[Bunnyears]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tw0k1ngs /img/forum/go_quote.gif What I meant by Mozart was a "court monkey" was meant in the same sense that John Williams is a "film monkey." His expression will always be somewhat limited by others "approval." Of course I was exaggerating, but that is just reflex from my former debate days. I only meant it in relation to Beethoven, not as a fact. I was comparing the two, saying that Beethoven composed just for the hell of it, however his brilliance lies within his mastery of simplicity. Comparing Dali to Picasso is futile, since both were masters at the message they were attempting to translate, however, I can relate more to Dali the person, therefore he will always have the "iconic" advantage just as Scriabin and Chopin have in my book. As for me, the reason why I have such opinion, is because I cannot distinguish between life and art. I have severe synesthesia for both music and some color, music being more severe, something for ever frequency. I cannot hear any frequency without experiencing a flood of indescribable shapes and colors. The worst part is, I have to call them colors, because they elicit the same feeling I get when seeing colors with my eyes, but they are not like "red's and blues" but more like... tastes, or... steel feelings or soft, darker feels. On top of all this, I cannot think in any way other than pictures and shapes, and I was stunned when I was told that people don't all think this way. I started playing piano when I was 3, and can still remember every note I played on my first lesson. I can learn 20 page etudes in a day, because I remember what I "see" very easily. I have thought and thought scientifically about why I can do this, as it only helped to separate me from my musical peers, and I guess the best way I have come to understand it is... because I can "see" it, I understand space extremely effectively. I understand how music is simply a momentary stop in time upon an infinite scale, and when certain combinations of these momentary stops apply, they elicit a specific (yet recognizable and categorical) reaction within me. I in turn, do not think in terms of "notes" anymore, but direct transmission of feeling, in which I can understand/recreate it instantaneously. This in turn has led me to realize how limited language is for the pure transmission of thought... and how no one will ever truly "understand" until I play for them. That is why I love music, because I can talk about it all I want, but no amount of words will express what I truly mean as well as playing even three notes... the exact amount I want to/am trying to convey. I first found out I experienced music differently than others in AP Music Theory in High School. We were listening to Schoenberg, and I immediately started having slight convulsions and physical reactions to the music in which they almost had to call the paramedics. My senses were going crazy... subconsciously trying to find some kind of tonic ground but slipping all over mathematics? I don't know. But that is how I have come to terms with it. Imagine trying to communicate what you are experiencing as a child to others, only to have them shoot you down because THEY didn't grow up under the same conditions. It was very confusing for me as a child. I hate "teachers" because they are people with opinions... opinions they attempt to force upon you, not always in your best interest, but because that is "how it is done." I have realized that "how it is done" simply means "allowing for the most efficient means of translation" and that I can figure out by myself in relatively short time. This is why I am an audiophile, not because I like a "clean picture", but because of what a "cleaner" picture can express to me. It brings across this underlying message in music that "dirty" music can't express fully. You may say, "Well why aren't you at Juilliard or Berklee or European schools?" Because the only thing they can help me improve upon is technique and present me with bragging rights, something I am not fond of. On top of that... it is only more of me having to explain to others what is going on in my head, even though it already has begun to make perfect sense to me. If you can "see" what is going on in music... if you can get that 2 + 2 = 4 for a piece, how can someone help you understand that 2 + 2 = 4... better? This is why I judge them as "men." Not because of hours and hours of studying and studying, but because I can peek behind the curtain that studying helps open. I can see/feel what they were attempting to express, and that is why I love some of Mozart's jazz genius where he does stuff almost "just for the hell of it". I just hate having to explain all that again... because it sounds extremely unbelievable, and as you read, there is no doubt in my mind that you doubt me 100%. Because we are just human, people will read this, and I WILL get those humble replies like "well we are just layman compared to YOU" and I hate that. There, I have said my peace. If you have any questions, ask and I will answer as best I can.

My goodness, synesthesia as an excuse for intellectual snobbery? To me Beethoven tastes a good deal better than Scriabin.

 

[JohnFerrier]

Well, actually, I'm not so sure that Olga Neuwirth, Peter Eötvös, Pierre Boulez, Roger Reynolds, Kaija Saariaho and other contemporary artists hold Beethoven in as high esteem as "the rest of humanity."

 

[Bunnyears]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnFerrier /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well, actually, I'm not so sure that Olga Neuwirth, Peter Eötvös, Pierre Boulez, Roger Reynolds, Kaija Saariaho and other contemporary artists hold Beethoven in as high esteem as "the rest of humanity."

After you ask them, let us know.

I'm not sure that they don't hold Mozart and Beethoven in high esteem.

Both Picasso and Dalí held Velazquez in high esteem and their art was as far from his as Boulez is from Beethoven.

