, snob activity where a lot of snob people composing for the sake of it without any emotion to convey whatsoever discuss like old members of an out of this wolrd elite of what music has some value and what has not while ruining or preventing the careers of many talented people that unlike them are connected with umilty with the people desires and wishes

So, those ten composers shut in their old borgieous accademy while writing music with lot of unplayable passages to be played with garbage bins instead of instruments are criticizing the merits of Liszt, the merits of Steve Reich, the merits of Minimalism, the merits of Rock, the merits of New Age concluding that only their super-intellectual music is ART?
Well, no one cares !!
The whole worlds, inclusing the musical world, has forgotten them in their old ivory tower after shutting the door, so no one know where the key is
Any "composer circle" is irrevelant to the world, especially to the musical world

Daniel

[trix]

The Grand Galop Chromatique makes me laugh!-and I mean that in a good way .  It's got that gay (and I mean gay in the flamboyant sense ), manic,  garish, maudlin, almost circus like sound and feel to it (the same mood you hear at the end of HR 2) that is one of Liszt's many musical moods (and a mood that I believe is pretty unique to him, musically speaking).   

It's not my  favorite mood of his and doesn't generally satisfy my muscial personality, which is darker,  but it definitely has validity and merit: it is Liszt.  I think Liszt must have been manic and when you hear this quality in his more "mature", or "serious", writing and sentiment therein, in works like the Transcendental Etudes, it becomes a kind of billiant, manic, genius.

I could see him sitting around with friends, drinking and improvising the Galop and everyone laughing about it and that's the spirit in which I regard it.  There should be an entire thread about  the Galop with a recording of it at the top;   I think that would be an entertaining thread to read (and listen to-in fact I played one of the midis of it from classicalarchives while reading this thread for effect ).

It could be a good encore piece for a certain type of  pianist/program.

[Daniel_piano]

I cant stand the grand galop. Its only there to please the layman crowd and make money.

What I can't stand is the 20th century style presumption of students and listeners
The idea that you need to be aducated to appreciate music and that all the others are just stupid laymen only able to appreciate a catchy tune is something that was originated in the 20th century by modernist, something that it's sickening for a lot of people and that would have sickened all the great composers of the past
This is the "holier than thou" attitude that you can find in almost all fields, and this attitude has always disgusted me
Do you really think that just because you've studied music (or painting for that matter) you're more likely to appreciate or "understand" better a piece of music or a picture ??
Give me a break !!
You know what art is: art is the ability of creating something simple and direct utilizing complex theory and methods
That's is: you don't need to have studied cubism or impressionism to appreciate a picture/painting, if so, the artist failed when creating its opus
This has always been the true meaning of art and you can find this meaning in all epoques till the modernism
Every hint of complexity must only be known by the author that has to use it to create something that everyone can identify with
Art is and has always been intended to be appreciated by the "layman crowd" and not by the presumptuos "elitist crowd"
So, please, stop deluding yourself believing that just because you're studying music you're more likely to understand what true "art" is or that you're more likely to understand the musical merits of a work
You're not any smarter than the layman crowd, as music is something instinctive and if you appreciate it or not is just a unconscious taste and the laymen are human being intelligent like you completely capable of "feeling" music when they hear it

Stop refering to other people as "laymen" especially with that tone
Do you have some objective proof that you're any better than "them"?
Do you really feel so self confident that you can despise people unconscious feelings?
Do you really believe that you're judging music "subjectively" and that you would have judged it differently if you had not studied music?
Think twice, despite the presumption of extra-human knowledge of accademists they judge music instinctively like any other human being, like the so called "laymen" that are not more "layman" than you are for what it concerns musical appreciation
Stop judging others and let people feel and experience music for what it is, instead of making a pseudo-intellectual issue out of it
Music was created for them, for instinctive appreciation, and not for presumptuos pseudo-intellectual elitists that have always to judge others while finding all non-existant symbolism and idealisms in music
Read something about Liszt, Chopin, Tchaikovsky, Bach, Mozart, Grieg, Puccini and others and see for whom they created their music, it was not for theorists, musicists, elitists; they never created their music just for those who have studied music and knew music theory, in fact these were the last people they had in mind

Daniel

[Daevren]

Daniel_piano, you misunderstood everything I said. And I think its kind of sad you come whining about the old 'ivory tower' and 'elitist circles' cliches.

