Elitism and (classical) music

These traditionalist types like ACO are always full of hate and rage these days, beneath a classy outlook. Their hating is, for them, of course always only the fault of the (post)modernist and the modern world. It's funny because this use of hate and ressentiment was once the thing the left used to build their power, it wasn't a conservative thing at all. I guess the thymos can be cultivated but these traditionalist types aren't much of an example of how to do it well.

@AngelCityOutlaw I don't know why you hate on Mahler so.  I mean I know he's got many movements of symphonies and such that are overblown and bombastic, but when I think of Mahler I admire mostly some of my favorite scherzos and the Symphony No. 5 Adagietto which is just the purest expression of love in music that one could find.  And the Adagio from his Symphony No. 10 is just so mysterious and lucid.  It's mostly all very accessible music it seems except for those aforementioned pompous and bombastic movements that I always skip, although I'm sure you could find your given equivalent of those in the music of Richard Strauss.

10 hours ago, SSC said:

Dunno, they're so different I really wouldn't compare them.

What's wrong with liking both things, though?

It's possible to have varied tastes and compose in a variety of different styles. Shocking, I know.

LOL yeah I knew I wouldn't get a yes or no on that. Kinda cuz that's the point of you posting the video and starting this thread. You can't stand the idea that there is music better than yours and the insistence that there is, is "elitist", "racist" or whatever else your professors called it. Your Marxist ideology doesn't allow for anything other than total "equality", after all.

Yes, I compose in tons of styles. I've done everything from Death Metal to Orchestral to Pop. So I'm quite aware of varied tastes and styles. I'd be so bold as to say I've probably got a wider stylistic range than most on the forum.

Where you and I differ, however, is that I understand beauty and quality transcends that. Vivaldi's Concerto for Strings in G Alla Rustica, "Johnny Boy" by Santiano, and "Revolution Begins" by Arch Enemy are all wildly different styles. They're all roughly about as good, though. Don't really care for Jazz, but I still can recognize a good piece of music that happens to be Jazz should someone send it my way.

And so can everyone else. When you ask most people "What kind of music do you like?" most of the time, you get a "I dunno, kinda everything I guess" answer back. Most people are open to any music, as long as it's good.

Don't really think that would be possible unless there was a bit more objectivity involved than you want to believe.

At the end of the day, there are really only two genres of music: Good and Bad.

As to your point about liking both, I say again: There is nothing inherently wrong with it. The problem is the refusal to believe a distinction exists. I like a lot of bad movies, but I wouldn't ever argue they should be regarded as masterpieces of cinema when they obviously aren't and I wouldn't beam them into space to show aliens examples of Earth culture.

4 hours ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

You can't stand the idea that there is music better than yours and the insistence that there is, is "elitist", "racist" or whatever else your professors called it. Your Marxist ideology doesn't allow for anything other than total "equality", after all.

I'm not competing with anyone, so I don't care if anyone thinks my music is better or worse than anyone else's.

Additionally, I'm do not like Marx one bit, nor his stupid ideology nor his damn ideas. That you think that I do just shows how hard you project. How can people be equal when IQ is one of the biggest determining factors in people's life success (career, endeavors, etc,) and yet IQ is determined in a rather large degree by genetics. The more you try to force people to be equal, the more tyrannic you need to be because people are not equal. I said it before, they're not the same.

It is possible that people have different opinions than you, and that your stances aren't universal. Shocking, I know, but true. But...

4 hours ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

Vivaldi's Concerto for Strings in G Alla Rustica, "Johnny Boy" by Santiano, and "Revolution Begins" by Arch Enemy are all wildly different styles. They're all roughly about as good, though.

Wait wait, what? Vivaldi is on the same level (or whatever the hell "roughly as good" means) as whatever this "arch enemy" thing is? Are you joking? I mean, your tastes, not mine, but for someone who's so adamant that they hold the truth of objective beauty or some sh_t, this is rather hilarious.

Maybe you're just a really passionate and elaborate troll, cuz I honestly don't know what to think now.

