Anyone other than me like classical music?

[Iron Maiden Fan123]

I dont listen to it constantly but enjoy it, am I the only one.

 

[MetalAges]

I dig it, I actually just bought the album from the "modern day Mozart" Jay Greenberg (12 years old!) - and it's GOOD! Read that new story about how he composes, pretty amazing read.

Samples: www.jaygreenbergmusic.com coming soon!

 

[Narziss]

I dont listen to it constantly but enjoy it, am I the only one.

Dear IMF123,

I'm with you there, so long as by "classical" you mean real classical music, as by Beethoven, Brahms, Mozart, and the like, as opposed to so-called Romantic music by Liszt, Wagner, and such.

Real classical music is the highest form of music man has yet produced - truly human music. I consider Metal a close second - music to uplift the animal within. One complements the other.

Narziss

 

[Neurotic]

what's wrong with the romantic era?

anyway i'm a big Classical fan(i'm refering to all periods)
as a matter of fact i'm listening to Shostakovich's 10th Symphony right now.

 

[lad]

God yes I love some classical. Hell, most of the best metal existing today wouldn't exist as such without the great classical composers of the past.
And also, what do you dislike about the romantic era?

 

[Narziss]

God yes I love some classical. Hell, most of the best metal existing today wouldn't exist as such without the great classical composers of the past.
And also, what do you dislike about the romantic era?

Dear Neurotic and Mickael,

Romanticism as such is not characteristically human. Rather than contain actual ideas in the Platonic sense, it is intended to manipulate a person's mood, not inspire his cognition. The former can be done in a very refined manner, and I am not saying it cannot be useful - my defense of Metal here implicitly goes for Romantic music as well, in a sense.

The point is, the two types of music, classical and anticlassical (Romantic, Modern, everything other than classical) are the voice of two different parts of the human mind. The first is the cognition of the composer speaking to the cognition of the listener. The second is the bestial Ego of the composer/listener speaking in its own voice, implicitly to the human mind (cognition) of the composer/listener - it is solipsistic music, a dialogue attempting to reconcile man and beast, not a cognitive dialogue in the same way that classical forms are a dialogue. Since we are human first and beast second, classical must triumph, but the mistake is in presuming that this triumph does not properly extend its hand to anticlassical in order to lift up the beast (the flesh) and let it partake of the human destiny as a beloved companion.

Narziss

 

[Hatebreeder]

I'm a sucker for orchestral music. Classical, romantic, baroque, neo-classical, neo-baroque, etc...it's all just plum wonderful.

 

[Thoth-Amon]

Dear Neurotic and Mickael,

Romanticism as such is not characteristically human. Rather than contain actual ideas in the Platonic sense, it is intended to manipulate a person's mood, not inspire his cognition. The former can be done in a very refined manner, and I am not saying it cannot be useful - my defense of Metal here implicitly goes for Romantic music as well, in a sense.

The point is, the two types of music, classical and anticlassical (Romantic, Modern, everything other than classical) are the voice of two different parts of the human mind. The first is the cognition of the composer speaking to the cognition of the listener. The second is the bestial Ego of the composer/listener speaking in its own voice, implicitly to the human mind (cognition) of the composer/listener - it is solipsistic music, a dialogue attempting to reconcile man and beast, not a cognitive dialogue in the same way that classical forms are a dialogue. Since we are human first and beast second, classical must triumph, but the mistake is in presuming that this triumph does not properly extend its hand to anticlassical in order to lift up the beast (the flesh) and let it partake of the human destiny as a beloved companion.

Narziss

Your whole argument here seems to hinge on the idea that "human" is somehow different than "animal". That is false. Humans ARE animals, albeit with highly developed brains. The two styles you spoke of (classical and romantic) EMPHASIZE different aspects of human nature (i.e. the intellect versus our emotions) and often overlap. This does not make one less relevant than the other.

I dont listen to it constantly but enjoy it, am I the only one.

Look at my sig.

 

[Cro]

Beethoven's shit is heavy, man...

 

[Narziss]

Your whole argument here seems to hinge on the idea that "human" is somehow different than "animal". That is false. Humans ARE animals, albeit with highly developed brains. The two styles you spoke of (classical and romantic) EMPHASIZE different aspects of human nature (i.e. the intellect versus our emotions) and often overlap. This does not make one less relevant than the other.