When I said layman I meant people that weren't musicians, or weren't serious musicians and in our world that is a huge minority. Those people may be great painters, poets, craftsman, scientists, friends, fathers or mothers, they aren't ignorant.

When you claim I think they are ignorant because I see magic in music you are creating the 'ivory tower' idea. I am not in an ivory tower, I am not some elitist scholar.

"Art is and has always been intended to be appreciated by the "layman crowd" and not by the presumptuos "elitist crowd" "

This quote shows it all, I care less about old grey men hidden away under a pile of books than you, even if I may someday become one of them. When I point out art wasn't made to entertain I don't mean it wasn't made to entertain the elite instead of the 'layman'. I meant art is firstly created in honour of art itself, it is the need to create, the magic, it is almost religious, it is a calling. It has nothing to do with any crowd.

Notice how alot of the great works were written for the composers own enjoyment and were never liked by the audienced.

"Do you have some objective proof that you're any better than "them"? "

Of course people that 'study' music have a deeper understanding of it. Just like people that study physics or math have a deeper understanding of it compared to the average person. A person that knows music for example just has a sharper eye. If he or she can hear better then he or she has a big advantage. Just like someone who can only see black and white can't appreciate Van Gogh as much as someone who can see the striking use of colours. If you want to call this taste, fine. But note that there are also people that are deaf or blind.


"Do you really feel so self confident that you can despise people unconscious feelings?"

Despise what? What are you talking about?


"Do you really believe that you're judging music "subjectively" and that you would have judged it differently if you had not studied music?" "

Of course. The more I know about music, the more passionate it became to listen to it. It is amazing, so emotional, so powerful. It can be compared to finding out God exists. Imagine how deep such a realisation would be.

Itzhak Perlman once said music was his religion. I feel the same. It is a comforting supernatural power that transcends human thought.

Also, I find your definition of art a bit narrow minded, you should lighten up a bit. You sound like the people you say you despise.

[Daniel_piano]

When I point out art wasn't made to entertain I don't mean it wasn't made to entertain the elite instead of the 'layman'. I meant art is firstly created in honour of art itself, it is the need to create, the magic, it is almost religious, it is a calling. It has nothing to do with any crowd.

Entertainment is just spiritual and noble as meditation, religion or the magic you're talking about
I don't see the reason to consider entertainment and fun as something trivial and without depth, as you can find all the magical, spiritual, religious, meditative and deep aspect of art in fun and entertainment
And when composers created something to entertain they were giving it the same importance of any other piece
Now, this is like the Accademy Awards mentality that think that only drammatic movie can deserve an oscar
But you know what: homour, irony, fun and entertainment can be high art and have deep and spiritual meanings too
Life was never meant to be a struggle so you can't find beautiful and spiritual aspect only and melancholy, sadness and medition, even having fun, entertain other and be humorous is part of our sould and our spiritual life

Notice how a lot of the great works were written for the composers own enjoyment and were never liked by the audienced.

There's never a single audience
Every composer before the 1900 has found his own audience
For example there were a Brahms audience and a Tchaikovsky audience
It was kind of rare to find a piece that was not liked even by the faithful audience of the composer

"Do you have some objective proof that you're any better than "them"? "

Of course people that 'study' music have a deeper understanding of it. Just like people that study physics or math have a deeper understanding of it compared to the average person. A person that knows music for example just has a sharper eye. If he or she can hear better then he or she has a big advantage. Just like someone who can only see black and white can't appreciate Van Gogh as much as someone who can see the striking use of colours. If you want to call this taste, fine. But note that there are also people that are deaf or blind.

