Discussion:
Sor = Mozart?
(too old to reply)
Faustus Infinitus
2007-08-12 08:03:02 UTC
Permalink
Assertion(s):

Sor's musical genius was at least equal to Mozart's, and Sor realized
this genius in his music.

Agreed?
David Raleigh Arnold
2007-08-12 13:17:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Faustus Infinitus
Sor's musical genius was at least equal to Mozart's, and Sor realized
this genius in his music.
Agreed?
No. daveA
--
Free download of technical exercises worth a lifetime of practice:
http://www.openguitar.com/dynamic.html :::: You can play the cards
you're dealt, or improve your hand with DGT. Original easy guitar
solos, duets, exercises. http://www.openguitar.com/contact.html
John Oster
2007-08-12 16:15:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Raleigh Arnold
Post by Faustus Infinitus
Sor's musical genius was at least equal to Mozart's, and Sor realized
this genius in his music.
Agreed?
No. daveA
Not even close.
e***@cox.net
2007-08-12 14:02:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Faustus Infinitus
Sor's musical genius was at least equal to Mozart's, and Sor realized
this genius in his music.
Agreed?
I agree....

....with David

No
Mr Squiddy
2007-08-12 14:05:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Faustus Infinitus
Sor's musical genius was at least equal to Mozart's, and Sor realized
this genius in his music.
Agreed?
Surely...

Salieri = Mozart?
Charlie
2007-08-12 15:02:40 UTC
Permalink
Define 'musical genius'. This term is laid out in your post as if there is
some sort of implicit concensus on this term's meaning. I'm not sure there
is. The real discussion might be, "What is musical genius?" Define the
term and you will have your answer.

Charlie
Post by Faustus Infinitus
Sor's musical genius was at least equal to Mozart's, and Sor realized
this genius in his music.
Agreed?
chuck hulihan
2007-08-12 19:53:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Faustus Infinitus
Sor's musical genius was at least equal to Mozart's, and Sor realized
this genius in his music.
Agreed?
More thoughtful responses may be generated if the question was asked
in this frame "If Mozart wrote for the guitar, would Sor's musical
genius be at least equal to Mozart's..."

Im sure most folks instantly get caught up in knowing only Sor's
guitar music, and instantly draw failed comparisons to Mozart's large
scale works.

Food for thought. Also, defining the parameters of genius would make
for deeper discussion. Im not sure Sor was genius, but I do think his
music for the guitar is simply perfect. I humbly feel one can learn
all about playing the instrument (albeit in a certain harmonic and
stylistic period) technically, phrasing, interpretation, through his
music. I constantly come back to his works to center myself, discover
new ideas, new ways to phrase, and new fingerings etc. There is always
something there, from the shortest technical study to his Gran Solo.

-Chuck
www.duozona.com
www.myspace.com/duozona
Matanya Ophee
2007-08-12 20:22:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by chuck hulihan
Im sure most folks instantly get caught up in knowing only Sor's
guitar music, and instantly draw failed comparisons to Mozart's large
scale works.
Food for thought. Also, defining the parameters of genius would make
for deeper discussion. Im not sure Sor was genius, but I do think his
music for the guitar is simply perfect. I humbly feel one can learn
all about playing the instrument (albeit in a certain harmonic and
stylistic period) technically, phrasing, interpretation, through his
music. I constantly come back to his works to center myself, discover
new ideas, new ways to phrase, and new fingerings etc. There is always
something there, from the shortest technical study to his Gran Solo.
Well said Chuck.

Of course Sor is not Mozart and by the same token, Mozart is not Sor.
At the same time, those who speak disparagingly of 19th century guitar
music, are often the same people who do not understand that
Villa-Lobos is not Stravinsky, and Turina is not Shostakovich and
Ponce and Castelnuovo-Tedesco are not Ligetti.

Comparing bananas and apples is only useful if you are in the process
of baking a fruitcake. To post a dumb question like this, and to even
try and answer it seriously, can only come from a certified fruitcake.

Matanya Ophee
Editions Orphe'e, Inc.,
1240 Clubview Blvd. N.
Columbus, OH 43235-1226
614-846-9517
fax: 614-846-9794
http://www.editionsorphee.com
http://matanya.livejournal.com
Faustus Infinitus
2007-08-12 22:16:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matanya Ophee
Post by chuck hulihan
Im sure most folks instantly get caught up in knowing only Sor's
guitar music, and instantly draw failed comparisons to Mozart's large
scale works.
Food for thought. Also, defining the parameters of genius would make
for deeper discussion. Im not sure Sor was genius, but I do think his
music for the guitar is simply perfect. I humbly feel one can learn
all about playing the instrument (albeit in a certain harmonic and
stylistic period) technically, phrasing, interpretation, through his
music. I constantly come back to his works to center myself, discover
new ideas, new ways to phrase, and new fingerings etc. There is always
something there, from the shortest technical study to his Gran Solo.
Well said Chuck.
Of course Sor is not Mozart and by the same token, Mozart is not Sor.
At the same time, those who speak disparagingly of 19th century guitar
music, are often the same people who do not understand that
Villa-Lobos is not Stravinsky, and Turina is not Shostakovich and
Ponce and Castelnuovo-Tedesco are not Ligetti.
Comparing bananas and apples is only useful if you are in the process
of baking a fruitcake. To post a dumb question like this, and to even
try and answer it seriously, can only come from a certified fruitcake.
Matanya Ophee
Editions Orphe'e, Inc.,
1240 Clubview Blvd. N.
Columbus, OH 43235-1226
614-846-9517
fax: 614-846-9794http://www.editionsorphee.comhttp://matanya.livejournal.com
These exciting and admittedly astonishing assertions are not mine, but
my teacher's as communicated to me yesterday. This teacher is highly
respected in my area, is an excellent player, is on the Board of the
GFA and will be performing at the upcoming convention, and is likely
more musically knowledgeable than just about anyone here. He compared
Sor and Mozart on an absolute basis, not simply Sor relative to the
guitar world. I too was shocked, but coming from him, I think it's
something worth looking into. At any rate it's inspired me to learn
Sor's music, which I've largely neglected thus far.

By the way, Mr. Ophee, has the acrimony between you and Mr. Jeffery
cooled? And do you still recommend reading Jeffery's bio of Sor with
great caution?
Matanya Ophee
2007-08-12 22:54:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Faustus Infinitus
These exciting and admittedly astonishing assertions are not mine, but
my teacher's as communicated to me yesterday. This teacher is highly
respected in my area, is an excellent player, is on the Board of the
GFA and will be performing at the upcoming convention, and is likely
more musically knowledgeable than just about anyone here.
I have known your teacher for many years now and I have no doubt he is
a fine musician. I am also sure he is more musically knowledgeable
than many who post here, but to say that he is "more musically
knowledgeable than just about anyone here" is silly hyperbole. Just
like the one about comparing Sor and Mozart.
Post by Faustus Infinitus
He compared
Sor and Mozart on an absolute basis, not simply Sor relative to the
guitar world.
Such comparisons are not possible nor are they reasonable, and Chuck
Houlihan defined quite clearly why. If your teacher really said what
you said he said, then I would strongly advise to seek another teacher
or ignore such pompous declarations from him. This is not about
musical knowledge, but about musical wisdom.
Post by Faustus Infinitus
I too was shocked, but coming from him, I think it's
something worth looking into. At any rate it's inspired me to learn
Sor's music, which I've largely neglected thus far.
Good for you.
Post by Faustus Infinitus
By the way, Mr. Ophee, has the acrimony between you and Mr. Jeffery
cooled?
Well, my critique of his Sor biography is more than ten years old, and
so is his refusal to deal with it on a point by point basis. Nothing
changed.
Post by Faustus Infinitus
And do you still recommend reading Jeffery's bio of Sor with
great caution?
I would recommend reading any text, no matter who is the author, with
a great deal of caution. Particularly those authors who come on as
self-described authorities and tell you

.__trust me.

If you want to read about Fernando Sor, I would recommend Luis
Gasser's Sor Studies. 33 articles dealing with this composer.


Matanya Ophee
Editions Orphe'e, Inc.,
1240 Clubview Blvd. N.
Columbus, OH 43235-1226
614-846-9517
fax: 614-846-9794
http://www.editionsorphee.com
http://matanya.livejournal.com
Faustus Infinitus
2007-08-13 00:18:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matanya Ophee
Post by Faustus Infinitus
These exciting and admittedly astonishing assertions are not mine, but
my teacher's as communicated to me yesterday. This teacher is highly
respected in my area, is an excellent player, is on the Board of the
GFA and will be performing at the upcoming convention, and is likely
more musically knowledgeable than just about anyone here.
I have known your teacher for many years now and I have no doubt he is
a fine musician. I am also sure he is more musically knowledgeable
than many who post here, but to say that he is "more musically
knowledgeable than just about anyone here" is silly hyperbole. Just
like the one about comparing Sor and Mozart.
Post by Faustus Infinitus
He compared
Sor and Mozart on an absolute basis, not simply Sor relative to the
guitar world.
Such comparisons are not possible nor are they reasonable, and Chuck
Houlihan defined quite clearly why. If your teacher really said what
you said he said, then I would strongly advise to seek another teacher
or ignore such pompous declarations from him. This is not about
musical knowledge, but about musical wisdom.
Post by Faustus Infinitus
I too was shocked, but coming from him, I think it's
something worth looking into. At any rate it's inspired me to learn
Sor's music, which I've largely neglected thus far.
Good for you.
Post by Faustus Infinitus
By the way, Mr. Ophee, has the acrimony between you and Mr. Jeffery
cooled?
Well, my critique of his Sor biography is more than ten years old, and
so is his refusal to deal with it on a point by point basis. Nothing
changed.
Post by Faustus Infinitus
And do you still recommend reading Jeffery's bio of Sor with
great caution?
I would recommend reading any text, no matter who is the author, with
a great deal of caution. Particularly those authors who come on as
self-described authorities and tell you
.__trust me.
If you want to read about Fernando Sor, I would recommend Luis
Gasser's Sor Studies. 33 articles dealing with this composer.
Matanya Ophee
Editions Orphe'e, Inc.,
1240 Clubview Blvd. N.
Columbus, OH 43235-1226
614-846-9517
fax: 614-846-9794http://www.editionsorphee.comhttp://matanya.livejournal.com
I would recommend reading any text, no matter who is the author, with
a great deal of caution.
Excellent advice indeed.

His comments on Sor and Mozart occurred while going over a study from
the Sor studies book for which you wrote the historical intro (Mel Bay/
Chanterelle). Irrelevent info, but there it is anyway. Next time I'll
ask him about what he said, to make sure I didn't misunderstand. I was
certainly shocked and very pleased to hear such words, and perhaps my
delight somehow introduced a cloud in my accurately recollecting his
words here.

Thanks for the book recommendation.
Faustus Infinitus
2007-08-13 00:21:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matanya Ophee
Well, my critique of his Sor biography is more than ten years old
By the way, I looked for this on your site but couldn't find it. Is it
to be found anywhere now, and if so, will you direct me to it?
Matanya Ophee
2007-08-13 00:37:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Faustus Infinitus
Post by Matanya Ophee
Well, my critique of his Sor biography is more than ten years old
By the way, I looked for this on your site but couldn't find it. Is it
to be found anywhere now, and if so, will you direct me to it?
In general:

http://www.guitarandluteissues.com/

In particular:

http://www.guitarandluteissues.com/jeffery/jeffery.htm

and

http://www.guitarandluteissues.com/sor-etud.htm

and

http://www.guitarandluteissues.com/reply.htm

Matanya Ophee
Editions Orphe'e, Inc.,
1240 Clubview Blvd. N.
Columbus, OH 43235-1226
614-846-9517
fax: 614-846-9794
http://www.editionsorphee.com
http://matanya.livejournal.com
Carlos Barrientos
2007-08-13 13:15:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matanya Ophee
Post by Faustus Infinitus
These exciting and admittedly astonishing assertions are not mine, but
my teacher's as communicated to me yesterday. This teacher is highly
respected in my area, is an excellent player, is on the Board of the
GFA and will be performing at the upcoming convention, and is likely
more musically knowledgeable than just about anyone here.
"more musically knowledgeable than just about anyone here."

Now there's an assumption!

Relax, Faustus, I have known eminent musicians in my day whom I COULD
NOT HIRE to play in my band because, despite their many degrees and
accolades, could not hold the gig down! We are ALL humans here. That's
part of why this collective exists, we ALL bring something unique to the
table!
Post by Matanya Ophee
I have known your teacher for many years now and I have no doubt he is
a fine musician. I am also sure he is more musically knowledgeable
than many who post here, but to say that he is "more musically
knowledgeable than just about anyone here" is silly hyperbole. Just
like the one about comparing Sor and Mozart.
Hear, hear!
Post by Matanya Ophee
Post by Faustus Infinitus
He compared
Sor and Mozart on an absolute basis, not simply Sor relative to the
guitar world.
Such comparisons are not possible nor are they reasonable, and Chuck
Houlihan defined quite clearly why. If your teacher really said what
you said he said, then I would strongly advise to seek another teacher
or ignore such pompous declarations from him. This is not about
musical knowledge, but about musical wisdom.
Post by Faustus Infinitus
I too was shocked, but coming from him, I think it's
something worth looking into. At any rate it's inspired me to learn
Sor's music, which I've largely neglected thus far.
Good for you.
Post by Faustus Infinitus
By the way, Mr. Ophee, has the acrimony between you and Mr. Jeffery
cooled?
Well, my critique of his Sor biography is more than ten years old, and
so is his refusal to deal with it on a point by point basis. Nothing
changed.
For the record: Not all that is published is true or accurate or well
researched. DUH!!!

I offer as proof the article on Charlie Christian, guitarist, published
by Gunther Schuller in his book the "Swing Era". Herr Schuller copied
much of it verbatim from the album liner notes on the Charlie Christian
compilation album which he neither wrote nor credited.

Terrible scholarship, no?

While taking a Jazz History class under Bill Kennedy at FSU,I determined
to write an article on Charlie Christian. I ran into this discrepancy,
brought it to the attention of my teacher, friend to Herr Schuller, in
an article that I read to my class pointing out this plagiarism.

So what's so wrong about the plagiarism? There is conflicting evidence,
in print, no less; from an independant eye witness that the information
is wrong!

I wrote to Herr Schuller, in my most respectful sober prose presenting
my queries and ... have never heard from him...

Yet his book continues to be in print and wrong information continues to
be disseminated.

Apparently this happens in many environments.
Post by Matanya Ophee
Post by Faustus Infinitus
And do you still recommend reading Jeffery's bio of Sor with
great caution?
I would recommend reading any text, no matter who is the author, with
a great deal of caution. Particularly those authors who come on as
self-described authorities and tell you
.__trust me.
So... source everything? Recommended methodology?
Post by Matanya Ophee
If you want to read about Fernando Sor, I would recommend Luis
Gasser's Sor Studies. 33 articles dealing with this composer.
Where is this volume found?
Post by Matanya Ophee
Matanya Ophee
Editions Orphe'e, Inc.,
1240 Clubview Blvd. N.
Columbus, OH 43235-1226
614-846-9517
fax: 614-846-9794
http://www.editionsorphee.com
http://matanya.livejournal.com
--
Carlos Barrientos
"mailto:***@sprintmail.com"
Phone: (512) 218 - 8322
Larry Deack
2007-08-13 14:36:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carlos Barrientos
"more musically knowledgeable than just about anyone here."
Now there's an assumption!
His teacher would not say such a thing. He's a fine teachers and
player and not the kind of guy who feels the need to say such nonsense.
Hopefully his student can learn some humanity from him.
Carlos Barrientos
2007-08-13 15:24:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larry Deack
Post by Carlos Barrientos
"more musically knowledgeable than just about anyone here."
Now there's an assumption!
His teacher would not say such a thing. He's a fine teachers and
player and not the kind of guy who feels the need to say such nonsense.
Hopefully his student can learn some humanity from him.
Dunno. Sor=Mozart, does, in my opinion, a disservice to the unique
qualities found in the work of both men. When comparing composers, I
am

'Twould be like my asserting, in my recent involvement with Handel's
Harmonious Blacksmith Variations that Giuliani=Handel!

Poppycock!

I cannot source it at this very moment but I am reminded of Louis
Armstrong being asked to compare two musicians, he parabled this
question into a story of two sisters discussing their impressions of
the new preacher as they walked home from church. One liked the old
preacher, one liked the new and they quarreled all the way home until
they came to the realization that BOTH preachers were talking about
the Lord. Similarly, Louis, says, he felt about musicians- they were
both dealing with the music, no one better than the other. I learned
my lesson right there!