Dear Thoth-Amon,

On the contrary, a mentally active human, properly defined, is a creature whose mind possesses the faculty of cognition which allows him to frame hypothesis, make proof-of-principle experiments, and, if successful, discover new truthful universal physical principles that characteristically allow him to increase his potential relative population density on the planet, to no known principled limit. No other species can do this; all are genetically bound into growth-dieoff cycles, none can willfully take charge of their destiny and do what we are doing. And if they can, then I'd certainly much desire to speak with them!

Just as children are potentially active humans in that sense, so animals are one removed: they are potential potentials. This must be so, for, if not, whence cometh the potential in the child, given biological evolution? Thus, animals do not contain the "spark" of cognition as children and (putative) adults do, but they do contain the "kindling" within that, through evolutionary selection, sometime in prehistory gave rise to that kindling lighting up into a tiny spark, and that, in turn, opened the door to our discovery of the principles of natural law that have let us understand our own minds, and the biotic and abiotic domains, to the degree that you and I are not only both alive (something we wouldn't be if not for the Artistic and Scientific successes of Western Civilisation), and able to dialogue via these wonderful electronic machines.

Classical music is the music that conforms perfectly to the conception of man qua man; anticlassical conforms only to the flesh (bestial Ego), though the flesh may in turn be deformed by its pressing relationship with the mind.

"For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all [is] vanity."
--Ecclestiastes 3:19

Narziss

 

[unknown]

I love it. Beethoven, Mussorgsky, Glass, Chopin, Holst, Respighi...it's all good!

 

[duncang]

I can't stand choral music, but I like my fair share, Mozart, JS Bach, Marcello etc.

 

[Thoth-Amon]

Dear Thoth-Amon,

On the contrary, a mentally active human, properly defined, is a creature whose mind possesses the faculty of cognition which allows him to frame hypothesis, make proof-of-principle experiments, and, if successful, discover new truthful universal physical principles that characteristically allow him to increase his potential relative population density on the planet, to no known principled limit. No other species can do this; all are genetically bound into growth-dieoff cycles, none can willfully take charge of their destiny and do what we are doing. And if they can, then I'd certainly much desire to speak with them!

Just as children are potentially active humans in that sense, so animals are one removed: they are potential potentials. This must be so, for, if not, whence cometh the potential in the child, given biological evolution? Thus, animals do not contain the "spark" of cognition as children and (putative) adults do, but they do contain the "kindling" within that, through evolutionary selection, sometime in prehistory gave rise to that kindling lighting up into a tiny spark, and that, in turn, opened the door to our discovery of the principles of natural law that have let us understand our own minds, and the biotic and abiotic domains, to the degree that you and I are not only both alive (something we wouldn't be if not for the Artistic and Scientific successes of Western Civilisation), and able to dialogue via these wonderful electronic machines.

Classical music is the music that conforms perfectly to the conception of man qua man; anticlassical conforms only to the flesh (bestial Ego), though the flesh may in turn be deformed by its pressing relationship with the mind.

"For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all [is] vanity."
--Ecclestiastes 3:19

Narziss

Essentially you said what I just said 'humans are animals BUT with higher cognitive capabilities'. Whether the classical genre conforms more to human nature is your opinion. Actually I would say Baroque music emphasizes cognitive aspects more than classical music does.
Also, you listed Beethoven, Brahms and Mozart as classical composers. Only Mozart is 100% in the classical style/era. Beethoven is a transitional composer whose early works are clearly in the classical genre while his later works are much more romantic in content. Brahms while having obvious classical sensibilities is also in the romantic genre. Haydn, Stamitz and Hummel would be other composers who are clearly in the classical genre.

 

[Neurotic]

Damn right Thoth-Amon.
I wouldn't trade my Shostakovich for Mozart, not by a chance.(although i love the requiem)

 

[speed]

Joe Queenan has ben writing an amazingly witty A-Z guide to classical music in the Guardian over the last month. Here are the articles (he's up to L):

K is for Kindertotenlieder, L is for Lizst | Classical and opera | Guardian Unlimited Music

G is for Goldberg, H is for hair | Classical and opera | Guardian Unlimited Music

E is for English music, F is for Fauré | Classical and opera | Guardian Unlimited Music

Joe Queenan's C to D of classical music | Classical and opera | Guardian Unlimited Music

A is for Amadeus, B is for Beethoven | Classical and opera | Guardian Unlimited Music


Really, these are great fun to read and informative. Sir Queenan has what I consider good taste too: scorn for academic music, bombastic, and the simple/popular.