 

[tw0k1ngs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bunnyears /img/forum/go_quote.gif You are very good at putting down geniuses whose accomplishments are known and respected by the rest of humanity. In your particular present time, you have dismissed everything that was built by these giants upon whose shoulders others stood in order to attain whatever heights they rose to. You love Whitman, but would you dismiss Chaucer and Shakespeare because their idiom is different both in syntax and style from Whitman's? Mozart's father was his principal teacher. He appeared in Vienna with his talent formed at such an early age that even Haydn couldn't resist exclaiming that there had never been such a great composer as Mozart. To your ears, Beethoven's music sounds hopelessly conventional, but then you have known Beethoven's music and later music that has incorporated all of his innovations all of your life. You clearly lack the imagination to understand just how revolutionary Beethoven was, and not just in his music. He was the first composer who demanded to be accepted as a social equal by the incredibly caste oriented Viennese. He insisted on entering by the front door and was friends with the aristocracy who valued him so much more than you do, even when they became aware after his disastrous lawsuit with his sister in law that he was not a member of any aristocracy. You don't particularly care for the music of Mozart and Beethoven and probably by extension the music of Haydn (another great innovator). You are entitled to like what you like and dislike what ever you wish as well. You aren't entitled to proclaim that because you don't see or appreciate the value and greatness of Mozart and Beethoven that these composers were not great. When you do that and dismiss them as you do, you reveal yourself as a callow and ignorant snob.

Why the hell do you care about my opinion so much? Because you don't like it when people don't agree with a majority? (obviously making them "right" correct?) If that is the case, it is my ignorance preceded by your arrogance casting me as callow and ignorant because I don't "agree" with you.

But isn't that downfall of all society? You don't agree with my "correct" religion therefore you are going to hell... Just live and let live.

 

[tw0k1ngs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnFerrier /img/forum/go_quote.gif What is that you like about Scriabin's music? I've thought his music okay, but may appreciate it more, if someone indicates what to listen/look for...

Scriabin's genius lies within his sharp tongue. Listen to pieces like his Poeme in F-Sharp... it is almost Jazz in the way he presents some material. It touches upon older foundations, but he throws in a few stabs and jabs to twist the mind just enough to offset your expectation, but bring them back up.

With his music, try not "listening" to it to see if it "sounds pleasing", but attempting understand what he was trying to portray with every note.

Very much like, jazz... lord know Thelonius Monk didn't compose music that "sounds good", but was brilliant in speaking without words.

 

[tw0k1ngs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bunnyears /img/forum/go_quote.gif You are very good at putting down geniuses whose accomplishments are known and respected by the rest of humanity. In your particular present time, you have dismissed everything that was built by these giants upon whose shoulders others stood in order to attain whatever heights they rose to. You love Whitman, but would you dismiss Chaucer and Shakespeare because their idiom is different both in syntax and style from Whitman's?

Just because music can increase in amplitude and complexity doesn't make their creator "god-like."

You make these men sound like they are Gandalf and Sarumon for god's sake, some mystical creatures that we should cower at less they smite us with a mighty G-flat.

Perhaps you are looking too much into what I perceive as nothing more than adapt coordination.

Why do people hold musicians as godly? Because to the majority, ITS HARD. If everyone "got" music as easily as some, people wouldn't have to put composers on a higher pedestal than others.

It is the ignorance of society that makes these men godly, and therefore when others attempt to challenge their authority, we are so quick to burn them at the stake for worshipping a false idol.

 

[tw0k1ngs]

A genius can only be a genius in comparison to an average, therefore credibility and skill is based solely on interpretation then subconscious/immediate relation then categorization.

In the bigger scheme of things, relativity doesn't mean crap. Comparisons are for the creatures to squabble at with each other. There is no "magic flute".

 

[JohnFerrier]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tw0k1ngs /img/forum/go_quote.gif Scriabin's genius lies within his sharp tongue. Listen to pieces like his Poeme in F-Sharp... it is almost Jazz in the way he presents some material. It touches upon older foundations, but he throws in a few stabs and jabs to twist the mind just enough to offset your expectation, but bring them back up. With his music, try not "listening" to it to see if it "sounds pleasing", but attempting understand what he was trying to portray with every note. Very much like, jazz... lord know Thelonius Monk didn't compose music that "sounds good", but was brilliant in speaking without words.

I happen to have a version of the Poeme in F-Sharp that I'll relisten to. Welcome to Headfi... sorry about the wallop...

-

Well.... hehehe... what I actually have is Le Poeme de l'extase, op. 54 and Concerto for Piano and Orchestra in F sharp minor, op. 20. As far as the former, I prefer something like Debussy's La Mer/Rhapsody for Orchestra or Ravel's Daphnis et Chloe. The later, to me, was kind of like Rachmaninoff's music.

 

[eyeresist]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tw0k1ngs /img/forum/go_quote.gif Just because music can increase in amplitude and complexity doesn't make their creator "god-like." You make these men sound like they are Gandalf and Sarumon for god's sake, some mystical creatures that we should cower at less they smite us with a mighty G-flat.