Carlos
Faustus Infinitus
2007-08-13 19:49:12 UTC
Permalink
-musicians- they were
both dealing with the music, no one better than the other. I learned
my lesson right there!
Carlos
Your lesson being what? Indoctrination as a faithful subject of the
dictatorship of relativism? Throw off your chains. There are indeed
better and worse, not merely difference. Mozart is better -
unequivocally, infinitely better in every way - than Slayer and their
ilk.
Carlos Barrientos
2007-08-13 22:18:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Faustus Infinitus
-musicians- they were
both dealing with the music, no one better than the other. I learned
my lesson right there!
Carlos
Your lesson being what? Indoctrination as a faithful subject of the
dictatorship of relativism?
Merely to say that in their own way, they are both serving the cause of
musicmaking. Surely you won't take me to task for being unacquainted
with these concepts. Let me appeal for my ignorance. Pace, Aristotelians...
Post by Faustus Infinitus
Throw off your chains.
Methinks thou dost protest too much...
Post by Faustus Infinitus
There are indeed
better and worse, not merely difference.
Then go play a sport. Clearly in that activity there are winners and
losers and the notion of competition. Leave art alone.
Post by Faustus Infinitus
Mozart is better -
unequivocally, infinitely better in every way - than Slayer and their
ilk.
And who knows, really, in his day Salieri > Mozart, today that is
different. Bach went out of fashion for a bit, right, inconceivable as
it seems to us today.

Ask a devoted fan of Slayer's music and he will, as vigorously as you
might say: "Turn that shit OFF!!!" and feel quite passionately about his
TASTE or PREFERENCE in music as you do about yours.

Have you not experienced certain moments that only one specific piece of
music, regardless of its origin, speaks directly to that moment?

For me, there are things that Muddy Waters does for me that Bach can't
and vice versa. Now, which one is better? I cannot make that distinction
without invalidating my affectionate response to either. So, in my world
view and opinion, they are both as good as each other.

Not a popular view perhaps... but then again, I'm used to marching to
the beat of a different drummer. I'm an artist.
--
Carlos Barrientos
"mailto:***@sprintmail.com"
Phone: (512) 218 - 8322
Larry Deack
2007-08-13 22:25:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carlos Barrientos
I'm an artist.
Do you draw or paint by chance?

Hope you enjoy Phi.
Carlos Barrientos
2007-08-13 22:56:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larry Deack
Post by Carlos Barrientos
I'm an artist.
Do you draw or paint by chance?
Hope you enjoy Phi.
Draw... badly, pen and ink... pencil..
Thanx. Digging it now!
--
Carlos Barrientos
"mailto:***@sprintmail.com"
Phone: (512) 218 - 8322
Faustus Infinitus
2007-08-14 00:08:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carlos Barrientos
Post by Faustus Infinitus
-musicians- they were
both dealing with the music, no one better than the other. I learned
my lesson right there!
Carlos
Your lesson being what? Indoctrination as a faithful subject of the
dictatorship of relativism?
Merely to say that in their own way, they are both serving the cause of
musicmaking. Surely you won't take me to task for being unacquainted
with these concepts. Let me appeal for my ignorance. Pace, Aristotelians...
Post by Faustus Infinitus
Throw off your chains.
Methinks thou dost protest too much...
Post by Faustus Infinitus
There are indeed
better and worse, not merely difference.
Then go play a sport. Clearly in that activity there are winners and
losers and the notion of competition. Leave art alone.
Post by Faustus Infinitus
Mozart is better -
unequivocally, infinitely better in every way - than Slayer and their
ilk.
And who knows, really, in his day Salieri > Mozart, today that is
different. Bach went out of fashion for a bit, right, inconceivable as
it seems to us today.
Ask a devoted fan of Slayer's music and he will, as vigorously as you
might say: "Turn that shit OFF!!!" and feel quite passionately about his
TASTE or PREFERENCE in music as you do about yours.
Have you not experienced certain moments that only one specific piece of
music, regardless of its origin, speaks directly to that moment?
For me, there are things that Muddy Waters does for me that Bach can't
and vice versa. Now, which one is better? I cannot make that distinction
without invalidating my affectionate response to either. So, in my world
view and opinion, they are both as good as each other.
Not a popular view perhaps... but then again, I'm used to marching to
the beat of a different drummer. I'm an artist.
--
Carlos Barrientos
Phone: (512) 218 - 8322
In fact, your relativism couldn't be more popular. It's the order of
the day. You're right in step with the fashion of the time - "artist"
or not.
Post by Carlos Barrientos
Then go play a sport. Clearly in that activity there are winners and
losers and the notion of competition. Leave art alone.
Let's say you pay to go see a classical guitarist, billed as a supreme
virtuoso. He excruciatingly flubs every piece. You complain to him,
"Give me my money back." Will you accept this answer?: "I won't give
you your money back, because in the arena of art, there is no better
or worse, but merely difference. My performance was simply different.
A pity that your mind is too small to grasp this."

As for competition, as you know, there are classical guitar
competitions around the world. No art is present in these
competitions? And what of the judges? You condemn them for making
qualitiative distinctions.

And how would you like a teacher who subscribes to your view? "Well
Carlos, it really doesn't matter how you play this piece - or any
piece. You see, you can't play it any better or worse than anyone
else, just differently. Sorry, time's up. Now pay me."
Post by Carlos Barrientos
Ask a devoted fan of Slayer's music and he will, as vigorously as you
might say: "Turn that shit OFF!!!" and feel quite passionately about his
TASTE or PREFERENCE in music as you do about yours.
Of course he'd say this. I'd be surprised if he didn't, since his
tastes exclude the highest. But Carlos, he'd be WRONG to do so.
Regardless of how he FEELS about it, his PREFERENCE is for INFERIOR -
not simply different - music (should we really even call it music?).
Like you and the many [hoi polloi], of course, he's convinced that the
pleasureable is the good simply because it's pleasureable. He fails to
distinguish between good and bad pleasures - indeed such a distinction
is ridiculous to him. To him, as to you, I assign Plato's Gorgias.
Post by Carlos Barrientos
For me, there are things that Muddy Waters does for me that Bach can't
and vice versa. Now, which one is better?
Bach. Infinitely.
Post by Carlos Barrientos
I'm used to marching to the beat of a different drummer. I'm an artist.
This reminds me of something someone recently told me: "I'm a very
humble person." I immediately knew I was dealing with a person of
enormous ego, since the assertion negates itself.

At any rate, I see that, in accord with your relativism, you've bought
into the childish notion that art is entirely subjective and that the
real artist is immediately recognizable. His hair might be long, he
might have a beard, his life must be in some state of turmoil, and
most importantly, his views must be most avant-garde (and therefore
relativist, of course). Shostakovich, who could have easily been
mistaken as an accountant, would have disappointed you. And Mozart
most certainly disagreed with you:

"Music must never offend the ear; but must please the hearer, or in
other words, must never cease to be music."

Of Slayer, would he have said, "No worries. It's just different"? No.
He would have rejected Slayer and their ilk, and he would have been
right to do so, regardless of his time or place of origin. At all
times and places, Slayer and their barbarism are to be rejected. There
are eternal truths, objective truths, completely independent of space
and time. Such truths exist in the realm of art. Learn them.

Finally, you shouldn't condemn me for anything I've said here or for
anything I will say. After all, these words are simply "my opinions,"
"my views," "my perspective" - it's all true "for me." (Notice how
truth is here consumerized and seen as a customized personal
possession - such is the dictatorship of relativism. This regime's
Holy Trinity? Me, Myself, and I). Will you be exquisitely tolerant, as
your relativism requires? Of course not. Like the other sanctimonious
trogs here, you'll condemn most severely, and you'll fail to see the
irony in this condemnation. This is why we must always refer to your
ilk only as the "tolerant."
Carlos Barrientos
2007-08-14 00:40:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Faustus Infinitus
Post by Carlos Barrientos
Post by Faustus Infinitus
-musicians- they were
both dealing with the music, no one better than the other. I learned
my lesson right there!
Carlos
Your lesson being what? Indoctrination as a faithful subject of the
dictatorship of relativism?
Merely to say that in their own way, they are both serving the cause of
musicmaking. Surely you won't take me to task for being unacquainted
with these concepts. Let me appeal for my ignorance. Pace, Aristotelians...
Post by Faustus Infinitus
Throw off your chains.
Methinks thou dost protest too much...
Post by Faustus Infinitus
There are indeed
better and worse, not merely difference.
Then go play a sport. Clearly in that activity there are winners and
losers and the notion of competition. Leave art alone.
Post by Faustus Infinitus
Mozart is better -
unequivocally, infinitely better in every way - than Slayer and their
ilk.
And who knows, really, in his day Salieri > Mozart, today that is
different. Bach went out of fashion for a bit, right, inconceivable as
it seems to us today.
Ask a devoted fan of Slayer's music and he will, as vigorously as you
might say: "Turn that shit OFF!!!" and feel quite passionately about his
TASTE or PREFERENCE in music as you do about yours.
Have you not experienced certain moments that only one specific piece of
music, regardless of its origin, speaks directly to that moment?
For me, there are things that Muddy Waters does for me that Bach can't
and vice versa. Now, which one is better? I cannot make that distinction
without invalidating my affectionate response to either. So, in my world
view and opinion, they are both as good as each other.
Not a popular view perhaps... but then again, I'm used to marching to
the beat of a different drummer. I'm an artist.
--
Carlos Barrientos
Phone: (512) 218 - 8322
In fact, your relativism couldn't be more popular. It's the order of
the day. You're right in step with the fashion of the time - "artist"
or not.
Post by Carlos Barrientos
Then go play a sport. Clearly in that activity there are winners and
losers and the notion of competition. Leave art alone.
Let's say you pay to go see a classical guitarist, billed as a supreme
virtuoso. He excruciatingly flubs every piece. You complain to him,
"Give me my money back." Will you accept this answer?: "I won't give
you your money back, because in the arena of art, there is no better
or worse, but merely difference. My performance was simply different.
A pity that your mind is too small to grasp this."
As for competition, as you know, there are classical guitar
competitions around the world. No art is present in these
competitions? And what of the judges? You condemn them for making
qualitiative distinctions.
And how would you like a teacher who subscribes to your view? "Well
Carlos, it really doesn't matter how you play this piece - or any
piece. You see, you can't play it any better or worse than anyone
else, just differently. Sorry, time's up. Now pay me."
Post by Carlos Barrientos
Ask a devoted fan of Slayer's music and he will, as vigorously as you
might say: "Turn that shit OFF!!!" and feel quite passionately about his
TASTE or PREFERENCE in music as you do about yours.
Of course he'd say this. I'd be surprised if he didn't, since his
tastes exclude the highest. But Carlos, he'd be WRONG to do so.
Regardless of how he FEELS about it, his PREFERENCE is for INFERIOR -
not simply different - music (should we really even call it music?).
Like you and the many [hoi polloi], of course, he's convinced that the
pleasureable is the good simply because it's pleasureable. He fails to
distinguish between good and bad pleasures - indeed such a distinction
is ridiculous to him. To him, as to you, I assign Plato's Gorgias.
Post by Carlos Barrientos
For me, there are things that Muddy Waters does for me that Bach can't
and vice versa. Now, which one is better?
Bach. Infinitely.
Post by Carlos Barrientos
I'm used to marching to the beat of a different drummer. I'm an artist.
This reminds me of something someone recently told me: "I'm a very
humble person." I immediately knew I was dealing with a person of
enormous ego, since the assertion negates itself.
At any rate, I see that, in accord with your relativism, you've bought
into the childish notion that art is entirely subjective and that the
real artist is immediately recognizable. His hair might be long, he
might have a beard, his life must be in some state of turmoil, and
most importantly, his views must be most avant-garde (and therefore
relativist, of course). Shostakovich, who could have easily been
mistaken as an accountant, would have disappointed you. And Mozart
"Music must never offend the ear; but must please the hearer, or in
other words, must never cease to be music."
Of Slayer, would he have said, "No worries. It's just different"? No.
He would have rejected Slayer and their ilk, and he would have been
right to do so, regardless of his time or place of origin. At all
times and places, Slayer and their barbarism are to be rejected. There
are eternal truths, objective truths, completely independent of space
and time. Such truths exist in the realm of art. Learn them.
Finally, you shouldn't condemn me for anything I've said here or for
anything I will say. After all, these words are simply "my opinions,"
"my views," "my perspective" - it's all true "for me." (Notice how
truth is here consumerized and seen as a customized personal
possession - such is the dictatorship of relativism. This regime's
Holy Trinity? Me, Myself, and I). Will you be exquisitely tolerant, as
your relativism requires? Of course not. Like the other sanctimonious
trogs here, you'll condemn most severely, and you'll fail to see the
irony in this condemnation. This is why we must always refer to your
ilk only as the "tolerant."
My...

Do you feel taller when you step on someone?
--
Carlos Barrientos
"mailto:***@sprintmail.com"
Phone: (512) 218 - 8322
JonLorPro
2007-08-14 17:29:52 UTC
Permalink
On Aug 13, Faustus Infinitus <***@hotmail.com> wrote:

3:18 pm
Post by Faustus Infinitus
If the many say Bach's music is bad, it nevertheless
remains sublime. If the many say Slayer's noise is good, it
nevertheless remains coprophagic. The whole world could agree in these
opinions - and the whole world would be wrong. The true qualitative
status of Bach's and Slayer's production is entirely independent of
opinion, entirely objective.
3:49 pm
Post by Faustus Infinitus
Your lesson being what? Indoctrination as a faithful subject of the
dictatorship of relativism? Throw off your chains. There are indeed
better and worse, not merely difference. Mozart is better -
unequivocally, infinitely better in every way - than Slayer and their
ilk.
8:08 pm
Post by Faustus Infinitus
(Mozart)..would have rejected Slayer and their ilk, and he would have been
right to do so, regardless of his time or place of origin. At all
imes and places, Slayer and their barbarism are to be rejected. There
are eternal truths, objective truths, completely independent of space
and time. Such truths exist in the realm of art.
I am reminded of having had occasion to write the following (herein
edited) for a post several months ago
"...(A problem arises in the ascription)...to the concept of
'betterness' a palpable substancy, an ultimate and universal
self-sufficiency and completeness it does not really have. ...(when
in) ...expressed views, whether on matters of technique, pedagogy and
exercizes, interpretation, etc.... (one individually finds) something
to be 'better' in some particular instance, or just to... personal
preference, ,,,(and is then automatically asserted to be) 'better' for
every and all, more noble,
more aristocratic, more elevated, more exalted.... 'better' than any
alternative no matter what,
'better' than the collected works of Leonard von Call, 'better' than
sliced bread, 'better' than a picnic, 'better' than both the Beatles
_and_ the Rolling Stones, 'better' even than either Ginger or
MaryAnne. Just inherently on-faith, ex-contextually 'better'.
'Better' does require a comparative- 'A' is not simply an inherent
absolute 'betterness', it is better than 'B'- but more than that, for
it to mean anything, it also requires some object of purpose-'A' is
better than 'B' _at_ or _for purposes of_, 'C."

Consider the Mozart Requiem as contrasted to a kid playing "Happy
Birthday" on a toy piano- which is "better" at a childrens birthday
party? Not an apt comparison? How about as compared to the chants and
Asian shawms of a Tibetan funeral rite?

Aug 13, 8:08 pm
Post by Faustus Infinitus
Post by Carlos Barrientos
Ask a devoted fan of Slayer's music and he will, as vigorously as you
might say: "Turn that shit OFF!!!" and feel quite passionately about his
TASTE or PREFERENCE in music as you do about yours.
Of course he'd say this. I'd be surprised if he didn't, since his
tastes exclude the highest. But Carlos, he'd be WRONG to do so.
Regardless of how he FEELS about it, his PREFERENCE is for INFERIOR -
not simply different - music (should we really even call it music?).
Like you and the many [hoi polloi], of course, he's convinced that the
pleasureable is the good simply because it's pleasureable. He fails to
distinguish between good and bad pleasures - indeed such a distinction
is ridiculous to him.
Aug 13, 8:30 pm
Post by Faustus Infinitus
Post by Carlos Barrientos
And who knows, really, in his day Salieri > Mozart, today that is
different. Bach went out of fashion for a bit, right, inconceivable as
it seems to us today.
This wasn't a reflection of Bach's or Mozart's music, but a reflection
of their listeners' poor tastes. Similarly, a Slayer fan's regard for
their noise says not that Slayer is good, but that the fan's tastes
are debased.
It's clear what sort of judgments are those you reject- there seems
to be a circularity here: If they agree it is because they have good
taste; they have good taste because they agree. Or the converse.
Your narrowing of who is entitled to Philospher Kingship in this
area seems contingent upon degree of sophistication in western music.
Was Glenn Gould among such elite? Was he right in thinking that Petula
Clark was better than the Beatles?

For your delectation...

