View Single Post
  #141 (permalink)  
Old May 26 2008, 1:38 PM
Nirvana69 Nirvana69 is offline

Nirvana69's Avatar

Kahn Composer
Group: Members
Joined: 15-May 07
Posts: 1,362
Member Number: 2767
Quote:
Originally Posted by jujimufu View Post
Nirvana: I was struck to read your post. You just (wrongly) infer something from my post, and disregarding the rest of it, you hold on to a single phrase, and although stating that you do not know if these were my intentions or not, you indirectly call me a dumb and arrogant person with a condescending attitude towards all people.

In any case, I have no intention to end up in yet another argument about things irrelevant to what's important. I am really sorry if that's what was understood by my post. It may have been due to bad/hasty phrasing, which is basically the result of having said this and other things so many times in the past that I can't be bothered to write them exactly as I did in the first place.

We're not talking about people "disliking a piece" here or about people who are expected to like everything they hear. We're talking about people who ignore 100 years of music, musical thought, philosophy of music and the development and interaction of music with the other arts, as well as all the people who contributed in all these fields. We're talking about people saying the analogous of "I don't like Bush, he mixed up his words the other day, he shouldn't be a president". This is not at all a valid reason to dislike Bush, and I am not saying that disliking Bush is wrong because you should like Bush, but that you should refine your judgement, and justify your dislike of Bush in a more valid and serious/grounded way. You might do a lot of research, or just read the news and see what Bush does, and then still dislike him - I'm fine with that. I know people who know a lot about contemporary music, have listened to a lot of Ligeti, read a book or two on Ligeti, and still don't like him - fair enough. I am not blaming them. But if someone discards Ligeti's validity as a "good composer" because they heard from someone who had read somewhere that Ligeti wrote music for Metronomes and it sucked, then I won't agree with that.

It's not "what" people dislike, it's "how" and "why" they dislike it. I won't take back anything from my post, as I think it was highly misunderstood.

What I would value from my previous post, which seems to have been completely ignored, is this part:



And also, I think the part that was most misunderstood was:



I still stand by what i said. I never said that "all people who dislike contemporary music or some particular pieces or composers of the 20th/21st centuries are misinformed/uninformed, it's their bad, and they have been denying it on the grounds that they don't like it", which is what apparently was interpreted by Nirvana. I said that the reason we're having discussions like these is because [some] people (the omission of "some" may have contributed to the misunderstanding, but I think it's very clear I don't mean "all" people, since if that was the case, there would be no arguments, we'd all agree...) as misinformed, and are ignorant enough to believe that they are informed enough to have a fully-developed understanding of what they don't understand, and start bashing it with no valid arguments or indication that they have at least done the most fundamental and essential kind of research that one can do (you can't say you like a car without knowing what car you mean - you can't say "I really dislike that BMW", and when people ask you "what BMW, and why don't you like it?" reply "I don't know exactly which, one of them, and I just don't like it, dunno.. I haven't really seen it or anything.. I just don't like it").

About movies, well, I've heard people say that "Odyssey 2001" sucks, or that "A Clockwork Orange" is the worst film they've ever seen. Well, these films are considered to be two of the finest films by Kubrick, who was one of the most interesting and artistic directors in the 20th century, so if these people don't do the least amount of research to find out why Kubrick is considered a good director, and why these films are considered good, and read things by people who have spent their whole lives analysing films, direction, who have a heap of knowledge on that particular art (without asking every viewer to go and learn what these people know - although a person interested in direction should, and that's what SSC was talking about), I won't take their opinion highly, and similar arguments will arise (things like "Odyssey 2001: IS THIS ART? DIRECTING?").

Unfortunately, I've had enough of these threads. I've spent so much time replying to many things which are expected to be trivial by people who are supposedly interested in a topic, any topic, and mainly highlighting what other people have said (who deserve more respect than they are given - again a bad thing of the internet, because if these discussions were taking place in real life, these people would be respected more), and I have so many things to do. And instead of trying to grab the greater idea out of all these posts by all these members, people just pick on the smallest details and make a huge fuss out of them, straying largely away from the essence.


Here are other posts of mien in the thread where I have explained better my point of view, in the hope that people will actually read them and not bash me for something they inferred from what they misunderstood from them:

Page 5i
Page 5ii (second paragraph mainly)

Have fun.
Then I apologize for misunderstanding. I was in a bit of a pissy mood yesterday (nothing to do with this forum, entirely personal) so I was feeling pretty belligerent anyway. I still stand by what I said but I should've asked you to better clarify before jumping to conclusions.

Anyway, I do agree with a lot of what you said as well. It's not what people like, it's why and how. If someone can't explain to me why they don't like something then I don't hold their opinion in very high regard. While, I know I argued that people don't always need a reason to like or dislike something, I was refering people who don't keep music as a central part of their lives. I was refering to hobbyists basically, and no offense to anyone, but I'm not going to put a whole lot of weight into a hobbyist's opinion, just like someone who loves books should not hold my opinion of literature in very high regard.

I also agree that a lot of people have ignored this last 100 years of music. It's alright not to like it but as a true music lover, you should at least take some time to study and decide why you don't like it. Personally, I think anyone who has studied the music of the *entire* 20th century can find at least a few composers he/she likes but I guess it could be remotely possible. I used to claim not to like anything from the 20th century until being exposed to the works of Ravel, Bartok, (and to a lesser degree) Cage. While these may indeed be some of the easier 20th century composers to get into, and I still have yet to find appreciation for people like Stockhausen and Berio, I'll admit that I have not studied enough of their work to really have a true opinion.

Anyway, I'm sorry for being an assuming ass. No hard feelings?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gardener View Post
I don't mind people who hate Debussy. They'll all be burning in hell for eternity, which is a very entertaining prospect.
Reply With Quote