This is nonsense
You're comparing objective things like eyesight and math to subjective and atereal thing like music
You can say that someone who is hearing impaired can less appreciate music but you can't say that knowing music theory has anything to do with musical appreciation because despite being a popular myth and belief this is something not true
Music is somthing that speak to your heart and your conscious and while you're listening to it all your knowledge about theory, harmony can't do nothing to alterate your perception as you're not listening it with your conscious brain
And on the other hand if you listen it with your conscious brain observing harmony, melody, progressions, cadenza and so on you can't really "feel" music the way it is intended to be listen
This studies have already been done
You use a different side of your brain to hear music and this is why music is like a jorney in another world, in the composer world or in your unconscious world as soon as you begin "reasoning" and take account of music theory in the music you're listening, that unconscious magic dies and music stop being art or even being music
Music is not better appreaciated by people who study music and are knowledgeable about music theory
Math, physic and colous are another story
Music can be subjectively appreciated by everyone and now that I'm more knowlegeable about music than 6 years ago I still appreciate the same music I appreciates back then, and people that doesn't know anything about harmony, counterpoint, notes, scales and orcehstration are completely able to appreciate fully any piece of music from Greeks chants to Stravinsky as long as the piece strive a chord in them

"Do you really believe that you're judging music "subjectively" and that you would have judged it differently if you had not studied music?" "

Of course. The more I know about music, the more passionate it became to listen to it. It is amazing, so emotional, so powerful. It can be compared to finding out God exists. Imagine how deep such a realisation would be.

Music is passionate and powerful just because you can't hear it consciously
The unsciounscious state that any people can experience and in which music is listened is what make it magic and spiritual
If you apply a resoning to it while you listen to it you're not experiencing this magic anymore
So, no, think twice you're not more entitled and any better in judging music subjectively than a butcher who doesn't even know the word "harmony", he would be able to appreciate music the same way you are and you conscious knowledge doesn't change your perception
It's like with paiting, you can take a group of people who know nothing about art and have them choose their favorites between hundereds of pictures
If you then have them follow an art and paiting course, their appreciation will not change
Either after the course they will choose the same pictures or if their tastes changed they changed subconsciously ofr reasons not related with the their better knowledge

Itzhak Perlman once said music was his religion. I feel the same. It is a comforting supernatural power that transcends human thought.

I agree
And therefore when you apply human though to music you destroy it's trascendental quality
I agree that you be more likely to appreciate specific components of a piece consciously because of your knowledge, but for what concern the true listening, when you're there with your eyes closed letting music enters in your soul and guiding you through a wonderful jorney all human are alike as knowledge ceases to be an important factor since subconsciously we're all the same and you can't change your subconscious emotions with theory knowledge

Also, I find your definition of art a bit narrow minded, you should lighten up a bit. You sound like the
people you say you despise.

You're right
My definition was just an aspect of my definition of art
My definition of "art" is:

living expression of your interior and subconscious world obtained through the technical ability in using a conscious communication form, art is anytime you're using the material world to materialize your immaterial world and art is the materialization of the your unconscious thoughts and desires throught something that could, unlike your  subconscious, be perceived by other people
Everyone has experienced how hard is to explain your dreams and your thoughts to someone else, "art" permits you to forget about the limit of the spoken words and use a limitless and global communication form to share your profound thoughts
Art is not created for the sake of it, but for the sake of espressing yourself while any other method seems not the right one to use
In fact, artists who created artistic works never thought they could become part of the art heritage, they created them for that moment, for sharing themselves and their soul with the contemporary world
So sorry, but if noone read it, noone listen it, noone sees it... then it's not art; as art is communication and there can't communication without someone who is paying attention

Therefore there is never a right characteristic for art as anything can be art
So art is not necessarily serious, is not necessarily, intellectual, is not necessarily innovative, is not necessarily moral, is not necessarily religious, is not necessarily wise and knowledgeable, is not necessarily meditative or melanchonic
Art could be anything and the contrary of anything and yes entertainment and light fun could be art as well

And by the way: the difference between "art music" and "popular music" was invented by modernists and avant-gardists and originated in the 20th century, it never existed in the past and it's of course an absurd and haughty differentiation

Daniel

[Daevren]

I disagree.