Either:

http://www.fil.lu.se/files/prodok59.pdf

or:

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:XZ8vDkZeLIUJ:www.fil.lu.se/files/prodok59.pdf+betterness&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=29&gl=us&ie=UTF-8

and for your amusement:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Betterness!



Finally, this remarkable quote, in juxtaposition to the issue of "the
dictatorship of relativism" :

Jackson K. Eskew (F.I.?)
May 19, 9:58 pm
Post by Faustus Infinitus
I'm sure it depends on the situation. Like I mentioned before, the
slide in bars 8-9 of VL PRelude 4 calls for something like you
describe here, whereas the agitato section in that same piece calls
for the spider hop of finger 3. Thus it's revealed that the truth
about eliminating squeaks is indeed relative to the situation.
All the above with :-)
Mark & Steven Bornfeld
2007-08-14 17:45:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by JonLorPro
3:18 pm
Post by Faustus Infinitus
If the many say Bach's music is bad, it nevertheless
remains sublime. If the many say Slayer's noise is good, it
nevertheless remains coprophagic. The whole world could agree in these
opinions - and the whole world would be wrong. The true qualitative
status of Bach's and Slayer's production is entirely independent of
opinion, entirely objective.
3:49 pm
Post by Faustus Infinitus
Your lesson being what? Indoctrination as a faithful subject of the
dictatorship of relativism? Throw off your chains. There are indeed
better and worse, not merely difference. Mozart is better -
unequivocally, infinitely better in every way - than Slayer and their
ilk.
8:08 pm
Post by Faustus Infinitus
(Mozart)..would have rejected Slayer and their ilk, and he would have been
right to do so, regardless of his time or place of origin. At all
imes and places, Slayer and their barbarism are to be rejected. There
are eternal truths, objective truths, completely independent of space
and time. Such truths exist in the realm of art.
I am reminded of having had occasion to write the following (herein
edited) for a post several months ago
"...(A problem arises in the ascription)...to the concept of
'betterness' a palpable substancy, an ultimate and universal
self-sufficiency and completeness it does not really have. ...(when
in) ...expressed views, whether on matters of technique, pedagogy and
exercizes, interpretation, etc.... (one individually finds) something
to be 'better' in some particular instance, or just to... personal
preference, ,,,(and is then automatically asserted to be) 'better' for
every and all, more noble,
more aristocratic, more elevated, more exalted.... 'better' than any
alternative no matter what,
'better' than the collected works of Leonard von Call, 'better' than
sliced bread, 'better' than a picnic, 'better' than both the Beatles
_and_ the Rolling Stones, 'better' even than either Ginger or
MaryAnne. Just inherently on-faith, ex-contextually 'better'.
'Better' does require a comparative- 'A' is not simply an inherent
absolute 'betterness', it is better than 'B'- but more than that, for
it to mean anything, it also requires some object of purpose-'A' is
better than 'B' _at_ or _for purposes of_, 'C."
Consider the Mozart Requiem as contrasted to a kid playing "Happy
Birthday" on a toy piano- which is "better" at a childrens birthday
party? Not an apt comparison? How about as compared to the chants and
Asian shawms of a Tibetan funeral rite?
Aug 13, 8:08 pm
Post by Faustus Infinitus
Post by Carlos Barrientos
Ask a devoted fan of Slayer's music and he will, as vigorously as you
might say: "Turn that shit OFF!!!" and feel quite passionately about his
TASTE or PREFERENCE in music as you do about yours.
Of course he'd say this. I'd be surprised if he didn't, since his
tastes exclude the highest. But Carlos, he'd be WRONG to do so.
Regardless of how he FEELS about it, his PREFERENCE is for INFERIOR -
not simply different - music (should we really even call it music?).
Like you and the many [hoi polloi], of course, he's convinced that the
pleasureable is the good simply because it's pleasureable. He fails to
distinguish between good and bad pleasures - indeed such a distinction
is ridiculous to him.
Aug 13, 8:30 pm
Post by Faustus Infinitus
Post by Carlos Barrientos
And who knows, really, in his day Salieri > Mozart, today that is
different. Bach went out of fashion for a bit, right, inconceivable as
it seems to us today.
This wasn't a reflection of Bach's or Mozart's music, but a reflection
of their listeners' poor tastes. Similarly, a Slayer fan's regard for
their noise says not that Slayer is good, but that the fan's tastes
are debased.
It's clear what sort of judgments are those you reject- there seems
to be a circularity here: If they agree it is because they have good
taste; they have good taste because they agree. Or the converse.
Your narrowing of who is entitled to Philospher Kingship in this
area seems contingent upon degree of sophistication in western music.
Was Glenn Gould among such elite? Was he right in thinking that Petula
Clark was better than the Beatles?
For your delectation...
http://www.fil.lu.se/files/prodok59.pdf
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:XZ8vDkZeLIUJ:www.fil.lu.se/files/prodok59.pdf+betterness&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=29&gl=us&ie=UTF-8
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Betterness!
Finally, this remarkable quote, in juxtaposition to the issue of "the
Jackson K. Eskew (F.I.?)
May 19, 9:58 pm
Post by Faustus Infinitus
I'm sure it depends on the situation. Like I mentioned before, the
slide in bars 8-9 of VL PRelude 4 calls for something like you
describe here, whereas the agitato section in that same piece calls
for the spider hop of finger 3. Thus it's revealed that the truth
about eliminating squeaks is indeed relative to the situation.
All the above with :-)
Thank you Jon--this is wonderful. I'll look at Carlson's paper in more
detail later.

Steve
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
JonLorPro
2007-08-14 18:23:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by JonLorPro
3:18 pm
Post by Faustus Infinitus
If the many say Bach's music is bad, it nevertheless
remains sublime. If the many say Slayer's noise is good, it
nevertheless remains coprophagic. The whole world could agree in these
opinions - and the whole world would be wrong. The true qualitative
status of Bach's and Slayer's production is entirely independent of
opinion, entirely objective.
3:49 pm
Post by Faustus Infinitus
Your lesson being what? Indoctrination as a faithful subject of the
dictatorship of relativism? Throw off your chains. There are indeed
better and worse, not merely difference. Mozart is better -
unequivocally, infinitely better in every way - than Slayer and their
ilk.
8:08 pm
Post by Faustus Infinitus
(Mozart)..would have rejected Slayer and their ilk, and he would have been
right to do so, regardless of his time or place of origin. At all
imes and places, Slayer and their barbarism are to be rejected. There
are eternal truths, objective truths, completely independent of space
and time. Such truths exist in the realm of art.
I am reminded of having had occasion to write the following (herein
edited) for a post several months ago
"...(A problem arises in the ascription)...to the concept of
'betterness' a palpable substancy, an ultimate and universal
self-sufficiency and completeness it does not really have. ...(when
in) ...expressed views, whether on matters of technique, pedagogy and
exercizes, interpretation, etc.... (one individually finds) something
to be 'better' in some particular instance, or just to... personal
preference, ,,,(and is then automatically asserted to be) 'better' for
every and all, more noble,
more aristocratic, more elevated, more exalted.... 'better' than any
alternative no matter what,
'better' than the collected works of Leonard von Call, 'better' than
sliced bread, 'better' than a picnic, 'better' than both the Beatles
_and_ the Rolling Stones, 'better' even than either Ginger or
MaryAnne. Just inherently on-faith, ex-contextually 'better'.
'Better' does require a comparative- 'A' is not simply an inherent
absolute 'betterness', it is better than 'B'- but more than that, for
it to mean anything, it also requires some object of purpose-'A' is
better than 'B' _at_ or _for purposes of_, 'C."
Consider the Mozart Requiem as contrasted to a kid playing "Happy
Birthday" on a toy piano- which is "better" at a childrens birthday
party? Not an apt comparison? How about as compared to the chants and
Asian shawms of a Tibetan funeral rite?
Aug 13, 8:08 pm
Post by Faustus Infinitus
Post by Carlos Barrientos
Ask a devoted fan of Slayer's music and he will, as vigorously as you
might say: "Turn that shit OFF!!!" and feel quite passionately about his
TASTE or PREFERENCE in music as you do about yours.
Of course he'd say this. I'd be surprised if he didn't, since his
tastes exclude the highest. But Carlos, he'd be WRONG to do so.
Regardless of how he FEELS about it, his PREFERENCE is for INFERIOR -
not simply different - music (should we really even call it music?).
Like you and the many [hoi polloi], of course, he's convinced that the
pleasureable is the good simply because it's pleasureable. He fails to
distinguish between good and bad pleasures - indeed such a distinction
is ridiculous to him.
Aug 13, 8:30 pm
Post by Faustus Infinitus
Post by Carlos Barrientos
And who knows, really, in his day Salieri > Mozart, today that is
different. Bach went out of fashion for a bit, right, inconceivable as
it seems to us today.
This wasn't a reflection of Bach's or Mozart's music, but a reflection
of their listeners' poor tastes. Similarly, a Slayer fan's regard for
their noise says not that Slayer is good, but that the fan's tastes
are debased.
It's clear what sort of judgments are those you reject- there seems
to be a circularity here: If they agree it is because they have good
taste; they have good taste because they agree. Or the converse.
Your narrowing of who is entitled to Philospher Kingship in this
area seems contingent upon degree of sophistication in western music.
Was Glenn Gould among such elite? Was he right in thinking that Petula
Clark was better than the Beatles?
For your delectation...
http://www.fil.lu.se/files/prodok59.pdf
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:XZ8vDkZeLIUJ:www.fil.lu.se/files...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Betterness!
Finally, this remarkable quote, in juxtaposition to the issue of "the
Jackson K. Eskew (F.I.?)
May 19, 9:58 pm
Post by Faustus Infinitus
I'm sure it depends on the situation. Like I mentioned before, the
slide in bars 8-9 of VL PRelude 4 calls for something like you
describe here, whereas the agitato section in that same piece calls
for the spider hop of finger 3. Thus it's revealed that the truth
about eliminating squeaks is indeed relative to the situation.
All the above with :-)
One more thought in regard to the original proposition- clearly Sor
was a better composer for guitar than was Mozart.
Faustus Infinitus
2007-08-14 19:54:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by JonLorPro
Consider the Mozart Requiem as contrasted to a kid playing "Happy
Birthday" on a toy piano- which is "better" at a childrens birthday
party? Not an apt comparison? How about as compared to the chants and
Asian shawms of a Tibetan funeral rite?
So much to respond to, but I have time only for the above. Mozart's
Requiem will always be better; however, on that occasion the latter
would be more appropriate - more appropriate, not better.

Throughout this thread, you can see that I'm happy to be conclusory;
that is, I'm not arguing. To do so would be a complete waste of time,
as I've learned in other threads about this. Better now to simply lay
out conclusions.

By the way, to say that there are objective truths is not to say that
there aren't relative truths, e.g., compared to a midget, I'm tall;
compared to Shaq, I'm short, etc. etc. But the futile task I've given
myself here is to focus on objective truth and to leave the rest to
the dictatorship of relativism with its nightly programming, news,
magazines, pseudoreligion, reeducation, etc....
JonLorPro
2007-08-17 04:43:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Faustus Infinitus
Post by JonLorPro
Consider the Mozart Requiem as contrasted to a kid playing "Happy
Birthday" on a toy piano- which is "better" at a childrens birthday
party? Not an apt comparison? How about as compared to the chants and
Asian shawms of a Tibetan funeral rite?
So much to respond to, but I have time only for the above. Mozart's
Requiem will always be better; however, on that occasion the latter
would be more appropriate - more appropriate, not better.
Throughout this thread, you can see that I'm happy to be conclusory;
that is, I'm not arguing. To do so would be a complete waste of time,
as I've learned in other threads about this. Better now to simply lay
out conclusions.
"I'm happy to be conclusory; that is, I'm not arguing. To do so would
be a complete waste of time, as I've learned in other threads about
this. Better now to simply lay out conclusions."

You ascribe to "betterness" a universal quality, resting upon
idealized "eternal truths, objective truths, completely independent of
space and time." (Aug 13, 8:08 pm), yet look to discern it
comparatively amongst present particulars. What is the substance of
this ultimate "betterness" with which the things of this world are
heirarchically imbued, and what is it's realm? If it is a universal,
is then the "betterness" of Mozart over Slayer of the same stuff as
the "betterness" you cite of your simply laying out conclusions over
"the complete waste of time" of arguing, which is to say,
substantiating your conclusions? If so, than eternal truths of
"betterness" are something remote, removed from having quality of any
particular sort - something not only "completely independent of space
and time", but independent of this world as well, and upon
consideration, like Anaximander's "boundless" becomes- nothing.
Alternatively, if the realm of "betterness" is in the comparitive
particular qualities of things in this world, "betterness" is busted
up from one stuff into many, it becomes contextual, and emergent
through choice, judgment- and opinion.
Suppose you encounter someone who agrees with your positition that
"eternal truths, objective truths, completely independent of space and
time...exist in the realm of art." This makes you both happy, and you
discuss it- only to find that while you agree on the principle, you
differ as to what are those eternal, objective, independent truths.
Who is right? Do you compare to determine which conception of
principles whereby things are then to be adjudged better is better? Or
does this discovery constitute a prima facie finding that his training
or rigor of mind must be as deficient as are the debased tastes of the
hoi polloi you categorically reject? If so, what is the guiding
principle of this decision- objective universal truths, or your
subjective opinion of what are objective universal truths? If he
makes the same decision about you, is it a valid decision? Do you
finally settle it by duking it out?
Of your posited "..eternal truths, objective truths, completely
independent of space and time' that "...exist in the realm of art",
you've exhorted one and all to "Learn them" From whom? From youm?
Or do you refer all to the authority of Plato? Is this because it is
in Plato-of-whom-all-subsequent-philosophy-is-footnote that you have
found agreeable definitive articulation of principle? Which is in the
superior position here, Plato's exposition of objective Truth, or your
subjective opinion of Plato?
And why Plato? Why not Confucious? Is the ultimate approachable
mystically or rationally? Is it Appolonian or Dionysian? Platonic or
Aristitotelian? Byzantine or Roman? Wagnerian or Brahmsian? Blugrass
or Blues? Coke or Pepsi?

Here is a brief poem by Emily Dickenson:
Much madness is divinest sense
To a discerning eye;
Much sense the starkest madness.
'T is the majority
In this, as all, prevails.
Assent, and you are sane;
Demur,-you 're straightway dangerous,
And handled with a chain.
How do you see yourself in this? A lone discerning eye in the midst of
a benighted majority? Imagined as Philosopher King and(in you own
lights) benevolent dictator who has appointed his own to be the
"majority" voice in an idealized utopia, would you be the one handling
the chain?
It so happens I agree with you about Mozart. I agree that there are
in the arts unifying principles, which are operatives transcendent of
the lives of the individuals and generations which carry them forward,
and to which objective discourse can be directed, which discourse can,
as per your injunction, be learned. But I do not cede that the
foundation of the principles of this aesthetic is in other than a
widely prevalent consensus in which I have a share. I hope and expect
this aesthetic will continue to have a life of its own- with all the
connotations appurtenant to life of growth, exploration, change, and
adaptation. The concept of there being an independent Platonic
essence of pure betterness floating around somewhere in the cosmos
forever and for all time irradiating the universe with its substance
for the benefit of Earthmen and Arcturians alike is not a concept that
works. I don't imagine that the stock of this utility would still be
rated very highly in the final stages of entropy- consider this
radiating "betterness" as the sound of the proverbial falling tree,
and invert the usual query- if a tree falling in a forest makes a
sound, is there someone there to hear it? And the practical
manifestaion of the ideal does seem to wind up eating its own tail.
The dictatorship of relativism against which you rail is nowhere near
as tyrannical and stifling as would be the dictatorship which you
prescribe. An existent principle whereby immutable, unassailable,
uncompromising standards are fixed by which all activity and
expression is to be measured ultimately would kill music, eradicate
art, quash all variety of human endeavor, and destroy life. It would
not be satisfied until the universe is reduced to an undifferentiated,
homogenous Parmenidian one. It would have forbade the growth of
harmonic practice in succession to the age of pure polyphony, the
progession from Ars antiqua to Ars Nova; the development of music
would never have attained even to chant or gotten beyond Boethius, it
would have halted at a single recitation tone. It would not have
allowed for the Mozart whom you now so highly praise in its honor;
that offering it would spurn as ungraciously as God rejected Cain's
offering of the fruits of his labor in the fields- which must have
been a damn lot of work! No wonder he got pissed off.
If anything is to be railed against and resisted at all costs, it is
the ossification that the mistaken assumption of such obdurate
principle imposes in exchange for the dependency it solicits as a
crutch. What is to be rejected is it's fostering of paranoic inability
to distinguish between one's own internal dialogue and the outside
world, whereby personal predilections and quirks are invested with
vaunted status as the new Divine Revelation of Authority, exhorting
claim not only over general aesthetics but descending to such matter
as dictating a literalist and picayune fundamentalism in score
reading, or expressing itself in messianically fervered unreasoning
and rabid jealousy of any approach to technical study other than
adherence to its own new testament.
So, what is your- opinion-- relative to any of this?
JonLorPro
2007-08-17 08:32:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Faustus Infinitus
Post by JonLorPro
Consider the Mozart Requiem as contrasted to a kid playing "Happy
Birthday" on a toy piano- which is "better" at a childrens birthday
party? Not an apt comparison? How about as compared to the chants and
Asian shawms of a Tibetan funeral rite?
So much to respond to, but I have time only for the above. Mozart's
Requiem will always be better; however, on that occasion the latter
would be more appropriate - more appropriate, not better.
Throughout this thread, you can see that I'm happy to be conclusory;
that is, I'm not arguing. To do so would be a complete waste of time,
as I've learned in other threads about this. Better now to simply lay
out conclusions.
"I'm happy to be conclusory; that is, I'm not arguing. To do so would
be a complete waste of time, as I've learned in other threads about
this. Better now to simply lay out conclusions."