4 hours ago, SSC said:

Additionally, I'm do not like Marx one bit

4 hours ago, SSC said:

It is possible that people have different opinions than you, and that your stances aren't universal

Except it's far more universal than you want to believe. I don't even see why you bothered going to study music, since it's "all subjective" they'd have nothing to teach you anyway. Doubtless you'd fight tooth and nail with any instructor trying to actually teach you anything about the craft you have no respect for.

If I sit someone down who "doesn't get" classical or orchestral music and show them Vivaldi vs Arnold, they will say Vivaldi sounds better.

Someone who "doesn't get" death metal will say Arch Enemy sounds better than Cannibal Corpse.

Someone who "doesn't get" art will say Michael Whelan is better than Picasso.

They will say that because there is a common, objective, aesthetic thread that runs through all of these things, and is absent in the inferior examples. 

Just because fringe people exist and have fringe tastes, doesn't invalidate this reality.

Be mad about it all you want, keep churning out random piano noise — it only benefits those of us who hold ourselves to a higher standard, but don't insult other people's intelligence by pretending you "don't know" and that nobody can know if your stuff is on par with the masters.

47 minutes ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

Be mad about it all you want, keep churning out random piano noise — it only benefits those of us who hold ourselves to a higher standard, but don't insult other people's intelligence by pretending you "don't know" and that nobody can know if your stuff is on par with the masters.

Maybe it just bothers you that I'm not insecure at all in the music that I make and the stuff I listen to. As for being mad, you're the one that's mad, quite literally. I already told you my position on marx, but you dismiss it. You know what, why do you even post if all you're going to do is believe only what you want to believe?

Like, I'm not kidding, if you're not here to discuss anything, and instead you're here to say you're 100% right and everyone else is 100% wrong you should go write on your blog or something, and stop wasting everyone's time, ffs.

(Which, by the way, is in the guidelines, if you bother to read them.)

24 minutes ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

If I sit someone down who "doesn't get" classical or orchestral music and show them Vivaldi vs Arnold, they will say Vivaldi sounds better.

Have you ever listened to Schönberg's "Verklärte Nacht"? Its thematic and harmonic ingenuity easily knock Vivaldi's entire work out of the water(no offense to the Red Monk) and it still has many memorable, yet accessible moments. Maybe they will flinch at some point, but at least they are not bored to death by endless Ritornelli sections for two Violins.

30 minutes ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

Someone who "doesn't get" death metal will say Arch Enemy sounds better than Cannibal Corpse.

Why compare the two? Arch Enemy produces bottom-of-the-barrel melodeath(emphasis on the first two syllables) which is basically glorified rock music. Take a simple song structure, slap some blast beats on top and congrats, you have got yourself an AE song. Cannibal Corpse at least put some effort into their batshit insane lyrics and hilariously frantic riffs. They would prefer the former(if at all) because it is easy rock.

1 hour ago, KStoertebeker said:

Have you ever listened to Schönberg's "Verklärte Nacht"? Its thematic and harmonic ingenuity easily knock Vivaldi's entire work out of the water(no offense to the Red Monk) and it still has many memorable, yet accessible moments. Maybe they will flinch at some point, but at least they are not bored to death by endless Ritornelli sections for two Violins.

Why compare the two? Arch Enemy produces bottom-of-the-barrel melodeath(emphasis on the first two syllables) which is basically glorified rock music. Take a simple song structure, slap some blast beats on top and congrats, you have got yourself an AE song. Cannibal Corpse at least put some effort into their batshit insane lyrics and hilariously frantic riffs. They would prefer the former(if at all) because it is easy rock.

 

Yeah let's compare 

I can't imagine why people might get the idea that classical music is boring, meandering, forgettable bullshit when you're telling them about what a genius Schoenberg supposedly was.

Now, post your music. I notice you haven't done that on this site. 

Usually there's a common theme where all you people who are on about "subjectivity" and pro-modernism and act like a voice of authority have fairly unimpressive works and meager achievements. 

Competition in music is pretty stupid, the arts aren't about that at all. Oh, and I don't like Marx either. Just because I don't like Marx doesn't mean I'm highly competitive in the arts. That would be black and white thinking. There are certainly areas in life in which competition isn't the bad thing as often is portrayed although I think as a value cooperation is always higher (unity over difference). 

