|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
104.58.212.61
In Reply to: RE: "The old school scholars and critcs (sic) - all of them, to a man - with out a SINGLE EXCEPTION posted by jdaniel@jps.net on October 29, 2015 at 08:47:08
WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG
There you go again, getting the whole thing WRONG.
You've COMPLETELY missed my point.
That's NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT what I was talking about.
How can you keep being WRONG every time?
'Scuse me, but I didn't say ONE WORD about "Romantic composers' premieres"? Where'd you git that from?
>>It's a rookie move to assume that Romantic composers' premieres received only hostile reviews.<<
You're so intent on catching me making some kind of error, that you're tripping over yourself shooting at me. I didn't say ONE WORD about 19th century premiers. I wasn't referring to critical - or audience - reception at premiers, or during the composer's lifetime, or during the 19th century at all. In my post, all of the words and paragraphs above the sentence you've quoted and after CLEARLY discuss 20th century scholarly and critical analysis of 19th century music. You have to be DENSE not to understand that.
In fact, delving into actual 19th century history is just that - serious assed historical research. A little bit of internet clipping doesn't even begin to scratch the surface. That's why there're such things as whole university-level historical research departments employing professional musicologists and professional historials who engage in such research. I actually have a bit of training in that sort of thing, so I know the what a monumental task it is.
Be that as it may, what I was talking about was the 20th century attitude on the part of musicologists and critics toward the 19th century, particularly after WWII. If you'd actually read my posts, rather than just skimming and picking out a sentence or phrase as you seem to usually do [and actually, I doubt that you're even reading this far right here], then you'd have seen that I took pains to specify 20th century writings. Here's an example:
"In the endless tomes produced during the 20th century, the attitude veers from hostility to flat out war-like aggression and anger aimed at Romantic composers - "
See that?? See that???? "..during the 20th century...".
'Ja git that part? TWENTIETH CENTURY. Git it?
That'd be the century starting with a 19xx, NOT 18xx. We're in the 21st century now, by the way, and the numbers start with 20xx, as in "2015". You may have to think about that for a while.
I also said "Most folks [at least those around here] haven't spent years of their short lives pouring over books of music analysis and history...".
That was my way of saying that I've done exactly that. Having done all of that, I can tell you that, over and over, book after book, article after article, one finds nothing but, well, hostility towards anything after Beethoven and prior to hardcore serialism - FROM 20th CENTURY ANALSYTS [jeez]. The more snippy musicologists don't even regard Schoenberg's atonal phase as anything much more than extreme, hyper-late-Romantic chromatism. That's how viscious those bozos were. And, there're plenty of them still around in academia today, just as there're plenty of neo-commies [and dried-up, bitter ancient commies] hanging around.
But, you managed to miss my point entirely. By a solar mile. Are you still reading this far? Concentrate now - focus, dude, focus.
What I was talking about was how 20th century musicologists analyzed the use of sonata forms during the 19th century, especially the late Romatic period. Even today, they savage it. The reason is that 19th century composers had to twist, turn, expand, and METAMORPHOSE the form to make it work for them. I said all of that SPECIFICALLY.
How'd you miss it?
Go back and re-read my post. OTOH, don't. Don't bother. It won't sink in. You seem to suffer from poor reading comprehension and/or limited attention span. Seriously. I'm not just taking a shot at you here. It's been a pattern. You seem to just land on one sentence or another in a post, and you go crazy with that. It may sound uncivil - some have warned me about it, but the evidence is becoming really clear. I think you've got some sort of - trying to be polite here - cognitive deficit. Not my problemo, but it affects me when you use your personal issues to try to disparage me and what I post.
N. Thelman, SSI
Follow Ups:
What do you mean by that?You're elevating one group of critics (the enemy) by ignoring their more prescient and insightful peers in order to fancy yourself the savior of Romantic/post-Romantic Art?
That's sick.
There are--and were--plenty of "academics" who are and were quite fond and supportive of artists of those eras.*
And there were plenty of critics who weren't.
And there were some critics who evolved over their lifetimes.
*Based upon your previous behavior, you were worth three examples this morning.
Edits: 10/29/15
Limited. It really is. Don't feel diminished. You can't, and don't have to know everything.
I know this stuff cause I canvassed and read it since 1972. I can see just from your posts that you don't have knowledge in this particular corner. Your errors range from being a bit off base to way off base. I'm too tired to type up a full response, but just quickly:
> > ignoring their more prescient and insightful peers in order to fancy yourself the savior of Romantic/post-Romantic Art? < <
Not doing that. Those "prescient" peers - during what? The latter 20th cent? Are you kidding? Do you have any idea how hard the serialist/modernists ruled and how comprehensive their influence was?
There's no point in belaboring this point with me. The published record is all there, in tons of books and articles which they produced.
> > There are--and were--plenty of "academics" who are and were quite fond and supportive of artists of those eras.* < <
Off of the point again. Yes, there always were devoted supporters of composers. That's NOT what I was talking about. READ MY STINKING POSTS ALL THE WAY THROUGH. I've had to make my same point about the 5th time to you already. I was talking about the way the musicologists/academics/critics took apart the Romantic sonata. And, from that disembowelment, the proceeded to disparage the composers and eventually the whole period. Go back a read my post. If you still have questions, ask.
Done with typing for tonight.