You ascribe to "betterness" a universal quality, resting upon
idealized "eternal truths, objective truths, completely independent of
space and time." (Aug 13, 8:08 pm), yet look to discern it
comparatively amongst present particulars.
What is the substance of this ultimate "betterness" with which the
things of this world are heirarchically imbued, and what is it's
realm? If it is a universal, is then the "betterness" of Mozart over
Slayer of the same stuff as the "betterness" you cite of your simply
laying out conclusions over "the complete waste of time" of arguing,
which is to say, substantiating your conclusions? If so, than eternal
truths of "betterness" are something remote, removed from having
quality of any particular sort - something not only "completely
independent of space and time", but independent of this world as well,
and upon consideration, like Anaximander's "boundless" becomes-
nothing.

Alternatively, if the realm of "betterness" is in the comparitive
particular qualities of things in this world, "betterness" is busted
up from one stuff into many, it becomes contextual, and emergent
through choice, judgment- and opinion.

Suppose you encounter someone who agrees with your positition that
"eternal truths, objective truths, completely independent of space and
time...exist in the realm of art." This makes you both happy, and you
discuss it- only to find that while you agree on the principle, you
differ as to what are those eternal, objective, independent truths.
Who is right? Do you compare to determine which conception of
principles whereby things are then to be adjudged better is better? Or
does this discovery constitute a prima facie finding that his training
or rigor of mind must be as deficient as are the debased tastes of the
hoi polloi you categorically reject? If so, what is the guiding
principle of this decision- objective universal truths, or your
subjective opinion of what are objective universal truths? If he makes
the same decision about you, is it a valid decision? Do you
finally settle it by duking it out?

Of your posited "..eternal truths, objective truths, completely
independent of space and time' that "...exist in the realm of art",
you've exhorted one and all to "Learn them" From whom? From youm? Or
do you refer all to the authority of Plato? Is this because it is in
Plato-of-whom-all-subsequent-philosophy-is-footnote that you have
found agreeable definitive articulation of principle? Which is in the
superior position here, Plato's exposition of objective Truth, or your
subjective opinion of Plato?

And why Plato? Why not Confucious? Is the ultimate approachable
mystically or rationally? Is it Appolonian or Dionysian? Platonic or
Aristitotelian? Byzantine or Roman? Wagnerian or Brahmsian? Blugrass
or Blues? Coke or Pepsi?

Here is a brief poem by Emily Dickenson:

Much madness is divinest sense
To a discerning eye;
Much sense the starkest madness.
'T is the majority
In this, as all, prevails.
Assent, and you are sane;
Demur,-you 're straightway dangerous,
And handled with a chain.

How do you see yourself in this? A lone discerning eye in the midst
of a benighted majority? Imagined as Philosopher King and(in you own
lights) benevolent dictator who has appointed his own to be the
"majority" voice in an idealized utopia, would you be the one handling
the chain?

It so happens I agree with you about Mozart. I agree that there are
in the arts unifying principles, which are operatives transcendent of
the lives of the individuals and generations which carry them forward,
and to which objective discourse can be directed, which discourse can,
as per your injunction, be learned. But I do not cede that the
foundation of the principles of this aesthetic is in other than a
widely prevalent consensus in which I have a share. I hope and expect
this aesthetic will continue to have a life of its own- with all the
connotations appurtenant to life of growth, exploration, change, and
adaptation.

The concept of there being an independent Platonic essence of pure
betterness floating around somewhere in the cosmos
forever and for all time irradiating the universe with its substance
for the benefit of Earthmen and Arcturians alike is not a concept that
works. I don't imagine that the stock of this utility would still be
rated very highly in the final stages of entropy- consider this
radiating "betterness" as the sound of the proverbial falling tree,
and invert the usual query- if a tree falling in a forest makes a
sound, is there someone there to hear it? And the practical
manifestaion of the ideal does seem to wind up eating its own tail.

The dictatorship of relativism against which you rail is nowhere
near as tyrannical and stifling as would be the dictatorship which you
prescribe. An existent principle whereby immutable, unassailable,
uncompromising standards are fixed by which all activity and
expression is to be measured ultimately would kill music, eradicate
art, quash all variety of human endeavor, and destroy life. It would
not be satisfied until the universe is reduced to an undifferentiated,
homogenous Parmenidian one. It would have forbade the growth of
harmonic practice in succession to the age of pure polyphony, the
progession from Ars antiqua to Ars Nova; the development of music
would never have attained even to chant or gotten beyond Boethius, it
would have halted at a single recitation tone. It would not have
allowed for the Mozart whom you now so highly praise in its honor;
that offering it would spurn as ungraciously as God rejected Cain's
offering of the fruits of his labor in the fields- which must have
been a damn lot of work! No wonder he got pissed off.

If anything is to be railed against and resisted at all costs, it is
the ossification that the mistaken assumption of such obdurate
principle imposes in exchange for the dependency it solicits as a
crutch. What is to be rejected is it's fostering of paranoic inability
to distinguish between one's own internal dialogue and the outside
world, whereby personal predilections and quirks are invested with
vaunted status as the new Divine Revelation of Authority, exhorting
claim not only over general aesthetics but descending to such matter
as dictating a literalist and picayune fundamentalism in score
reading, or expressing itself in messianically fervered unreasoning
and rabid jealousy of any approach to technical study other than
adherence to its own new testament.

So, what is your- opinion-- relative to any of this?
Alcibiades
2007-08-19 03:27:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by JonLorPro
Post by Faustus Infinitus
Post by JonLorPro
Consider the Mozart Requiem as contrasted to a kid playing "Happy
Birthday" on a toy piano- which is "better" at a childrens birthday
party? Not an apt comparison? How about as compared to the chants and
Asian shawms of a Tibetan funeral rite?
So much to respond to, but I have time only for the above. Mozart's
Requiem will always be better; however, on that occasion the latter
would be more appropriate - more appropriate, not better.
Throughout this thread, you can see that I'm happy to be conclusory;
that is, I'm not arguing. To do so would be a complete waste of time,
as I've learned in other threads about this. Better now to simply lay
out conclusions.
"I'm happy to be conclusory; that is, I'm not arguing. To do so would
be a complete waste of time, as I've learned in other threads about
this. Better now to simply lay out conclusions."
You ascribe to "betterness" a universal quality, resting upon
idealized "eternal truths, objective truths, completely independent of
space and time." (Aug 13, 8:08 pm), yet look to discern it
comparatively amongst present particulars.
What is the substance of this ultimate "betterness" with which the
things of this world are heirarchically imbued, and what is it's
realm? If it is a universal, is then the "betterness" of Mozart over
Slayer of the same stuff as the "betterness" you cite of your simply
laying out conclusions over "the complete waste of time" of arguing,
which is to say, substantiating your conclusions? If so, than eternal
truths of "betterness" are something remote, removed from having
quality of any particular sort - something not only "completely
independent of space and time", but independent of this world as well,
and upon consideration, like Anaximander's "boundless" becomes-
nothing.
Alternatively, if the realm of "betterness" is in the comparitive
particular qualities of things in this world, "betterness" is busted
up from one stuff into many, it becomes contextual, and emergent
through choice, judgment- and opinion.
Suppose you encounter someone who agrees with your positition that
"eternal truths, objective truths, completely independent of space and
time...exist in the realm of art." This makes you both happy, and you
discuss it- only to find that while you agree on the principle, you
differ as to what are those eternal, objective, independent truths.
Who is right? Do you compare to determine which conception of
principles whereby things are then to be adjudged better is better? Or
does this discovery constitute a prima facie finding that his training
or rigor of mind must be as deficient as are the debased tastes of the
hoi polloi you categorically reject? If so, what is the guiding
principle of this decision- objective universal truths, or your
subjective opinion of what are objective universal truths? If he makes
the same decision about you, is it a valid decision? Do you
finally settle it by duking it out?
Of your posited "..eternal truths, objective truths, completely
independent of space and time' that "...exist in the realm of art",
you've exhorted one and all to "Learn them" From whom? From youm? Or
do you refer all to the authority of Plato? Is this because it is in
Plato-of-whom-all-subsequent-philosophy-is-footnote that you have
found agreeable definitive articulation of principle? Which is in the
superior position here, Plato's exposition of objective Truth, or your
subjective opinion of Plato?
And why Plato? Why not Confucious? Is the ultimate approachable
mystically or rationally? Is it Appolonian or Dionysian? Platonic or
Aristitotelian? Byzantine or Roman? Wagnerian or Brahmsian? Blugrass
or Blues? Coke or Pepsi?
Much madness is divinest sense
To a discerning eye;
Much sense the starkest madness.
'T is the majority
In this, as all, prevails.
Assent, and you are sane;
Demur,-you 're straightway dangerous,
And handled with a chain.
How do you see yourself in this? A lone discerning eye in the midst
of a benighted majority? Imagined as Philosopher King and(in you own
lights) benevolent dictator who has appointed his own to be the
"majority" voice in an idealized utopia, would you be the one handling
the chain?
It so happens I agree with you about Mozart. I agree that there are
in the arts unifying principles, which are operatives transcendent of
the lives of the individuals and generations which carry them forward,
and to which objective discourse can be directed, which discourse can,
as per your injunction, be learned. But I do not cede that the
foundation of the principles of this aesthetic is in other than a
widely prevalent consensus in which I have a share. I hope and expect
this aesthetic will continue to have a life of its own- with all the
connotations appurtenant to life of growth, exploration, change, and
adaptation.
The concept of there being an independent Platonic essence of pure
betterness floating around somewhere in the cosmos
forever and for all time irradiating the universe with its substance
for the benefit of Earthmen and Arcturians alike is not a concept that
works. I don't imagine that the stock of this utility would still be
rated very highly in the final stages of entropy- consider this
radiating "betterness" as the sound of the proverbial falling tree,
and invert the usual query- if a tree falling in a forest makes a
sound, is there someone there to hear it? And the practical
manifestaion of the ideal does seem to wind up eating its own tail.
The dictatorship of relativism against which you rail is nowhere
near as tyrannical and stifling as would be the dictatorship which you
prescribe. An existent principle whereby immutable, unassailable,
uncompromising standards are fixed by which all activity and
expression is to be measured ultimately would kill music, eradicate
art, quash all variety of human endeavor, and destroy life. It would
not be satisfied until the universe is reduced to an undifferentiated,
homogenous Parmenidian one. It would have forbade the growth of
harmonic practice in succession to the age of pure polyphony, the
progession from Ars antiqua to Ars Nova; the development of music
would never have attained even to chant or gotten beyond Boethius, it
would have halted at a single recitation tone. It would not have
allowed for the Mozart whom you now so highly praise in its honor;
that offering it would spurn as ungraciously as God rejected Cain's
offering of the fruits of his labor in the fields- which must have
been a damn lot of work! No wonder he got pissed off.
If anything is to be railed against and resisted at all costs, it is
the ossification that the mistaken assumption of such obdurate
principle imposes in exchange for the dependency it solicits as a
crutch. What is to be rejected is it's fostering of paranoic inability
to distinguish between one's own internal dialogue and the outside
world, whereby personal predilections and quirks are invested with
vaunted status as the new Divine Revelation of Authority, exhorting
claim not only over general aesthetics but descending to such matter
as dictating a literalist and picayune fundamentalism in score
reading, or expressing itself in messianically fervered unreasoning
and rabid jealousy of any approach to technical study other than
adherence to its own new testament.
So, what is your- opinion-- relative to any of this?
Sorry for the delay, Jon. I forgot. Months ago, I would have given
answer as long as your essay above. Since I've now learned that it's
Post by JonLorPro
The dictatorship of relativism against which you rail is nowhere
near as tyrannical and stifling as would be the dictatorship which you
prescribe.
If urging the recognition of truth is tyranny, then yes, I admit that
I prescribe a dictatorship. Such is the state of today's decay that
absolute truth claims are seen as such. Actually, I'd force no one to
agree with me. It's just that if you disagree, you're wrong - and I'm
not going to pretend you're right. Again, if this is tyranny, so be
it. I'm extensively on the record about all of this here in the
archives, so I won't go into it again now.
Post by JonLorPro
So, what is your- opinion-- relative to any of this?
Nice jab!

For the relativists: If you go to a recital, and a rank amateur plays
Asturias horribly, with flubs everywhere (buzzed notes, wrong notes -
yes, wrong notes - etc.) and so on, and then a pro comes in and plays
it expertly, are you not going to admit - at least to yourself - that
the latter performance was better - absolutely better, regardless of
any opinion to the contrary? If someone comes along and says, "That's
just your opinion. In my opinion the amateur's performance was far
superior," are you going to accept this dictatorship of subjectivity?
Are you not going to say, at least to yourself, "That's your opinion,
yes, but your opinion is wrong. Your taste is malformed"? We must
recover the distinction between right and wrong opinion. The question
isn't whether an assesment is an opinion, or whether one is entitled
to an opinion. Fine, I'll grant that it's an opinion and that you're
entitled to it. The question is whether any given opinion accords with
reality. The elimination of this deeper question is one of the
poisonous fruits of our dictatorship of relativism. Here again we
glimpse this regime's superficiality.