When you talk about listening music subcounsious then that has no relation to anything I ever experienced in life.
When you talk about all people being equal able to get the same pleasure in music then that just contradicts all the observations from my everyday life.
You seem to take every oppertinty to attack 20th or 21 century avand garde composers for what you call their 'elitist thinking'. Those people have nothing to do with what we are discussing.
Also, entertainment has nothing to do with art. Entertainment has no 'divine' properties. Its not spiritual or noble about it. In Ancient Rome people were entertained by brutal slaughtering of animals and slaves, for example. And there are lots of other simple things that are entertaining.

You even go so far as to claim what the purpose of life should be. Well, that goes beyond me.

[Daniel_piano]

I disagree.

When you talk about listening music subcounsious then that has no relation to anything I ever experienced in life.
When you talk about all people being equal able to get the same pleasure in music then that just contradicts all the observations from my everyday life.
You seem to take every oppertinty to attack 20th or 21 century avand garde composers for what you call their 'elitist thinking'. Those people have nothing to do with what we are discussing.

Sorry, but this has anything to do with 20th and 21th century composers and accademic mentality, as this kind of mentality where there's "art music" and "popular music" where only accademic music is "art" and where entertainment can be art  is something that originates in the 20th century and didn't exist before

Also, entertainment has nothing to do with art. Entertainment has no 'divine' properties. Its not spiritual or noble about it. In Ancient Rome people were entertained by brutal slaughtering of animals and slaves, for example. And there are lots of other simple things that are entertaining.

You're giving your personal exclusive meaning to a word that has a more global meaning
Clearly slaughtering of slaves is not "art" as it has nothing to do with "espressing yourself" but the point is that you can espress yourself deeply and spiritually even with fun, entertainment, irony and humour
That's not to say entertainment is always art as clearly showed in the example you made, but entertainment CAN BE art, as long as it meets the criteria by which a work is artistic, that's is "self espression" and communication of your inner thoughts
Entertainment surely has DIVINE quality entertainment  and fun is part of the human soul, part of human life and beautiful and spiritual as anything else corcening humans and the human spirit
Enterntainment can have lot of divine qualities and it can be noble and meaningful
Not all entertainment, we don't have to make generalization, but entertainment when artistic is art

Daniel

[Daevren]

Whats your point? You do have to make a generalisation. If entertainment is entertaining then that isn't because entertainment can be art. Entertainment doesn't have to be art.

So entertainment can be art is the entertainment is artisitic? But then it is art, so what is the point?

Do you really think I think entertainment is anti-art or bad?

Sorry, but this has anything to do with 20th and 21th century composers and accademic mentality, as this kind of mentality where there's "art music" and "popular music" where only accademic music is "art" and where entertainment can be art  is something that originates in the 20th century and didn't exist before

Thats a straw man you build.

[Daniel_piano]

Whats your point? You do have to make a generalisation. If entertainment is entertaining then that isn't because entertainment can be art. Entertainment doesn't have to be art.

So entertainment can be art is the entertainment is artisitic? But then it is art, so what is the point?

The generalisation is considering entertaiments all alike
I'm not saying entertainment is art or entertainment is not hard
I'm saying that some kind of entertaiment can be art if it meets the artisitc criteria

Entertainment is not "art" when it is based on what people want, i.e. the author is entertaining people with "THEIR" entertainment concept

Entertainment is "art" when it is based on what the author feel. i.e. when the author espress his sadness that's "art" when the author espress how concept of entertainment that's art
An author can be artistic even if he espress someone else joy of pain though emphatic espression

Daniel
 

[m1469]

I realize this thread has settled for a few days now, but I just wanted to say how much I have enjoyed reading it and I am struck by many of the ideas here.  Thanks for those whom have taken the time to express themselves, it has helped me to clarify some of my thoughts.   

m1469 Fox