You were the one who called Scriabin "godly", remember?


tw0k1ngs, you have a lot of facts in your head (some of them incorrect), and a lot of strong opinions, but you haven't yet managed to combine them into any sort of coherent argument. In fact, your extended rants have basically killed the thread. Synesthesia is not an excuse for poor net etiquette.




BTW, if the original poster is still reading, the Saint-Saens symphony you are after is his 3rd, also called the "organ" symphony. There are plenty of decent performances available, including a classic (and cheap!) recording conducted by Charles Munch. Knock yourself out.

 

[tw0k1ngs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by eyeresist /img/forum/go_quote.gif You were the one who called Scriabin "godly", remember? tw0k1ngs, you have a lot of facts in your head (some of them incorrect), and a lot of strong opinions, but you haven't yet managed to combine them into any sort of coherent argument. In fact, your extended rants have basically killed the thread. Synesthesia is not an excuse for poor net etiquette. BTW, if the original poster is still reading, the Saint-Saens symphony you are after is his 3rd, also called the "organ" symphony. There are plenty of decent performances available, including a classic (and cheap!) recording conducted by Charles Munch. Knock yourself out.

Yes, and he being "godly" will always be my opinion. I don't go around insulting people as if my opinion were "universal."

Of course one can't accrue a coherent argument when he is on the defense from the beginning. This isn't court, I don't have a "turn" to make my case and point.

I seriously doubt you read all posts and all replies in this ongoing charade. If you had, you would realize my post was strictly to the reply that we should "flaunt it if you got it."

If it doesn't make sense to you, it is probably because this tirade hasn't involved you.

 

[tw0k1ngs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnFerrier /img/forum/go_quote.gif I happen to have a version of the Poeme in F-Sharp that I'll relisten to. Welcome to Headfi... sorry about the wallop... - Well.... hehehe... what I actually have is Le Poeme de l'extase, op. 54 and Concerto for Piano and Orchestra in F sharp minor, op. 20. As far as the former, I prefer something like Debussy's La Mer/Rhapsody for Orchestra or Ravel's Daphnis et Chloe. The later, to me, was kind of like Rachmaninoff's music.

Very much so, Rachmaninoff and Scriabin were not only peers, but rivals. They both studied under the same teacher and attended the same Conservatory. Both even competed in the same competitions, in which Rachmaninoff often bested Scriabin due to his technical facility.

 

[eyeresist]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tw0k1ngs /img/forum/go_quote.gif I seriously doubt you read all posts and all replies in this ongoing charade. If you had, you would realize my post was strictly to the reply that we should "flaunt it if you got it." If it doesn't make sense to you, it is probably because this tirade hasn't involved you.

I read all your posts, and if I squinted they looked like something that a child might mistake for reasonable argument. But if I opened my eyes they looked like egoistic gobbledygook. Maybe Scriabin would understand...

 

[BAwig05]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tw0k1ngs /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes, and he being "godly" will always be my opinion. I don't go around insulting people as if my opinion were "universal." Of course one can't accrue a coherent argument when he is on the defense from the beginning. This isn't court, I don't have a "turn" to make my case and point. I seriously doubt you read all posts and all replies in this ongoing charade. If you had, you would realize my post was strictly to the reply that we should "flaunt it if you got it." If it doesn't make sense to you, it is probably because this tirade hasn't involved you.

You have just contradicted yourself. You assume that he has not read your posts, but that he is ganging up on you. You say this isn't a court, then you chastise a forum member for entering a discussion he previously had no part in, something I had thought forum members do. Accusing others of insulting you wins you no friends.

I also must apologize, because in my mind, the genius of Mozart and Beethoven is indeed "universal". Maybe you dislike that, as your dissertations have expressed, but in classical music in 2007, it is so.

 

[GetCool]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bunnyears /img/forum/go_quote.gif To your ears, Beethoven's music sounds hopelessly conventional, but then you have known Beethoven's music and later music that has incorporated all of his innovations all of your life.

Indeed.

I personally love Beethoven and Mozart, but I won't fault anyone for hating them. However, I cannot understand how anyone can discount their historical significance. They both had enormous impact on the evolution of classical music, whether you consider them today to be contrived or not.

Ever wonder why a large portion of the public can recognize the opening motif of the 5th, or fragments of the 9th, or Eine kleine Nachtmusik - whether they can properly identify the pieces or not? Love or hate these pieces, they are proof that Beethoven and Mozart have permeated our culture. It is simply impossible to claim that either composer had no influence whatsoever on what came after them.

 

[Oistrakh]

Quote:

Originally Posted by eyeresist /img/forum/go_quote.gif I read all your posts, and if I squinted they looked like something that a child might mistake for reasonable argument. But if I opened my eyes they looked like egoistic gobbledygook. Maybe Scriabin would understand...

LOL!

(p.s. I don't like Scriabin that much... Beethoven and Mozart are almost universally ranked as much better composers)