All the world could say that 50-Cent's music is superior to Mozart's;
all the world would then be wrong, because the truth of the matter is
entirely independent of opinion. A tree falls in the forest. It indeed
makes a sound, because its production of sound doesn't at all depend
on my perception of it. "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." No,
beauty is in the object itself, completely independent of my
perception of it. My task is only to recognize what's already there.
The eye sees beauty, it doesn't create it. Only blind egoism holds
otherwise.
Lare
2007-08-19 16:46:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alcibiades
Post by JonLorPro
Post by Faustus Infinitus
Post by JonLorPro
Consider the Mozart Requiem as contrasted to a kid playing "Happy
Birthday" on a toy piano- which is "better" at a childrens birthday
party? Not an apt comparison? How about as compared to the chants and
Asian shawms of a Tibetan funeral rite?
So much to respond to, but I have time only for the above. Mozart's
Requiem will always be better; however, on that occasion the latter
would be more appropriate - more appropriate, not better.
Throughout this thread, you can see that I'm happy to be conclusory;
that is, I'm not arguing. To do so would be a complete waste of time,
as I've learned in other threads about this. Better now to simply lay
out conclusions.
"I'm happy to be conclusory; that is, I'm not arguing. To do so would
be a complete waste of time, as I've learned in other threads about
this. Better now to simply lay out conclusions."
You ascribe to "betterness" a universal quality, resting upon
idealized "eternal truths, objective truths, completely independent of
space and time." (Aug 13, 8:08 pm), yet look to discern it
comparatively amongst present particulars.
What is the substance of this ultimate "betterness" with which the
things of this world are heirarchically imbued, and what is it's
realm? If it is a universal, is then the "betterness" of Mozart over
Slayer of the same stuff as the "betterness" you cite of your simply
laying out conclusions over "the complete waste of time" of arguing,
which is to say, substantiating your conclusions? If so, than eternal
truths of "betterness" are something remote, removed from having
quality of any particular sort - something not only "completely
independent of space and time", but independent of this world as well,
and upon consideration, like Anaximander's "boundless" becomes-
nothing.
Alternatively, if the realm of "betterness" is in the comparitive
particular qualities of things in this world, "betterness" is busted
up from one stuff into many, it becomes contextual, and emergent
through choice, judgment- and opinion.
Suppose you encounter someone who agrees with your positition that
"eternal truths, objective truths, completely independent of space and
time...exist in the realm of art." This makes you both happy, and you
discuss it- only to find that while you agree on the principle, you
differ as to what are those eternal, objective, independent truths.
Who is right? Do you compare to determine which conception of
principles whereby things are then to be adjudged better is better? Or
does this discovery constitute a prima facie finding that his training
or rigor of mind must be as deficient as are the debased tastes of the
hoi polloi you categorically reject? If so, what is the guiding
principle of this decision- objective universal truths, or your
subjective opinion of what are objective universal truths? If he makes
the same decision about you, is it a valid decision? Do you
finally settle it by duking it out?
Of your posited "..eternal truths, objective truths, completely
independent of space and time' that "...exist in the realm of art",
you've exhorted one and all to "Learn them" From whom? From youm? Or
do you refer all to the authority of Plato? Is this because it is in
Plato-of-whom-all-subsequent-philosophy-is-footnote that you have
found agreeable definitive articulation of principle? Which is in the
superior position here, Plato's exposition of objective Truth, or your
subjective opinion of Plato?
And why Plato? Why not Confucious? Is the ultimate approachable
mystically or rationally? Is it Appolonian or Dionysian? Platonic or
Aristitotelian? Byzantine or Roman? Wagnerian or Brahmsian? Blugrass
or Blues? Coke or Pepsi?
Much madness is divinest sense
To a discerning eye;
Much sense the starkest madness.
'T is the majority
In this, as all, prevails.
Assent, and you are sane;
Demur,-you 're straightway dangerous,
And handled with a chain.
How do you see yourself in this? A lone discerning eye in the midst
of a benighted majority? Imagined as Philosopher King and(in you own
lights) benevolent dictator who has appointed his own to be the
"majority" voice in an idealized utopia, would you be the one handling
the chain?
It so happens I agree with you about Mozart. I agree that there are
in the arts unifying principles, which are operatives transcendent of
the lives of the individuals and generations which carry them forward,
and to which objective discourse can be directed, which discourse can,
as per your injunction, be learned. But I do not cede that the
foundation of the principles of this aesthetic is in other than a
widely prevalent consensus in which I have a share. I hope and expect
this aesthetic will continue to have a life of its own- with all the
connotations appurtenant to life of growth, exploration, change, and
adaptation.
The concept of there being an independent Platonic essence of pure
betterness floating around somewhere in the cosmos
forever and for all time irradiating the universe with its substance
for the benefit of Earthmen and Arcturians alike is not a concept that
works. I don't imagine that the stock of this utility would still be
rated very highly in the final stages of entropy- consider this
radiating "betterness" as the sound of the proverbial falling tree,
and invert the usual query- if a tree falling in a forest makes a
sound, is there someone there to hear it? And the practical
manifestaion of the ideal does seem to wind up eating its own tail.
The dictatorship of relativism against which you rail is nowhere
near as tyrannical and stifling as would be the dictatorship which you
prescribe. An existent principle whereby immutable, unassailable,
uncompromising standards are fixed by which all activity and
expression is to be measured ultimately would kill music, eradicate
art, quash all variety of human endeavor, and destroy life. It would
not be satisfied until the universe is reduced to an undifferentiated,
homogenous Parmenidian one. It would have forbade the growth of
harmonic practice in succession to the age of pure polyphony, the
progession from Ars antiqua to Ars Nova; the development of music
would never have attained even to chant or gotten beyond Boethius, it
would have halted at a single recitation tone. It would not have
allowed for the Mozart whom you now so highly praise in its honor;
that offering it would spurn as ungraciously as God rejected Cain's
offering of the fruits of his labor in the fields- which must have
been a damn lot of work! No wonder he got pissed off.
If anything is to be railed against and resisted at all costs, it is
the ossification that the mistaken assumption of such obdurate
principle imposes in exchange for the dependency it solicits as a
crutch. What is to be rejected is it's fostering of paranoic inability
to distinguish between one's own internal dialogue and the outside
world, whereby personal predilections and quirks are invested with
vaunted status as the new Divine Revelation of Authority, exhorting
claim not only over general aesthetics but descending to such matter
as dictating a literalist and picayune fundamentalism in score
reading, or expressing itself in messianically fervered unreasoning
and rabid jealousy of any approach to technical study other than
adherence to its own new testament.
So, what is your- opinion-- relative to any of this?
Sorry for the delay, Jon. I forgot. Months ago, I would have given
answer as long as your essay above. Since I've now learned that it's
Post by JonLorPro
The dictatorship of relativism against which you rail is nowhere
near as tyrannical and stifling as would be the dictatorship which you
prescribe.
If urging the recognition of truth is tyranny, then yes, I admit that
I prescribe a dictatorship. Such is the state of today's decay that
absolute truth claims are seen as such. Actually, I'd force no one to
agree with me. It's just that if you disagree, you're wrong - and I'm
not going to pretend you're right. Again, if this is tyranny, so be
it. I'm extensively on the record about all of this here in the
archives, so I won't go into it again now.
Post by JonLorPro
So, what is your- opinion-- relative to any of this?
Nice jab!
For the relativists: If you go to a recital, and a rank amateur plays
Asturias horribly, with flubs everywhere (buzzed notes, wrong notes -
yes, wrong notes - etc.) and so on, and then a pro comes in and plays
it expertly, are you not going to admit - at least to yourself - that
the latter performance was better - absolutely better, regardless of
any opinion to the contrary? If someone comes along and says, "That's
just your opinion. In my opinion the amateur's performance was far
superior," are you going to accept this dictatorship of subjectivity?
Are you not going to say, at least to yourself, "That's your opinion,
yes, but your opinion is wrong. Your taste is malformed"? We must
recover the distinction between right and wrong opinion. The question
isn't whether an assesment is an opinion, or whether one is entitled
to an opinion. Fine, I'll grant that it's an opinion and that you're
entitled to it. The question is whether any given opinion accords with
reality. The elimination of this deeper question is one of the
poisonous fruits of our dictatorship of relativism. Here again we
glimpse this regime's superficiality.
All the world could say that 50-Cent's music is superior to Mozart's;
all the world would then be wrong, because the truth of the matter is
entirely independent of opinion. A tree falls in the forest. It indeed
makes a sound, because its production of sound doesn't at all depend
on my perception of it.
Of course it does. If there is no processor (brain) that computes
tone/timber/volume from differences in variations of air pressure levels,
there is no sound. Sound, like color, taste, smell, and touch, only happens
in our heads.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.
LMc
Larry Deack
2007-08-19 17:04:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lare
Of course it does. If there is no processor (brain) that computes
tone/timber/volume from differences in variations of air pressure levels,
there is no sound. Sound, like color, taste, smell, and touch, only happens
in our heads.
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
Bad dog, Lare! You need to refrain again and again from jumping in
to such computations about brains and processors.

Sorry, I resistance is futile.
Alcibiades
2007-08-19 23:35:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lare
Of course it does. If there is no processor (brain) that computes
tone/timber/volume from differences in variations of air pressure levels,
there is no sound.
No, there's simply no brain to process the sound. The sound remains.
If there is something for a processor to compute, that something is
separate from the processor.
Post by Lare
Sound, like color, taste, smell, and touch, only happens
in our heads.
The whole world becomes deaf. According to your illogic, there's
therefore no more sound. Deaf men then drive tractors that emit no
sound? Nonsense. There is still sound as before, the difference being
that they can no longer hear that sound.

Who's perceptive enough to see how devastating this is?
Andrew Schulman
2007-08-20 00:15:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alcibiades
Post by Lare
Of course it does. If there is no processor (brain) that computes
tone/timber/volume from differences in variations of air pressure levels,
there is no sound.
No, there's simply no brain to process the sound. The sound remains.
If there is something for a processor to compute, that something is
separate from the processor.
This is one of those somewhat interesting concepts that has been
bandied about through the millennia.

If there are two kinds of people in this world I am one of the kind
that says even if we didn't hear it, the tree falling in the forest
still made a sound. Furthermore, if we didn't hear it, and it didn't
fall on our heads therefore crushing our skulls and other
endoskeletonical material, I say...yippee! Or, whatever.

Andrew
Larry Deack
2007-08-20 00:58:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Schulman
This is one of those somewhat
interesting concepts that has been
bandied about through the millennia.
What's interesting is that we know so much more about such things
today. Brain imaging and work done in fields like music cognition help
us understand that we do indeed hear things and see things that are NOT
THERE. We also know that other creatures see and hear very differently
from humans, and that we are not all alike.

Our pitch sense is a particularly interesting example since we can
hear a fundamental that is not there given the right pitches and
intensities. There are many visual and aural illusions.

Our brains and senses seem to play all kinds of games on us and
artists have always exploited these cracks in the virtual worlds we
construct. Visual perception is a very interesting thing to study and it
dovetails nicely with sound.

There is a very large and fast growing body of research in the 21st
that indicates we are really beginning to unravel some millennia long
questions about our brain and perception.
Larry Deack
2007-08-20 00:22:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alcibiades
No, there's simply no brain to process the sound. The sound remains.
If there is something for a processor to compute, that something is
separate from the processor.
You should read that fun book about your brain on music. You are
really very poorly educated in basic science. You rely on your "soft"
education of word manipulation because you avoid the difficult
discipline of learning something about symbolic logic.
Post by Alcibiades
Post by Lare
Sound, like color, taste, smell, and touch, only happens
in our heads.
The whole world becomes deaf. According to your illogic, there's
therefore no more sound. Deaf men then drive tractors that emit no
sound? Nonsense. There is still sound as before, the difference being
that they can no longer hear that sound.
It's not nonsense. It's fun to watch you try to use very silly logic
to call someone else illogical, but that is what most "logical" people
do with what they think is logic.
Post by Alcibiades
Who's perceptive enough to see how devastating this is?
Let's hope you are the only one who does not see what seeing really
is nor what sound is.

There is no way to tell that your world is not a simulation. Your
circuits can be fooled even with current technology and in fact are
constantly being fooled by all kind of "lies" we "see" as real, often
more real than our real time life.
Lare
2007-08-20 02:18:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alcibiades
Post by Lare
Of course it does. If there is no processor (brain) that computes
tone/timber/volume from differences in variations of air pressure levels,
there is no sound.
No, there's simply no brain to process the sound. The sound remains.
If there is something for a processor to compute, that something is
separate from the processor.
Post by Lare
Sound, like color, taste, smell, and touch, only happens
in our heads.
The whole world becomes deaf. According to your illogic, there's
therefore no more sound. Deaf men then drive tractors that emit no
sound?
Tractors emit energy in wave form, not sound. This energy can be felt as
vibrations in their bum or as sound for the hearing enabled farmer. There
needs to be a circut that can translate the wave energy from the vibrating
source into sound. Hearing empaired farmers don't posess the second link of
the required chain, hence, no sound. When I approach the farmer, I have the
second part and, therefore, the sound comes into existence.

Nonsense. There is still sound as before, the difference being
Post by Alcibiades
that they can no longer hear that sound.
If one can't hear it, there is no sound since sound only happens in the
brain.
Post by Alcibiades
Who's perceptive enough to see how devastating this is?
Oh, yes, I do.

If a man blows a dog whistle in a room full of high-strung guitarists and
none are able to hear it, does it make a sound. Of course not. Man lacks
the processor to "hear" it. Are there wavelenghts present? Absolutely yes.
Is there sound. No.

An audio receiver trys to send an electrical signal to a speaker cabinet,
but no cabinet (processor) exists. Is there sound? No. Only fluctuations
in electrical current.

When one looks at Larry Deacks 2008 beautiful new bright red Mercedes Benz,
there isn't a beam of solid red comming from the car to our eyes. Red
exists only in our brains as a reaction to the frequency of the wavelength.

As a matter of fact, we can recreate sound in hour heads without the use of
a sound source. I "listen" to music in my head everyday. Does my wife hear
it? No, she lacks the telepathic processing capability. We don't need the
sound source to process sound.

Sound is created inside the brain. See, "This is your brain on Music", by
Daniel Levitin. Thanks LarryD for the book recommendation.

LMc
Raptor
2007-08-20 02:49:11 UTC
Permalink
Larry Deack drives a red Benz? I figured him for a BMW guy. Maybe
Porsche.

mark
Wollybird
2007-08-20 03:02:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Raptor
Larry Deack drives a red Benz? I figured him for a BMW guy. Maybe
Porsche.
mark
67 VW minibus with a veg o matic plugged into the dash
Larry Deack
2007-08-20 03:13:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wollybird
Post by Raptor
Larry Deack drives a red Benz? I figured him for a BMW guy. Maybe
Porsche.
mark
67 VW minibus with a veg o matic plugged into the dash
Many laughs from this and others recently posted... thanks and.....



just where have to beeeeen... meeester. banker dude, eh?!!!
Larry Deack
2007-08-20 03:22:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lare
Sound is created inside the brain. See, "This is your brain on Music", by
Daniel Levitin. Thanks LarryD for the book recommendation.
:-)

RMCG makes for a really fun book list.

I am really enjoying a slow read of Quicksilver and can't thank this
NG, and Will specifically, enough for the pleasure of picking new
reading from this interesting RMCG book list. It seems to have an
overlap with other real time people in my personal life. Unfortunately
my reading list had expanding past most projections for a single
lifetime.... ans so it goes with the music too...


sigh...

:-) ;-) :-)

I think Neal Stephenson would like these smiley faces :-) ;-)
Andrew Schulman
2007-08-20 03:58:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larry Deack
RMCG makes for a really fun book list.
Unfortunately
Post by Larry Deack
my reading list had expanding past most projections for a single
lifetime.... ans so it goes with the music too...
Another perfect RMCG book is one I'm reading now, "Prey" by Michael
Crichton, about nanotechnology run amok.

Swarm, swarm!!

Andrew
Larry Deack
2007-08-20 04:10:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Schulman
Another perfect RMCG book is one I'm reading
now, "Prey" by Michael Crichton, about
nanotechnology run amok.
Swarm, swarm!!
Is this a new one or one mentioned before in RMCG?

Nano run amok! Wow... Now there's a thirty minute thriller for ya,
eh? MC is a popular writer but I have not read anything by him for decades.

Read the Baroque Cycle. If you don't like it I'll send you the money
you paid for the books.
Andrew Schulman
2007-08-20 04:20:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larry Deack
Read the Baroque Cycle. If you don't like it I'll send you the money
you paid for the books.
I'm sure I won't like it so just send me the money now.

Andrew
Andrew Schulman
2007-08-20 03:55:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lare
If a man blows a dog whistle in a room full of high-strung guitarists and
none are able to hear it, does it make a sound. Of course not. Man lacks
the processor to "hear" it. Are there wavelenghts present? Absolutely yes.
Is there sound. No.
"sound 1 |sound| noun - vibrations that travel through the air or
another medium and can be heard when they reach a person's or animal's
ear."

What you are saying is that if there is a dog whistle blown that
guitarists can't hear there is no sound. But there is sound, dogs can
hear it even if guitarists can't. The vibrations are still there,
there is sound even if the guitarists can't here it.

My dogs think you're woefully human-centric.

Andrew
Larry Deack
2007-08-20 04:05:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Schulman
What you are saying is that if there is a dog whistle blown that
guitarists can't hear there is no sound. But there is sound, dogs can
hear it even if guitarists can't. The vibrations are still there,
there is sound even if the guitarists can't here it.
My dogs think you're woefully human-centric.
That's music for ya! Human centric all the way, baby!
Andrew Schulman
2007-08-20 04:23:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larry Deack
Post by Andrew Schulman
My dogs think you're woefully human-centric.
That's music for ya! Human centric all the way, baby!
Larry, the word we have been using in this thread, at least this
section of it, is "sound", not "music". Anyway, animals hear and
react to musical sounds too; you've heard of birds, right? Whales?
Wolves? Etc.

Andrew
Larry Deack
2007-08-20 04:26:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Schulman
Larry, the word we have been using in this thread, at least this
section of it, is "sound", not "music".
Andrew, so at what frequencies do you think "sound" exist?
Andrew Schulman
2007-08-20 13:16:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larry Deack
Post by Andrew Schulman
Larry, the word we have been using in this thread, at least this
section of it, is "sound", not "music".
Andrew, so at what frequencies do you think "sound" exist?
It's not a question of what I "think".

For humans, for dogs, for birds? The frequency ranges for each
species capable of hearing sound are known, Google "sound + hearing".

Andrew
Larry Deack
2007-08-20 14:57:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Schulman
It's not a question of what I "think".
Obviously.
Post by Andrew Schulman
For humans, for dogs, for birds?
Take your pick. How about the medium? Water, air, or maybe steel?
Everything is always vibrating but not all those vibrations are sound.
Which are sounds?

Does a sound have a direction? What makes one sound distinct from
another when both sounds are vibrating the same air? Why do we say we
hear two sounds when it's the same air moving?