1 hour ago, Jan-Peter said:

Competition in music is pretty stupid, the arts aren't about that at all. Oh, and I don't like Marx either. Just because I don't like Marx doesn't mean I'm highly competitive in the arts. That would be black and white thinking. There are certainly areas in life in which competition isn't the bad thing as often is portrayed although I think as a value cooperation is always higher (unity over difference). 

 

What about being in competition with yourself?

Do you guys seriously just take NO pride in the work you do or actually strive to do a good job whatsoever?

Like, do you just smash the piano keys randomly and say "Damn, it's too bad there is no way to tell if what I'm doing right now is worth half a sht." Are you that hollow?

It sounds like it.

[USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST.]

14 minutes ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

Yeah let's compare 

I can't imagine why people might get the idea that classical music is boring, meandering, forgettable bullshit when you're telling them about what a genius Schoenberg supposedly was.

 

Just jump to 1:16, 6:48 and 12:32. I distinctly remember these sections because back then, when I could not stand this piece at all and would only listen to Bach and Telemann, I was still mesmerized by their beauty. Vivaldi's piece on the other hand would have bored me to death even back then, at least compare it to the Brandenburg Concerti or Telemann's quartets. Nevertheless, I was not talking about the whole work. Comparing a thirty-minute story to a short baroque concerto is not very fair.

24 minutes ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

Now, post your music. I notice you haven't done that on this site. 

Usually there's a common theme where all you people who are on about "subjectivity" and pro-modernism and act like a voice of authority have fairly unimpressive works and meager achievements. 

Yeah, I will not. It has been a quite a while since I tried to and all I could produce and finalize was a boring concerto in the Baroque style(I was 15 back then and inexperienced) and some awful fugues and minor exercises. Actually, I registered to get me back in the mood, but that has not happened yet. Ask me in a month maybe. 

You are taking this thread way too serious. We are three pages in and you are still trying to get a cheap gotcha out of somebody because Marx or modernism or whatever. Nobody is going to give you that, calm down.

8 hours ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

What about being in competition with yourself?

Do you guys seriously just take NO pride in the work you do or actually strive to do a good job whatsoever?

Like, do you just smash the piano keys randomly and say "Damn, it's too bad there is no way to tell if what I'm doing right now is worth half a sht." Are you that hollow?

It sounds like it.

[USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST.]

 

You can take pride in your work just for what it is, not because it is better than someone else work (or your own). You really need to feel better than someone else before you can take pride in your work? Why do you accuse us of being hollow?

I just try making the thing I make the best possible thing. Every time again. That's basically everything you can do as a composer, in my opinion. 

Anyway bye bye ACO.

I think he says a lot of subjective things like they are objective, he says things to fit a narrative(''Mozart fell out of favour and commissions began to go to more compliant composers''  biographers attribute Mozart's late financial woes mainly to his spending, his music was highly acclaimed by connoisseurs and among elites. Using this to paint Mozart as someone rebelling against elitism is really weird when you consider that Mozart was a Freemason.), and a lot of his beliefs sink in water without truth to hold to. His authoritative tone on top of it is probably why people get annoyed by him.

I haven't watched the video but the tone of many responses reminded me of the nature of the music industry (in all its forms) as expressed in my favourite musical textbook:

"Most important is to get your sense of values right. In music as in most things, the people involved in the art are far more important than the art itself. If we didn't believe this it would be hard to keep up the struggle/

A great many people are involved in music in one way and another. The main categories in practical order of importance are:

Impresarios, agents, etc

The BBC

The record companies

Conductors

Virtuosos (vocal and instrumental)

Run-of-the-mill musicians

Critics and historians

Composers.

We shall deal with them in this order. Secretly we believe that composers are really the most important but they are difficult to talk about without some preparation.".......etc. 

Ah, well.....

Edit: Of course, it's a little out of date now. For record companies add in 'streaming services' and it pertains more to art music rather than popular where entire departments are involved in peripheral activities to make sure the 'scene' sells. - fashion designers, technocrats, choreographers, vernacular designers, plugging organisers, make-up artists, media designers....