 

[Der Morgenstern]

Joe Queenan has ben writing an amazingly witty A-Z guide to classical music in the Guardian over the last month. Here are the articles (he's up to L):

K is for Kindertotenlieder, L is for Lizst | Classical and opera | Guardian Unlimited Music

G is for Goldberg, H is for hair | Classical and opera | Guardian Unlimited Music

E is for English music, F is for Fauré | Classical and opera | Guardian Unlimited Music

Joe Queenan's C to D of classical music | Classical and opera | Guardian Unlimited Music

A is for Amadeus, B is for Beethoven | Classical and opera | Guardian Unlimited Music


Really, these are great fun to read and informative. Sir Queenan has what I consider good taste too: scorn for academic music, bombastic, and the simple/popular.

Queenan is a pompous ass who feels the need to insult anyone who he believes has an IQ below 150.

 

[speed]

Queenan is a pompous ass who feels the need to insult anyone who he believes has an IQ below 150.

Thats part of the fun!

 

[Narziss]

Essentially you said what I just said 'humans are animals BUT with higher cognitive capabilities'. Whether the classical genre conforms more to human nature is your opinion. Actually I would say Baroque music emphasizes cognitive aspects more than classical music does.

Also, you listed Beethoven, Brahms and Mozart as classical composers. Only Mozart is 100% in the classical style/era. Beethoven is a transitional composer whose early works are clearly in the classical genre while his later works are much more romantic in content. Brahms while having obvious classical sensibilities is also in the romantic genre. Haydn, Stamitz and Hummel would be other composers who are clearly in the classical genre.

Dear Thoth-Amon,

It's not my opinion at all. It's simply the truth, just as Kepler's discovery of the principle of universal gravitation is true, and the principle of the General Welfare upon which the United States of America is founded is true. Listening carefully and at length to classical music informs and elevates one's cognitive capacity - useful, provided one knows what that is, exactly.

To "God" as it were, humans are as animals, because no human fully expresses his cognition. To do so would be to become God. Instead, though, we do express ourselves as a distinctly higher species of life, just as organic life expresses itself as a higher species than the inorganic. Morally, we are the supreme beings on this planet and nothing will change that that doesn't also rob us of our cognition.

Fuddleheaded classifiers' definitions you mention of who is "classical" and who is "romantic" hold no weight, as such people, including, with respect, yourself, give no guarantee of actually knowing the principled difference between the two styles, and, thus "anything is anything!" Beethoven may well have delved into anticlassicism, perhaps ahead of his time, but you don't know that and neither do I - the only relevant evidence is that Beethoven's intent as "seen" in The Pastoral and Symphony No. 5 (in D. Min. Opus 67) are classical.

Narziss, rc

P.S. Well, interestingly enough, for some cringing reason my signature's "rc" link has been disabled as the name of the website is, apparently, too much for our Rockin' webmasters to handle. All due respect to anyone not involved in arranging such risible censorship. Here is the proper address. Just fill in the blanks:

s t o r m f r o n t
.org/forum/showthread.php?t=337218

 

[Thoth-Amon]

Dear Thoth-Amon,

It's not my opinion at all. It's simply the truth, just as Kepler's discovery of the principle of universal gravitation is true, and the principle of the General Welfare upon which the United States of America is founded is true. Listening carefully and at length to classical music informs and elevates one's cognitive capacity - useful, provided one knows what that is, exactly.

Fuddleheaded classifiers' definitions you mention of who is "classical" and who is "romantic" hold no weight, as such people, including, with respect, yourself, give no guarantee of actually knowing the principled difference between the two styles, and, thus "anything is anything!" Beethoven may well have delved into anticlassicism, perhaps ahead of his time, but you don't know that and neither do I - the only relevant evidence is that Beethoven's intent as "seen" in The Pastoral and Symphony No. 5 (in D. Min. Opus 67) are classical.

It is your opinion. In truth Classical music was a REACTION to the baroque era which emphasized very complex forms and was very cereberal in nature. Classical music was inteneded to be lighter and have a stronger emphasis on melody and simplicity. I.E. it wasn't about expanding one's cognitive capacity.... it was about simplifying music so that it wouldn't be all brains and no heart.
Secondly virtually the entire musically literate world agrees with the categorizations of who is and who is not in the classical era that I gave. I did in fact learn a few things from 4 semesters of Music History.

 

[Thoth-Amon]

Damn right Thoth-Amon.
I wouldn't trade my Shostakovich for Mozart, not by a chance.(although i love the requiem)

As much as I like Shostakovich I think Mozart destroys him. But hey to each his own.
Oddly Mozart is probably my overall favorite composer but the only composer of the 'classical' era that I really enjoy. Everyone else is pretty boring, writing pleasant tunes to formula music. Mozart is the one who infused this style with real humanity.