You might want to read that book about you brain on music. Pretty
cool stuff.
Andrew Schulman
2007-08-20 15:43:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larry Deack
Take your pick. How about the medium? Water, air, or maybe steel?
Everything is always vibrating but not all those vibrations are sound.
Which are sounds?
Does a sound have a direction? What makes one sound distinct from
another when both sounds are vibrating the same air? Why do we say we
hear two sounds when it's the same air moving?
Larry, we are talking about a very specific thing, the sound of a tree
falling in a forest.

Andrew
Larry Deack
2007-08-20 16:13:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Schulman
Larry, we are talking about a very
specific thing, the sound of a tree
falling in a forest.
Does a bee hear that sound? Which "sound" are you talking about if
you are not talking about the sound that needs a human ear to cut the
spectrum of vibrations into the part we call a sound?

Everything vibrates all the time but we separate individual sounds
out of that spectrum. We do not confuse the tree sound with the monkey
in it who is screaming as the tree goes down. This is the crux of human
hearing, audio stream segregation. Without this brain process the
"sound" of a tree falling is not so easy to separate from the forest and
not so easy to define. With the human ear the "sound" is easily
separated from the other air pressure waves. This is a non trivial thing
to do that our brain does intuitively using many cues like timing
differences in the signals to both ears that give sound direction.

Andrew, really, this is not stuff I make up. It is most interesting
to some people and they do devote many hours to their research. The book
Lare and I read is a good book for this stuff. I just talked to another
CG teacher at a recent meeting who was recommending it another teacher
there.
Andrew Schulman
2007-08-20 18:12:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larry Deack
Post by Andrew Schulman
Larry, we are talking about a very
specific thing, the sound of a tree
falling in a forest.
Does a bee hear that sound? Which "sound" are you talking about if
you are not talking about the sound that needs a human ear to cut the
spectrum of vibrations into the part we call a sound?
It has been very clear in this part of the thread that we are talking
about human hearing, not bees, etc. Whether or not a human hears it
the sound is there. Here is a little experiment you can do. Set up a
tape recorder in the forest, arrange for a tree to fall after you
leave the forest, turn on the tape recorder before you leave, go
away. Come back after the tree has fallen. Hit playback...

Andrew

Lare
2007-08-20 04:29:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Schulman
Post by Lare
If a man blows a dog whistle in a room full of high-strung guitarists and
none are able to hear it, does it make a sound. Of course not. Man lacks
the processor to "hear" it. Are there wavelenghts present? Absolutely yes.
Is there sound. No.
"sound 1 |sound| noun - vibrations that travel through the air or
another medium and can be heard when they reach a person's or animal's
ear."
What you are saying is that if there is a dog whistle blown that
guitarists can't hear there is no sound. But there is sound, dogs can
hear it even if guitarists can't. The vibrations are still there,
there is sound even if the guitarists can't here it.
My dogs think you're woefully human-centric.
Andrew
And your dogs would be right, at least on this topic.

There are lots of waves hitting us at all times, ultraviolet, radio, etc.
The brain can't translate most of them into sound. So, are they sounding?
Not unless they are in the frequency range of the human processor. The
definition above uses the conjunctive "and can be heard when they reach a
persons or animals ear." Therefore, if they don't reach the ear [and be in
the frequency range of the ear, I would add], no sound.

Jackson is confusing vibration with sound. LarryD's women confuse new cars
and virility, but, as long as it works... ;-)

The forest is silent.
LMc
dsi1
2007-08-20 07:19:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lare
And your dogs would be right, at least on this topic.
There are lots of waves hitting us at all times, ultraviolet, radio, etc.
The brain can't translate most of them into sound. So, are they sounding?
Not unless they are in the frequency range of the human processor. The
definition above uses the conjunctive "and can be heard when they reach a
persons or animals ear." Therefore, if they don't reach the ear [and be in
the frequency range of the ear, I would add], no sound.
Jackson is confusing vibration with sound. LarryD's women confuse new cars
and virility, but, as long as it works... ;-)
The forest is silent.
LMc
Most problems with hearing have do to with the systems for creating the
electrical impulses to the brain rather than the processing. Problems
with the eardrum or the bones that transmit the sounds to the cochlear
can cause a conductive hearing loss. The loss of the hairs that convert
the vibrations to electrical signals within the cochlear will cause a
sensorineural hearing loss and is common by age 65.

I'm no psychbot but it seems that problems with sound processing tend to
be mostly with speech - called aphasia. I met a woman with this problem
once - she could not understand me although her hearing and speech was
not impaired. It was possible to communicate with her through writing.
sensorineural hearing loss is common - aphasia is not.

I have no feelings about trees falling in the forest. :-)

david
Andrew Schulman
2007-08-20 13:12:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lare
And your dogs would be right, at least on this topic.
There are lots of waves hitting us at all times, ultraviolet, radio, etc.
The brain can't translate most of them into sound. So, are they sounding?
Sound waves make sound, light waves don't.
Post by Lare
Not unless they are in the frequency range of the human processor. The
definition above uses the conjunctive "and can be heard when they reach a
persons or animals ear." Therefore, if they don't reach the ear [and be in
the frequency range of the ear, I would add], no sound.
Jackson is confusing vibration with sound. LarryD's women confuse new cars
and virility, but, as long as it works... ;-)
The forest is silent.
LMc
If you can't hear the sound that doesn't mean there isn't any sound.
If you were in the forest and trees were crashing down but you were
deaf does that mean there is no sound? No, there is sound, but there
is no sound that YOU can hear. Big difference.

The forest is never silent. Life makes noise.

Andrew
Faustus Infinitus
2007-08-14 00:30:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carlos Barrientos
And who knows, really, in his day Salieri > Mozart, today that is
different. Bach went out of fashion for a bit, right, inconceivable as
it seems to us today.
This wasn't a reflection of Bach's or Mozart's music, but a reflection
of their listeners' poor tastes. Similarly, a Slayer fan's regard for
their noise says not that Slayer is good, but that the fan's tastes
are debased. If the many say Bach's music is bad, it nevertheless
remains sublime. If the many say Slayer's noise is good, it
nevertheless remains coprophagic. The whole world could agree in these
opinions - and the whole world would be wrong. The true qualitative
status of Bach's and Slayer's production is entirely independent of
opinion, entirely objective.
Andrew Schulman
2007-08-14 01:07:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Faustus Infinitus
Similarly, a Slayer fan's regard for
their noise says not that Slayer is good, but that the fan's tastes
are debased.
I just listened to some "Slayer". Boy, is that bad shit! I don't
mean "bad" as in "good". I mean, it sucks!

Bach is definitely "bad" though. As in "bad" is great!!

Andrew
Richard Jernigan
2007-08-14 07:12:33 UTC
Permalink
On Aug 14, 10:18 am, Carlos Barrientos <***@sprintmail.com> wrote:
<big snip>
Post by Carlos Barrientos
For me, there are things that Muddy Waters does for me that Bach can't
and vice versa. Now, which one is better? I cannot make that distinction
without invalidating my affectionate response to either. So, in my world
view and opinion, they are both as good as each other.
Not a popular view perhaps... but then again, I'm used to marching to
the beat of a different drummer. I'm an artist.
--
Carlos Barrientos
Phone: (512) 218 - 8322
Right!! Really Right!!! For example, Muddy's "Going to Louisiana".
Written on the page it would look simple. Played and sung by Muddy,
the swing is uniquely complex, the casual menace of the voice sends
chills up my spine.

RNJ
Carlos Barrientos
2007-08-14 11:42:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Jernigan
<big snip>
Post by Carlos Barrientos
For me, there are things that Muddy Waters does for me that Bach can't
and vice versa. Now, which one is better? I cannot make that distinction
without invalidating my affectionate response to either. So, in my world
view and opinion, they are both as good as each other.
Not a popular view perhaps... but then again, I'm used to marching to
the beat of a different drummer. I'm an artist.
--
Carlos Barrientos
Phone: (512) 218 - 8322
Right!! Really Right!!! For example, Muddy's "Going to Louisiana".
Written on the page it would look simple. Played and sung by Muddy,
the swing is uniquely complex, the casual menace of the voice sends
chills up my spine.
RNJ
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh,

Ohhhhhhhh Yeahhhhh.............

Evrythang...

Evrythang...

Evrythang goin' be awright this mawning,

Oh Yeah!

etc...
--
Carlos Barrientos
"mailto:***@sprintmail.com"
Phone: (512) 218 - 8322
dsi1
2007-08-14 19:19:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carlos Barrientos
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh,
Ohhhhhhhh Yeahhhhh.............
Evrythang...
Evrythang...
Evrythang goin' be awright this mawning,
Oh Yeah!
etc...
Hey man...are you OK!?

Strangely enough, I just saw a flick called "Black Snake Moan" which
deals with the blues and life and the healing powers of the music. I
think the message was - "The blues: good for what ails ya." It's a movie
for those that like movies way out there in left field - check it out if
you do and stay away if you don't. :-)

Samuel L. Jackson is an ex-blues guy that gave forsakes the music living
on a farm in a small shack out of town. He pulls out from under his bed
what looks like a Gibson 335 and a 60s Dove - this amused me. I suspect
he had a 59 Les Paul under that wonderful majik bed too. :-)

david
Carlos Barrientos
2007-08-14 22:05:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by dsi1
Post by Carlos Barrientos
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh,
Ohhhhhhhh Yeahhhhh.............
Evrythang...
Evrythang...
Evrythang goin' be awright this mawning,
Oh Yeah!
etc...
Hey man...are you OK!?
Strangely enough, I just saw a flick called "Black Snake Moan" which
deals with the blues and life and the healing powers of the music. I
think the message was - "The blues: good for what ails ya." It's a movie
for those that like movies way out there in left field - check it out if
you do and stay away if you don't. :-)
Samuel L. Jackson is an ex-blues guy that gave forsakes the music living
on a farm in a small shack out of town. He pulls out from under his bed
what looks like a Gibson 335 and a 60s Dove - this amused me. I suspect
he had a 59 Les Paul under that wonderful majik bed too. :-)
david
(Opening lyrics to "Mannish Boy" - by McKinley Morganfield AKA Muddy
Waters.) Woke up this morning feeling like that!

Thought RNJ would be amused...

Thanx for the recommendation, have been wonderin about that movie...
--
Carlos Barrientos
"mailto:***@sprintmail.com"
Phone: (512) 218 - 8322
Matanya Ophee
2007-08-13 15:12:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carlos Barrientos
Post by Matanya Ophee
I would recommend reading any text, no matter who is the author, with
a great deal of caution. Particularly those authors who come on as
self-described authorities and tell you
.__trust me.
So... source everything? Recommended methodology?
Source everything according to their primary source evidence. When
quoting facts from a secondary source, quote that secondary source
precisely, while employing every possible tactic to CTA (Cover Thy
Ass...). Make sure your private opinions are clearly presented as your
opinion, not as facts.
Post by Carlos Barrientos
Post by Matanya Ophee
If you want to read about Fernando Sor, I would recommend Luis
Gasser's Sor Studies. 33 articles dealing with this composer.
Where is this volume found?
Check this page for details:

http://guitarra.artelinkado.com/foros/showthread.php?t=364

Matanya Ophee
Editions Orphe'e, Inc.,
1240 Clubview Blvd. N.
Columbus, OH 43235-1226
614-846-9517
fax: 614-846-9794
http://www.editionsorphee.com
http://matanya.livejournal.com
dsi1
2007-08-13 21:30:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matanya Ophee
I have known your teacher for many years now and I have no doubt he is
a fine musician. I am also sure he is more musically knowledgeable
than many who post here, but to say that he is "more musically
knowledgeable than just about anyone here" is silly hyperbole. Just
like the one about comparing Sor and Mozart.
FI will reduce all matters down to simplest terms in the most ridiculous
manner leaving only hyperbole. How embarrassing it is for his teacher to
be represented in this way.

david
Matanya Ophee
2007-08-13 23:09:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by dsi1
FI will reduce all matters down to simplest terms in the most ridiculous
manner leaving only hyperbole. How embarrassing it is for his teacher to
be represented in this way.
If he finds out about it. I said this here before: if I was the
teacher and I found out my student was discussing in public_anything_
about what goes in between us, teacher and student, I'd get his ass
out the door faster than you can say RdlA.

Matanya Ophee
Editions Orphe'e, Inc.,
1240 Clubview Blvd. N.
Columbus, OH 43235-1226
614-846-9517
fax: 614-846-9794
http://www.editionsorphee.com
http://matanya.livejournal.com
dsi1
2007-08-13 23:57:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matanya Ophee
Post by dsi1
FI will reduce all matters down to simplest terms in the most ridiculous
manner leaving only hyperbole. How embarrassing it is for his teacher to
be represented in this way.
If he finds out about it. I said this here before: if I was the
teacher and I found out my student was discussing in public_anything_
about what goes in between us, teacher and student, I'd get his ass
out the door faster than you can say RdlA.
In my awesome opinion, saying "my teacher can beat anybody here" is just
asking for trouble. Kids these days got no respect for nothing...

david
Post by Matanya Ophee
Matanya Ophee
Editions Orphe'e, Inc.,
1240 Clubview Blvd. N.
Columbus, OH 43235-1226
614-846-9517
fax: 614-846-9794
http://www.editionsorphee.com
http://matanya.livejournal.com
Faustus Infinitus
2007-08-14 00:12:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by dsi1
In my awesome opinion, saying "my teacher can beat anybody here" is just
asking for trouble. >
david
It would be silly, agreed. Notice that I didn't say that. Your reading
comprehension is characteristically stunted.
dsi1
2007-08-14 02:29:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Faustus Infinitus
Post by dsi1
In my awesome opinion, saying "my teacher can beat anybody here" is just
asking for trouble. >
david
It would be silly, agreed. Notice that I didn't say that. Your reading
comprehension is characteristically stunted.
I'm disappointed (but not surprised) that you did not take the
opportunity to clarify your statement - after rereading it, I come up
with this: "my teacher can beat JUST ABOUT anybody here." I hope this
meets with your approval. Thanks!

david
Faustus Infinitus
2007-08-14 00:11:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matanya Ophee
If he finds out about it. I said this here before: if I was the
teacher and I found out my student was discussing in public_anything_
about what goes in between us, teacher and student, I'd get his ass
out the door faster than you can say RdlA.
Yes, but then again, you're a crank.

At any rate, my teacher's assertion that Sor is on par with Mozart
isn't exactly combustible material.
John Rimmer
2007-08-14 00:26:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matanya Ophee
Post by dsi1
FI will reduce all matters down to simplest terms in the most ridiculous
manner leaving only hyperbole. How embarrassing it is for his teacher to
be represented in this way.
If he finds out about it. I said this here before: if I was the
teacher and I found out my student was discussing in public_anything_
about what goes in between us, teacher and student, I'd get his ass
out the door faster than you can say RdlA.
I don't like that part of it, either. Now, whatever the teacher might
publish is fair game.

John
Faustus Infinitus
2007-08-13 23:28:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by dsi1
FI will reduce all matters down to simplest terms in the most ridiculous
manner leaving only hyperbole. How embarrassing it is for his teacher to
be represented in this way.
david
Trog, once again: the assertions were my teacher's, not mine. And
having thought on it some more, I'm confident that I've accurately
reported that he believes Sor is on par with Mozart. I'm quite happy
to see that his way of thinking contradicts yours.
dsi1
2007-08-14 00:04:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Faustus Infinitus
Post by dsi1
FI will reduce all matters down to simplest terms in the most ridiculous
manner leaving only hyperbole. How embarrassing it is for his teacher to
be represented in this way.
david
Trog, once again: the assertions were my teacher's, not mine. And
having thought on it some more, I'm confident that I've accurately
reported that he believes Sor is on par with Mozart. I'm quite happy
to see that his way of thinking contradicts yours.
Trog? That's plan goofy. What are you - like 12 years old? Haha.

My assumption was that you may have misunderstood him to some degree
even though that concept maybe too hard for you to bear - glad to see
this is not the case. Thanks for the accurate report in this matter.

david
Faustus Infinitus
2007-08-14 00:16:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by dsi1
My assumption was that you may have misunderstood him to some degree
even though that concept maybe too hard for you to bear - glad to see
this is not the case. Thanks for the accurate report in this matter.
david
Subject yourself to a little test: Come to California - I'll put you
up - and, as I did, pass the bar exam here, which is the hardest in
the nation. When shall I expect you and your superior conceptual
grasp?
Larry Deack
2007-08-14 00:34:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Faustus Infinitus
Subject yourself to a little test: Come to California - I'll put you
up - and, as I did, pass the bar exam here, which is the hardest in
the nation.
Ha ha ha ha... oh my.... that's so rich! Oh yeah, the big bad bar...
I'm soooo scared of bars... them thar Caleeforneeeiay bars is gunna eat
me alive!!! Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!