N. Thelman, SSI
Yes, Serialism (though you realize there's more to modernism than Serialism?) was all the rage for awhile, but: are you saying that *no one* has ever challenged their alleged negative attitudes toward the Romantic era? Ever? Except you?What do you really know about these people? Psst: sometimes they've even challenged themselves! And, darn it, even before you got the chance to set them straight.
For example:
Did you know Milton Babbit loved cheesy musical theater? And even wrote a broadway show?
Did you know that Boulez listens to Tchaikovsky for...pleasure??? OMG!!!!
Stravinsky, who hailed Eliot Carter's "thorny" Piano Concerto a masterpiece and later wrote in the "modernist" style himself, said that there's still plenty of good music to be written in C Major, which brings me to my point:
"Modernists" don't hate the Romantic style, they simply hate poor, warmed-over, derivative re-hashings of said style.
Tell us: which Academic held a gun to Barber's or Rachmaninoff's head and forbade them to write?
Did you know that those evil "modernist academics" voted to give Samuel Barber the Pulitzer prize at the height of you so-called war? Twice! (For his "old school" piano concerto and opera, Vanessa.) These are things that a poseur simply can't know.
You've put together nothing but a patchwork knowledge to serve your own ego and conspiracy theories. Your posts are nothing but gross generalizations, betraying your extreme discomfort with the genre. Every time you venture beyond simple rote memorization/recall to synthesis, your posts devolve into pure sophistry.This typical combination of cluelessness, condescension and ego is precisely why you're such a laughing stock. History--and the people in it--are far more complex than you seem to care to know.
Edits: 10/30/15
Here we go again. This is getting tiresome. I feel as tho I'm lecturing a mentally deficient child, going over the SAME STINKING POINTS, over and over and over and over again.
> > You said, "EXCEPT ME." (Your caps.) Really? Except you? < <
Yes, really. I fully aware of how ridiculous it sounds, and I've typed it out a bit tongue-in-cheek, but to anyone fluent in musicological studies [which you are NOT - demonstrably], no one's put forward my idea in the 45 years that I've been reading and studying this stuff. Frankly, I'm discouraged and disgusted that a world full of bright people hasn't produced someone who could have done so, but the reason lays in the nature of academic research and the politics involved. That, however, is another topic for another time.
> > ...are you saying that *no one* has ever challenged their alleged negative attitudes toward the Romantic era? Ever? Except you? < <
NOPE. I DIDN'T SAY THAT. Never said that. Re-read my posts. Either your trying to construct a straw man in order to knock down, or it's your mental deficiency and lack of reading comprehension showing again. Maybe you should seek medical help.
> > Did you know that Boulez listens to Tchaikovsky for...pleasure? < <
> > Did you know that those evil "modernist academics" voted to give Samuel Barber the Pulitzer prize at the height of you so-called war? Twice! < <
For the Nth time [jeez, you're dense] - I'M TALKING ABOUT MUSICOLOGISTS! ANALYSTS! NOT COMPOSERS.
Did that sentence sink in at all. Jiminy? Probably not. Probably just flew right over that dim skull of yours. Can you even discern the difference?
> > your posts devolve into pure sophistry. \ < <
Sophistry? Huh? Let's see. If it's something you don't understand, and on evidence of all of your posts that seems to include pretty much everthing, if it's something you can't grasp - it's sophistry. Hmmm. How do you feel about nuclear physics? "Sophistry"? Nevermind.
Do yourself a favor and get smarter, rather than raving and hollering in ignorance. Go read Prof. Julian Horton's article linked to my Sonata Deformation post. That may at least get you started in the right direction.
N. Thelman, SSI
> Did you know that Boulez listens to Tchaikovsky for...pleasure? <
> > For the Nth time [jeez, you're dense] - I'M TALKING ABOUT MUSICOLOGISTS! ANALYSTS! NOT COMPOSERS. < <
> > > Sigh. Boulez is a musicologist and an analyst, as well as a composer. < < <
> your posts devolve into pure sophistry. <
> > Sophistry? Huh?> >
> > > See Boulez comments above. < < <
Simply denying historical events doesn't mean that they didn't occur.
You're denying actual history. That you're unaware of it's not surprising. Most people don't know musicological history, and frankly, we're better off for it.
What's unfortunate is that rather than learning, you're NOT learning. You're doing he opposite. Not only are you yelling your brains out that the musicological history of which you're ignorant never occurred, but your using that to blast AD HOMINEM attacks on me.
It's sad how you turn EVERY SINGLE learning opportunity into an opportunity to fight instead. Not only that, but every time you've posted something -- IT'S WRONG!! What do we can people such as that? Hmm, let's see? Ignoramus comes to mind, but I'm sure that there're better terms.
DO THIS--> > GO TO MY DEFORMED SONATA THREAD
CLICK ON THE ATTACHED ARTICLE
READ IT
Assuming that you possess normal or better IQ, that should get you on the road to being musically informed. Maybe then you can stop yelling your head off like an ignoramus.
N. Thelman, SSI
Jiminy Daniels has descended into doing nothing but hurling insults at me.
There's no more constructive or instructive dialog taking place here.
I have no wish to entertain or encourage a truculent troll. Therefore, I shall no longer post or reply in this thread, and I urge the moderator to use the option to freeze this thread to future posts.
Thank you.
N. Thelman, SSI
Please, anyone in the Newian camp--his fellow connoisseurs, etc.-- don't help, thanks. He's be so insulted; I'm sure he couldn't live with himself.
Edits: 10/31/15
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: