Jump to content

  • Member Statistics

    17,609
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    NH8550
    Newest Member
    NH8550
    Joined

Fall 2014 Banter Thread

IsentropicLift

By IsentropicLift,
in New York City Metro

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Guest Pamela

Guest Pamela

Posted
Posted

no it's not

 

In fairness, my assertion was quasi-subjective.  Plus, I was thinking about the Planet of the Apes score...and associated timeframe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Pamela

Guest Pamela

Posted
Posted

tonal music is for the 19th century

 

Symphony for The New World / Dvorak...Beethoven's 6th & Tchaikovsky's 6th (last one he wrote before he died of cholera  / offed himself...the jury is still out on that one) would be my picks for that era. Would probably throw in the rather upbeat Finlandia by Sibelius...though it was written right around the time the 19th became the 20th, IIRC. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
forkyfork

forkyfork

Posted
Posted

Symphony for The New World / Dvorak...Beethoven's 6th & Tchaikovsky's 6th (last one he wrote before he died of cholera  / offed himself...the jury is still out on that one) would be my picks for that era. Would probably throw in the rather upbeat Finlandia by Sibelius...though it was written right around the time the 19th became the 20th, IIRC.

i don't like anything from the romantic era. stravinsky said it best:

"For I consider that music is, by its very nature, essentially powerless to express anything at all, whether a feeling, an attitude of mind, a psychological mood, a phenomenon of nature, etc. Expression has never been an inherent property of music. That is by no means the purpose of its existence. If, as is nearly always the case, music appears to express something, this is only an illusion and not a reality. It is simply an additional attribute which, by tacit and inveterate agreement, we have lent it, thrust upon it, as a label, a convention – in short, an aspect which, unconsciously or by force of habit, we have come to confuse with its essential being."

Igor Stravinsky (1936). An Autobiography, p. 53-54.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Pamela

Guest Pamela

Posted
Posted

i don't like anything from the romantic era. stravinsky said it best:

"For I consider that music is, by its very nature, essentially powerless to express anything at all, whether a feeling, an attitude of mind, a psychological mood, a phenomenon of nature, etc. Expression has never been an inherent property of music. That is by no means the purpose of its existence. If, as is nearly always the case, music appears to express something, this is only an illusion and not a reality. It is simply an additional attribute which, by tacit and inveterate agreement, we have lent it, thrust upon it, as a label, a convention – in short, an aspect which, unconsciously or by force of habit, we have come to confuse with its essential being."

Igor Stravinsky (1936). An Autobiography, p. 53-54.

 

Well its the same with everything else basically...in the long run, does it really make any substantive difference if the illusion of expression substitutes for the real thing?  I mean, *most* of what passes for conduct, convention, and aesthetic charm has as element of artificiality about it.  As Willa Cather noted in Paul's Case...the eponymous character had an intense affinity for the artificial...since the natural always contained elements that he would deem rather grubby & unattractive. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WintersGrasp

WintersGrasp

Posted
Posted

Well its the same with everything else basically...in the long run, does it really make any substantive difference if the illusion of expression substitutes for the real thing? I mean, *most* of what passes for conduct, convention, and aesthetic charm has as element of artificiality about it. As Willa Cather noted in Paul's Case...the eponymous character had an intense affinity for the artificial...since the natural always contained elements that he would deem rather grubby & unattractive.

No matter what the genre of music (and I appreciate many different ones), the "best stuff" is really subjective. Many people now look for music with catchy hooks and choruses. Naturally, that's what is on the radio. My personal opinion is that the best music has always been written at a creative peak and NOT to simply push an album out every year or two. Many times though, it is very hard at first listen to distinguish between something complex and though-provoking, written at a creative peak.....and something that is overly pretentious to prove a point or to sell to the many people who want to "be different" (and end up being "the same", in a sense). There are very few albums or pieces of music that I can listen to straight through anymore and would want to hear again later that night, or tomorrow. All in all, that is essentially the beauty of music itself. Music written for the sake of writing a song can usually be deciphered as such. Music when released as an outlet for emotions and the instrument a tool to create that music, is simply the best.....at least for moments of introspection, in my opinion. Obviously, what I am referring to is more of the modern day music, where the majority of artists are significantly less painstaking about their work. It also goes along with artists "selling out".....their intentions are never to "sell out". Many of them that had stellar albums in the early part of their careers simply became successful and were pretty much forced to make albums every year or two, thus resulting in the forced work and lackluster music therein. Just some food for thought and I'm hungry

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Pamela

Guest Pamela

Posted
Posted

No matter what the genre of music (and I appreciate many different ones), the "best stuff" is really subjective. Many people now look for music with catchy hooks and choruses. Naturally, that's what is on the radio. My personal opinion is that the best music has always been written at a creative peak and NOT to simply push an album out every year or two. Many times though, it is very hard at first listen to distinguish between something complex and though-provoking, written at a creative peak.....and something that is overly pretentious to prove a point or to sell to the many people who want to "be different" (and end up being "the same", in a sense). There are very few albums or pieces of music that I can listen to straight through anymore and would want to hear again later that night, or tomorrow. All in all, that is essentially the beauty of music itself. Music written for the sake of writing a song can usually be deciphered as such. Music when released as an outlet for emotions and the instrument a tool to create that music, is simply the best.....at least for moments of introspection, in my opinion. Obviously, what I am referring to is more of the modern day music, where the majority of artists are significantly less painstaking about their work. It also goes along with artists "selling out".....their intentions are never to "sell out". Many of them that had stellar albums in the early part of their careers simply became successful and were pretty much forced to make albums every year or two, thus resulting in the forced work and lackluster music therein. Just some food for thought and I'm hungry

 

Keen observations.  As Andie MacDowell said of Bill Murray in Groundhog Day subsequent to a brief but thought provoking soliloquy by the latter, "Phil, I had no idea you were so...versatile."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Pamela

Guest Pamela

Posted
Posted

I'm a Dolphins fan and I am tired if losing heartbreakers.

Go snowstorm.

 

Talk about hard to please...its *only* been 41 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...