You are so funny!
dsi1
2007-08-14 02:00:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Faustus Infinitus
Post by dsi1
My assumption was that you may have misunderstood him to some degree
even though that concept maybe too hard for you to bear - glad to see
this is not the case. Thanks for the accurate report in this matter.
david
Subject yourself to a little test: Come to California - I'll put you
up - and, as I did, pass the bar exam here, which is the hardest in
the nation. When shall I expect you and your superior conceptual
grasp?
Have no doubt that passing the bar in any state is something that I
would not be able to do and therefore, I must refuse your kind offer.
Hats off to you for this achievement. You obviously possess the
requirements needed to be a good student i.e., you are a voracious
reader and will believe everything your teacher (or the Pope) tells you.

Still, I feel that you have a grasp on nothing that matters much in this
life - it's my awesome opinion. Feel free to disagree. I must warn you
however, that the world is filled with people that disagree with me and
I know how much you disdain that which is fashionable - your burden is a
heavy one.

You take can take the closing as it's a waste of my time to argue who's
the most awesome and smartest dude of all.

david
k***@frontiernet.net
2007-08-13 16:05:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by chuck hulihan
Post by Faustus Infinitus
Sor's musical genius was at least equal to Mozart's, and Sor realized
this genius in his music.
Agreed?
More thoughtful responses may be generated if the question was asked
in this frame "If Mozart wrote for the guitar, would Sor's musical
genius be at least equal to Mozart's..."
Im sure most folks instantly get caught up in knowing only Sor's
guitar music, and instantly draw failed comparisons to Mozart's large
scale works.
Food for thought. Also, defining the parameters of genius would make
for deeper discussion. Im not sure Sor was genius, but I do think his
music for the guitar is simply perfect. I humbly feel one can learn
all about playing the instrument (albeit in a certain harmonic and
stylistic period) technically, phrasing, interpretation, through his
music. I constantly come back to his works to center myself, discover
new ideas, new ways to phrase, and new fingerings etc. There is always
something there, from the shortest technical study to his Gran Solo.
-Chuckwww.duozona.comwww.myspace.com/duozona
I got into this a bit late, but I find Chuck's commenbts to be very
accurate. The one composer I have always thought to be similar to Sor
was Chopin. I don't necessarily mean in terms of style, but simply
because both composers wrote many small short studies and etudes for
their instrument which remain central to the repertoire of each
instrument. I have a close friend who plays piano (not professionally
- voice is his primary instrument) and he says the same thing about
Chopin - my friend returns to Chopin the way Chuck and many other
guitarists return to Sor.

In addition, many of their compositions can stand on their own and be
part of rectials and concerts.

I'd be interested in heariong other's thoughts on this. If you don't
agree that's fine. But please refrain from calling me a fruitcake.
Being wrong does not make someone nutty.

Michael
Mark & Steven Bornfeld
2007-08-13 16:35:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@frontiernet.net
Post by chuck hulihan
Post by Faustus Infinitus
Sor's musical genius was at least equal to Mozart's, and Sor realized
this genius in his music.
Agreed?
More thoughtful responses may be generated if the question was asked
in this frame "If Mozart wrote for the guitar, would Sor's musical
genius be at least equal to Mozart's..."
Im sure most folks instantly get caught up in knowing only Sor's
guitar music, and instantly draw failed comparisons to Mozart's large
scale works.
Food for thought. Also, defining the parameters of genius would make
for deeper discussion. Im not sure Sor was genius, but I do think his
music for the guitar is simply perfect. I humbly feel one can learn
all about playing the instrument (albeit in a certain harmonic and
stylistic period) technically, phrasing, interpretation, through his
music. I constantly come back to his works to center myself, discover
new ideas, new ways to phrase, and new fingerings etc. There is always
something there, from the shortest technical study to his Gran Solo.
-Chuckwww.duozona.comwww.myspace.com/duozona
I got into this a bit late, but I find Chuck's commenbts to be very
accurate. The one composer I have always thought to be similar to Sor
was Chopin. I don't necessarily mean in terms of style, but simply
because both composers wrote many small short studies and etudes for
their instrument which remain central to the repertoire of each
instrument. I have a close friend who plays piano (not professionally
- voice is his primary instrument) and he says the same thing about
Chopin - my friend returns to Chopin the way Chuck and many other
guitarists return to Sor.
In addition, many of their compositions can stand on their own and be
part of rectials and concerts.
I'd be interested in heariong other's thoughts on this. If you don't
agree that's fine. But please refrain from calling me a fruitcake.
Being wrong does not make someone nutty.
Michael
There is an analogy there. Certainly Chopin's light is brighter in the
general musical world, and his harmonies probably more sophisticated.
He also probably was more a singular presence in pianism in a way that
Sor was not (what with Carulli, Giuliani, Molino, Aguado, Carcassi
traipsing all over Europe).
Probably the comparison isn't of much utility. They both wrote plenty
of lovely music though.

Steve
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
Lare
2007-08-13 17:06:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@frontiernet.net
Post by chuck hulihan
Post by Faustus Infinitus
Sor's musical genius was at least equal to Mozart's, and Sor realized
this genius in his music.
Agreed?
More thoughtful responses may be generated if the question was asked
in this frame "If Mozart wrote for the guitar, would Sor's musical
genius be at least equal to Mozart's..."
Im sure most folks instantly get caught up in knowing only Sor's
guitar music, and instantly draw failed comparisons to Mozart's large
scale works.
Food for thought. Also, defining the parameters of genius would make
for deeper discussion. Im not sure Sor was genius, but I do think his
music for the guitar is simply perfect. I humbly feel one can learn
all about playing the instrument (albeit in a certain harmonic and
stylistic period) technically, phrasing, interpretation, through his
music. I constantly come back to his works to center myself, discover
new ideas, new ways to phrase, and new fingerings etc. There is always
something there, from the shortest technical study to his Gran Solo.
-Chuckwww.duozona.comwww.myspace.com/duozona
I got into this a bit late, but I find Chuck's commenbts to be very
accurate. The one composer I have always thought to be similar to Sor
was Chopin. I don't necessarily mean in terms of style, but simply
because both composers wrote many small short studies and etudes for
their instrument which remain central to the repertoire of each
instrument. I have a close friend who plays piano (not professionally
- voice is his primary instrument) and he says the same thing about
Chopin - my friend returns to Chopin the way Chuck and many other
guitarists return to Sor.
In addition, many of their compositions can stand on their own and be
part of rectials and concerts.
I'd be interested in heariong other's thoughts on this. If you don't
agree that's fine. But please refrain from calling me a fruitcake.
Being wrong does not make someone nutty.
Michael
I have often thought this as well. Play Sor/Segovia #5 blocked, that is
without the arpeggios, and put in the passing tones as needed -like the
"E#'s". This could easily fit into the Chopin Preludes collection.

As far as Sor being at the artistic level as Mozart, well, there are too
many years between the two to compare styles and aesthetics. And as I've
said earlier, Sor truly drops the composition ball in Op. 9, Variations on a
theme of Mozart ( I still play this piece all the time, though).

LMc
Matanya Ophee
2007-08-13 17:59:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lare
Sor truly drops the composition ball in Op. 9, Variations on a
theme of Mozart
Except that Op. 9 is not on a theme by Mozart, but rather on a tune
made popular by the singer Angelica Catalani called O Dolce Contento
and used in the operas La Virtuosa in Puntiglio, a London 1808
production of Fioravanti’s opera I Virtuosi ambulanti, and Paisiello’s
La frascatana, which is only remotely based on the Mozart aria Das
Klinget so Herrlich.

Matanya Ophee
Editions Orphe'e, Inc.,
1240 Clubview Blvd. N.
Columbus, OH 43235-1226
614-846-9517
fax: 614-846-9794
http://www.editionsorphee.com
http://matanya.livejournal.com
Lare
2007-08-13 18:52:11 UTC
Permalink
Thanks MO for the help. I've often wondered how this tune had traveled
before Sor heard it. Could this explain why Sor, one of my favorite
composers, avoids varying the deceptive cadence found at the end of the
theme in Op. 9? Maybe the popular version ignored this cadence.

Segovia used to do something similar to Sor, omitting the da capo (playing
only the first phrase) at the end of Minuet and Trio in The Grand Sonata op.
22, III. I heard him do this twice. IIRC, he recorded it this way, too.
Furthermore, in the 1960's, Harvey Vinson in his "Worlds favorite Guitar
Solos" (or World's Favorite Solos, vol. 42, or some such) published this
"hybrid" version, with the D.C.al fine.

LMc
a***@yahoo.com
2007-08-14 04:30:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matanya Ophee
Except that Op. 9 is not on a theme by Mozart, but rather on a tune
made popular by the singer Angelica Catalani called O Dolce Contento
and used in the operas La Virtuosa in Puntiglio, a London 1808
production of Fioravanti's opera I Virtuosi ambulanti, and Paisiello's
La frascatana, which is only remotely based on the Mozart aria Das
Klinget so Herrlich.
Why would anyone would say that Sor's Op. 9 isn't based on a theme of
Mozart? "Die Zauberfl�te" predates the two sources you cited, and the
printed edition of Op. 9 makes no mention of them. Here's the title
page of the Meissonier edition:

http://www2.kb.dk/elib/noder/rischel/RiBS0695.pdf

Anyone familiar with Mozart's "Die Zauberfl�te" knows the Sor theme
appears in two places: "Sch�n' M�dchen, jung und fein" and "Das
klinget so herrlich." For those unfamiliar with these themes, here's
an mp3 of both:

http://www.pooretom.com/mozartsor.html

And we know Sor was familiar with this opera, since he arranged six of
its arias for guitar solo.

Tom Poore
Cleveland Heights, OH
USA
a***@yahoo.com
2007-08-14 05:46:38 UTC
Permalink
While I'm here, I might as well respond to the original post. It's of
course ridiculous to equate Sor with Mozart. But that only means that
Sor doesn't measure up to perhaps the greatest musical genius the
human race has ever produced. (With the possible exception of Bach.)
Mozart is a standard by which everyone comes up short.

We shouldn't overlook, however, just how good Sor was when at his
best. His Op. 59 Fantasie �l�giaque and Op. 63 Souvenir de Russie
stand comparison to the best of any 19th century composer. Like some
others who've posted on this subject, I'm very happy our instrument
had a Fernando Sor.

A reminder for those who haven't been there yet:
http://www.pooretom.com/thesorproject.html

Tom Poore
Cleveland Heights, OH
USA
Richard Jernigan
2007-08-14 07:48:58 UTC
Permalink
It is interesting to note how Bach and Mozart have progressed, even
while dead. In my youth, Beethoven was the greatest musical genius
the human race had ever produced.

Bach was an eminence grise. Mozart had only attained the level to
which Haydn is assigned nowadays.

To some extent independent of fashion, my love for Mozart strengthened
as I grew older. As soon as I heaard him, I loved Bach even when he
was not so fashionable as he is today. I was seen as a bit eccentric
by some of my friends who went on to conservatories and became
outstanding players. I played both Haydn and Schubert in orchestras in
my youth. I still rate Haydn a good deal higher than Schubert.

But those naughty ancient relativists, the Romans, were right when
they said "de gustibus non est disputandum". You would have a hard
time winning a case in court on the basis that Sor was (or was not)
Mozart's equal in musical genius.

RNJ
Post by a***@yahoo.com
While I'm here, I might as well respond to the original post. It's of
course ridiculous to equate Sor with Mozart. But that only means that
Sor doesn't measure up to perhaps the greatest musical genius the
human race has ever produced. (With the possible exception of Bach.)
Mozart is a standard by which everyone comes up short.
We shouldn't overlook, however, just how good Sor was when at his
best. His Op. 59 Fantasie �l�giaque and Op. 63 Souvenir de Russie
stand comparison to the best of any 19th century composer. Like some
others who've posted on this subject, I'm very happy our instrument
had a Fernando Sor.
A reminder for those who haven't been there yet:http://www.pooretom.com/thesorproject.html
Tom Poore
Cleveland Heights, OH
USA
John_in_CT
2007-08-14 13:30:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Jernigan
It is interesting to note how Bach and Mozart have progressed, even
while dead. In my youth, Beethoven was the greatest musical genius
the human race had ever produced.
Bach was an eminence grise. Mozart had only attained the level to
which Haydn is assigned nowadays.
To some extent independent of fashion, my love for Mozart strengthened
as I grew older. As soon as I heaard him, I loved Bach even when he
was not so fashionable as he is today. I was seen as a bit eccentric
by some of my friends who went on to conservatories and became
outstanding players. I played both Haydn and Schubert in orchestras in
my youth. I still rate Haydn a good deal higher than Schubert.
But those naughty ancient relativists, the Romans, were right when
they said "de gustibus non est disputandum". You would have a hard
time winning a case in court on the basis that Sor was (or was not)
Mozart's equal in musical genius.
RNJ
Richard,
I find this interesting as I had always thought the public opinion
(until I began reading this newsgroup) was that Beethoven was the
"best", with Mozart and Bach close behind, and I'm in my mid-30's. I
still prefer Beethoven's grand works to all others. Of course,
putting them in any sort of pecking order is meaningless, but makes
for interesting discussion.
a***@yahoo.com
2007-08-14 15:02:11 UTC
Permalink
Of course, putting [composers] in any sort of pecking order is meaningless,
but makes for interesting discussion.
Actually, there's a book that does exactly that. "Classical Music: The
50 Greatest Composers and Their 1000 Greatest Works" by Phil G.
Goulding. The author lays out his ranking criteria early in the book.
Fortunately, he doesn't take himself too seriously, and it's all in
fun. By the way, none of the second Viennese school composers make his
top 50.

Tom Poore
Cleveland Heights, OH
USA
Faustus Infinitus
2007-08-14 19:56:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@yahoo.com
By the way, none of the second Viennese school composers make his
top 50.
Then he's a fool. But he's exquisitely modern! This is what counts.
Faustus Infinitus
2007-08-14 20:03:57 UTC
Permalink
By the way, I'm reading an excellent book on Mozart; actually it's a
collection of letters:

http://tinyurl.com/ynudh2

Also, stay away from Maynard Solomon's books on M and Beethoven, which
are little more than exercises in psychobabble.
Faustus Infinitus
2007-08-14 21:47:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Faustus Infinitus
By the way, I'm reading an excellent book on Mozart; actually it's a
http://tinyurl.com/ynudh2
Also, stay away from Maynard Solomon's books on M and Beethoven, which
are little more than exercises in psychobabble.
Sometimes I surprise myself with self inflicted hypocracy. I'll
admit, I am at times a faithful subject of the Dictatorship of
relativism. After all, it was I who begged the question who is better
Sor, or Mozart, as told to me by my most excellent teacher, then in my
arrogance proceed to recommend a book as if I had knew what I was
talking about. Oh shame where is thy blush!
Faustus Infinitus
2007-08-14 23:36:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Faustus Infinitus
Sometimes I surprise myself with self inflicted hypocracy. I'll
admit, I am at times a faithful subject of the Dictatorship of
relativism. After all, it was I who begged the question who is better
Sor, or Mozart, as told to me by my most excellent teacher, then in my
arrogance proceed to recommend a book as if I had knew what I was
talking about. Oh shame where is thy blush!
Strange. I wonder how Fyodor managed to write under my name.
Mark & Steven Bornfeld
2007-08-14 20:22:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Faustus Infinitus
Post by a***@yahoo.com
By the way, none of the second Viennese school composers make his
top 50.
Then he's a fool. But he's exquisitely modern! This is what counts.
I am surprised (and encouraged) to hear this from you. I confess I've
only recently started listening to Schoenberg; what of the second
Viennese school do you particularly value for its worth?

Steve
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
Matanya Ophee
2007-08-14 15:12:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@yahoo.com
Post by Matanya Ophee
Except that Op. 9 is not on a theme by Mozart, but rather on a tune
made popular by the singer Angelica Catalani called O Dolce Contento
and used in the operas La Virtuosa in Puntiglio, a London 1808
production of Fioravanti's opera I Virtuosi ambulanti, and Paisiello's
La frascatana, which is only remotely based on the Mozart aria Das
Klinget so Herrlich.
Why would anyone would say that Sor's Op. 9 isn't based on a theme of
Mozart?
The answer to that is in the quote above. The theme, as used by Sor in
Op. 9, cannot be found in the score of the Magic Flute. Period. Just
compare Op. 19 No. 4 to the theme in Op. 9 and you will see the
difference. If you are really interested in this subject, I will
suggest some remedial reading. Try this:

David Buch, "Two likely sources for Sor’s variations on a theme of
Mozart, op. 9", in: Luis Gásser (ed.), Estudios Sobre Fernando Sor,
2002:353. See also: Matanya Ophee, “Rondo Allegro by F. Molino,”
Soundboard IX/1, Spring 1982, pp. 78-9.

The Buch article was previously published in the Guitar Review.

Matanya Ophee
Editions Orphe'e, Inc.,
1240 Clubview Blvd. N.
Columbus, OH 43235-1226
614-846-9517
fax: 614-846-9794
http://www.editionsorphee.com
http://matanya.livejournal.com
a***@yahoo.com
2007-08-16 04:17:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matanya Ophee
The answer to that is in the quote above. The theme, as used by Sor in
Op. 9, cannot be found in the score of the Magic Flute. Period.
If you mean there's no note for note version of the Sor melody in The
Magic Flute, you're correct. But to say it's simply not there is
wrong. "Sch�n' M�dchen, jung und fein" gives almost exactly the
texture Sor used in the theme statement of Op. 9. "Das klinget so
herrlich" gives the same harmony and phrase structure as the theme of
Op. 9. Sor merely elaborated on it--not an uncommon thing for an early
19th century composer to do.
Post by Matanya Ophee
Just compare Op. 19 No. 4 to the theme in Op. 9
and you will see the difference.
Anyone familiar with The Magic Flute knows that Op. 19 No. 4 doesn't
exactly follow the Mozart melody. And yet Op. 19 is clearly identified
as arrangements of melodies from The Magic Flute. So those who argue
that the theme of Op. 9 can't be from The Magic Flute are ignoring the
fact that Sor modified borrowed melodies for his own reasons. He did
this in Op. 19, yet no one argues that Op. 19 isn't based on The Magic
Flute. So why would anyone argue that Op. 9, also clearly identified
as based on a theme from The Magic Flute, isn't based on the Magic
Flute? This makes no sense.
Post by Matanya Ophee
If you are really interested in this subject, I will
David Buch, "Two likely sources for Sor's variations on a theme of
Mozart, op. 9", in: Luis G�sser (ed.), Estudios Sobre Fernando Sor,
2002:353. See also: Matanya Ophee, "Rondo Allegro by F. Molino,"
Soundboard IX/1, Spring 1982, pp. 78-9.
Thanks. I'll track it down. But considering the original publication
explicitly states that Op. 9 is base on The Magic Flute, an author who
argues otherwise is on thin ice.

Tom Poore
Cleveland Heights, OH
USA
Matanya Ophee
2007-08-16 15:19:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@yahoo.com
Post by Matanya Ophee
The answer to that is in the quote above. The theme, as used by Sor in
Op. 9, cannot be found in the score of the Magic Flute. Period.
If you mean there's no note for note version of the Sor melody in The
Magic Flute, you're correct. But to say it's simply not there is
wrong. "Schön' Mädchen, jung und fein" gives almost exactly the
texture Sor used in the theme statement of Op. 9. "Das klinget so
herrlich" gives the same harmony and phrase structure as the theme of
Op. 9. Sor merely elaborated on it--not an uncommon thing for an early
19th century composer to do.
Where you got your marbles mixed up is in the fact that the
elaboration on the Mozart theme was not done by Sor, but by Angelica
Catalani. Sor, like many others such as Francesco Molino and Athenais
Paulian, simply took the Catalani elaboration and elaborated on it
even further.
Post by a***@yahoo.com
considering the original publication
explicitly states that Op. 9 is base on The Magic Flute, an author who
argues otherwise is on thin ice.
Obviously, you are not familiar with the many false claims used by
publishers on the covers of their editions for marketing purposes. An
old practice which is even used today by some publishers. The original
publication explicit statement, on a closer examination of the
material in question, i.e., the original score of the Magic Flute,
appears to be a bit of a stretch. Yes, it is based on a theme from the
Magic Flute, but at least twice removed.

Matanya Ophee
Editions Orphe'e, Inc.,
1240 Clubview Blvd. N.
Columbus, OH 43235-1226
614-846-9517
fax: 614-846-9794
http://www.editionsorphee.com
http://matanya.livejournal.com
Carlos Barrientos
2007-08-16 15:31:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matanya Ophee
Post by a***@yahoo.com
Post by Matanya Ophee
The answer to that is in the quote above. The theme, as used by Sor in
Op. 9, cannot be found in the score of the Magic Flute. Period.
If you mean there's no note for note version of the Sor melody in The
Magic Flute, you're correct. But to say it's simply not there is
wrong. "Schön' Mädchen, jung und fein" gives almost exactly the
texture Sor used in the theme statement of Op. 9. "Das klinget so
herrlich" gives the same harmony and phrase structure as the theme of
Op. 9. Sor merely elaborated on it--not an uncommon thing for an early
19th century composer to do.
Where you got your marbles mixed up is in the fact that the
elaboration on the Mozart theme was not done by Sor, but by Angelica
Catalani. Sor, like many others such as Francesco Molino and Athenais
Paulian, simply took the Catalani elaboration and elaborated on it
even further.
Post by a***@yahoo.com
considering the original publication
explicitly states that Op. 9 is base on The Magic Flute, an author who
argues otherwise is on thin ice.
Obviously, you are not familiar with the many false claims used by
publishers on the covers of their editions for marketing purposes. An
old practice which is even used today by some publishers. The original
publication explicit statement, on a closer examination of the
material in question, i.e., the original score of the Magic Flute,
appears to be a bit of a stretch. Yes, it is based on a theme from the
Magic Flute, but at least twice removed.
Matanya Ophee
Variations on a variation from a theme from the Magic Flute?
--
Carlos Barrientos
"mailto:***@sprintmail.com"
Phone: (512) 218 - 8322
Matanya Ophee
2007-08-16 16:33:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carlos Barrientos
Post by Matanya Ophee
Obviously, you are not familiar with the many false claims used by
publishers on the covers of their editions for marketing purposes. An
old practice which is even used today by some publishers. The original
publication explicit statement, on a closer examination of the
material in question, i.e., the original score of the Magic Flute,
appears to be a bit of a stretch. Yes, it is based on a theme from the
Magic Flute, but at least twice removed.
Matanya Ophee
Variations on a variation from a theme from the Magic Flute?
That is exactly what it is.

Matanya Ophee
Editions Orphe'e, Inc.,
1240 Clubview Blvd. N.
Columbus, OH 43235-1226
614-846-9517
fax: 614-846-9794
http://www.editionsorphee.com
http://matanya.livejournal.com
Carlos Barrientos
2007-08-16 17:43:21 UTC
Permalink
Matanya Ophee wrote:
--
Carlos Barrientos
Post by Matanya Ophee
Post by Carlos Barrientos
Post by Matanya Ophee
Obviously, you are not familiar with the many false claims used by
publishers on the covers of their editions for marketing purposes. An
old practice which is even used today by some publishers. The original
publication explicit statement, on a closer examination of the
material in question, i.e., the original score of the Magic Flute,
appears to be a bit of a stretch. Yes, it is based on a theme from the
Magic Flute, but at least twice removed.
Matanya Ophee
Variations on a variation from a theme from the Magic Flute?
That is exactly what it is.
Matanya Ophee
Maybe it was a misprint on the part of the publisher? (:-)

Variations on a variation from a theme from the Magic Flute

Variations on a theme from the Magic Flute

Nah, I'm going with the advantageous marketing position by proximity to
Mozart...

Interesting...
a***@yahoo.com
2007-08-17 00:48:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matanya Ophee
Obviously, you are not familiar with the many false claims used by
publishers on the covers of their editions for marketing purposes. An
old practice which is even used today by some publishers. The original
publication explicit statement, on a closer examination of the
material in question, i.e., the original score of the Magic Flute,
appears to be a bit of a stretch. Yes, it is based on a theme from the
Magic Flute, but at least twice removed.
I'm aware of this practice. It plagued Haydn scholars for decades--
many pieces by other composers were palmed off as Haydn works. Still,
the mere fact that this was a common practice doesn't mean one can
assume the Meissonier edition is another example. By this reasoning,
one could dispute the provenance of every work. It's just as possible
that Sor composed his variations after hearing The Magic Flute and
recast the melody to suit his taste, as he did in Op. 19, No. 4. Since
it's not considered a stretch to attribute Op. 19 to its stated
source, why single out Op. 9 for special treatment?

Nonetheless, I'll track down the article you cited. I suspect I read
it when it came out, and wasn't convinced by the author's argument.
But that would have been 23 years ago, so I need to look at it again

Tom Poore
Cleveland Heights, OH
USA
Matanya Ophee
2007-08-17 01:39:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@yahoo.com
I'm aware of this practice. It plagued Haydn scholars for decades--
many pieces by other composers were palmed off as Haydn works. Still,
the mere fact that this was a common practice doesn't mean one can
assume the Meissonier edition is another example.
I would suggest further study of Antoine Messonnier and his publishing
practices, not only in regard to Sor. There was a good reason, perhaps
several of them, why Sor broke with Messonnier in 1828. There is a
good article by Erik Stenstadvold on this subject which you might wish
to look up.
Post by a***@yahoo.com
By this reasoning,
one could dispute the provenance of every work.
Exactly right. A slavish reading of title pages is not a good way to
understand who did what, and with which, and to whom.

http://www.guitarandluteissues.com/festa/festa.htm

This article might give you some idea of the pitfalls involved, but if
you are pressed for time, try this:

The original title page of the Six preludes Op. 83 by Mauro Giuliani,
says it is by Giuliani. Problem is, the same music, note for note for
4 of the preludes, and slight reworked in two of them, was published 5
years earlier in Paris by Antoine de Lhoyer, as his Six Exercises Op.
27. See my article “Will the Real Mauro Giuliani Please Stand Up?”;
Soundboard XVII/1 1990 Spring.
Post by a***@yahoo.com
It's just as possible
that Sor composed his variations after hearing The Magic Flute and
recast the melody to suit his taste,
Not possible. Because if you accept it, you immediately accuse
Angelica Catalani, Francesco Molino and Athenais Paulian of stealing
this elaboration from Sor. If you wish to re-write guitar history,
better have a stronger argument than "It's just possible".
Post by a***@yahoo.com
Since
it's not considered a stretch to attribute Op. 19 to its stated
source, why single out Op. 9 for special treatment?
Not considered by whom?
Post by a***@yahoo.com
Nonetheless, I'll track down the article you cited. I suspect I read
it when it came out, and wasn't convinced by the author's argument.
But that would have been 23 years ago, so I need to look at it again
The Buch article as it appears in the Gasser anthology, has been
updated from its previous Guitar Review version. I trust that when you
were no convinced by his arguments, you did you home work and checked
out all the sources he quoted. Right?

Matanya Ophee
Editions Orphe'e, Inc.,
1240 Clubview Blvd. N.
Columbus, OH 43235-1226
614-846-9517
fax: 614-846-9794
http://www.editionsorphee.com
http://matanya.livejournal.com
a***@yahoo.com
2007-08-16 04:23:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matanya Ophee
The answer to that is in the quote above. The theme, as used by Sor in
Op. 9, cannot be found in the score of the Magic Flute. Period.
If you mean there's no note for note version of the Sor melody in The
Magic Flute, you're correct. But to say it's simply not there is
wrong. "Sch�n' M�dchen, jung und fein" gives almost exactly the
texture Sor used in the theme statement of Op. 9. "Das klinget so
herrlich" gives the same harmony and phrase structure as the theme of
Op. 9. Sor merely elaborated on it--not an uncommon thing for an early
19th century composer to do.
Post by Matanya Ophee
Just compare Op. 19 No. 4 to the theme in Op. 9
and you will see the difference.
Anyone familiar with The Magic Flute knows that Op. 19 No. 4 doesn't
exactly follow the Mozart melody. And yet Op. 19 is clearly identified
as arrangements of melodies from The Magic Flute. So those who argue
that the theme of Op. 9 can't be from The Magic Flute are ignoring the
fact that Sor modified borrowed melodies for his own reasons. He did
this in Op. 19, yet no one argues that Op. 19 isn't based on The Magic
Flute. So why would anyone argue that Op. 9, also clearly identified
as based on a theme from The Magic Flute, isn't based on the Magic
Flute? This makes no sense.
Post by Matanya Ophee
If you are really interested in this subject, I will
David Buch, "Two likely sources for Sor's variations on a theme of
Mozart, op. 9", in: Luis G�sser (ed.), Estudios Sobre Fernando Sor,
2002:353. See also: Matanya Ophee, "Rondo Allegro by F. Molino,"
Soundboard IX/1, Spring 1982, pp. 78-9.
Thanks. I'll track it down. But considering the original publication
explicitly states that Op. 9 is based on The Magic Flute, any
historian who argues otherwise is on thin ice.

Tom Poore
Cleveland Heights, OH
USA
JonLorPro
2007-08-14 03:55:11 UTC
Permalink
...The one composer I have always thought to be similar to Sor
was Chopin. I don't necessarily mean in terms of style, but simply
because both composers wrote many small short studies and etudes for
their instrument which remain central to the repertoire of each
instrument.
I'd be interested in heariong other's thoughts on this. If you don't
agree that's fine. But please refrain from calling me a fruitcake.
Being wrong does not make someone nutty.
I go along with this, and have thought the same- Sor was not the
progressive harmonist but somehow is akin in spirit to the Chopin of
the preludes, as pointed out by Lare, if not the densely textured and
pianisitic etudes. And, of course, in the relative significance of
each in their respective instruments' repertoire.
The prototype for our perpetually-in-development website, now guest-
hosted elsewhere but which eventually will under our own URL add our
peep to the chorus of spring peepers that the internet pond has
become, if the world ever ceases in its penchant for indulging in the
perverse pleasure it apparently must elicit from casting an endless
series of obstacles in the way of our completion of the project, has
this in the CD notes regarding the famed B minor etude:

"Sometimes hailed as "the Beethoven of guitar", but more resembling
Haydn or Boccherini in his works, Sor takes a Chopinesque turn in this
much beloved B minor etude. Simple yet engaging, like a melancholy
nocturne, this piece is among the first of those learned by many
guitarists, yet it has a staying power for which it tends to remain in
one's active repertoire long after one has moved on to more
challenging works."

Regarding Sor and Mozart- if you care what Bream thinks, he came
close to responding to this comparison in an interview in which he
made reference to them both among others, conducted by Larry Snitzler
and printed in Guitar Review #50, the Spring 1982 issue. Unlike
Chelys magazine, from which I not long ago posted the entirety of
another interview in another thread, under the aegis of their overtly
having encouraged "...reproduction in whole or in part of any
articles...just make damn sure you give us credit", Guitar Review is
more conventionally unaccomodating. I don't know that they are as
assiduously enthusiastic about defending the perimeter to their rights
as is Walt Disney, or if posting an elucidatory extract in a public
forum constitutes any defensible sort of "fair use"- so I shall
paraphrase.

Responding to whether or not "survival of the fittest" in the arts
means survivial of the those with the greatest artistic merit, he
suggest not, exampling Sor, whose early works he characterized as
reflecting serious intention to employ developed musical forms, but
that as time went on his output began in greater proportion to consist
of relative trivia.
He conjectures that this may have been attributable to Sor's, of
neccesity, writing entrepreneurially to survive and meet the demands
of the market (one which he himself helped to create, I would add)-
and noted further the absence in those days of grants, Fulbright
scholarships and the like (as if such are easy to come by now).
But having made put forward that as a possible contributing factor,
he then moved beyong that to compare Sor et all (i.e., names familiar
only to us) with Beethoven et al (i.e., names familiar to those not
us) and pointed out a lack of any progressive development of musical
personality in the individuals among the guitar crowd, e.g. , no
discernable early, middle or late period Legnani, Giuliani, or Aguado,
in distinction to such as in found in Beethoven or Schumann.
He also contrasted the response to financial motive apparent in
output in guitar publications to figures like Schubert and Mozart, who
devoted themselves to works of increasing musical profundity with
little regard for marketable ease of execution, while their worldly
fortunes consequently declined. He mentioned those two as among "a
host of others", there being rarer examples, such as Handel or
Rossini, of those who managed to strike the right balance between
"artistic idealism, on one hand, and commercial enterprise, on the
other."
This led to the question as to whether or not Sor, had he been
provided with some sort of unqualified support, would have developed
into a more significant figure. While Bream thought the question
difficult but very interesting, his conclusionary conjecture was that
Sor likely would not have done. He said, "I think in each composer of
quality talent either develops or it doesn't" - which _I_ thought was
interesting, because it is an outlook in which a composer having a
talent that does not develop is not preclusive to his nevertheless
being a "composer of quality". But he did suggest there is no stasis,
that if the talent doesn't progress and develop further, then it
deteriorates. In that regard he cited (again) Rossini and Mendelssohn
as examples of those whose vitality seemed to have run down. Perhaps
he includes Sor in that company.
w***@hotmail.com
2007-08-14 09:57:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Faustus Infinitus
Sor's musical genius was at least equal to Mozart's, and Sor realized
this genius in his music.
Agreed?
it'll be interesting to see on what grounds your teacher bases this
proposition.
Loading...