I would just like to say...

A nobody like you, blinded, bad musical education, fooled, those who have so sadly twisted your little mind...

Too bad that you have started to insult me personally. At least I have never personally attacked any forum user here.

Originally Posted by Qccowboy

it's arrogant beyond belief to think that a nobody like yourself has the balls to presume to know an "absolute truth" about music and art,

Did I ever say that I think I know the "absolute truth"? I have frequently stressed that my words are to be taken as an opinion.

You, Qccowboy, keep falsely attributing a sense of snobbiness, arrogance and self-imposed superiority to me, while I am simply stating my opinions and beliefs. That's why all discussions with you end up like this:

Gianluca: I think X is better than Y because [argument A].
Qcc: I disagree, because [counterargument B].
Gianluca: Sorry but I reject B because [argument C] so I stick to my belief that X is better than Y.
Etc.
...
Finally Qcc: What gives you the authority to decide that X is better than Y? You are snobby, closed-minded, arrogant, pretentious, etc.

Originally Posted by Qccowboy

Good luck in life. I hope you're well-built and strong, because with a mouth like yours, you're going to be eating a lot of knuckle sandwiches in life.

Last response from me, Gianluca is now officially on the ignore list.

I think you're overreacting, my friend. If you want to ignore me, fine. To me that would simply show your pitiful frustration with those who continue to disagree with you. If you wanted me to change my stance on certain matters, you should have come up with better counterarguments instead of this whine about my supposed arrogance and closed-mindedness.

Originally Posted by gianluca

Well, something tells me that it’s gonna be Karlheinz, who IMHO was by far the greater of the two, but feel free to disagree.

That's not exactly what I’m saying. What I’m trying to say is that this eclectic approach of embracing so many different styles and aesthetics (as reflected in the music of Corigliano and many other - mostly younger - composers) doesn’t enhance artistic progression or the development of a distinctive musical personality, although paradoxically this is exactly the type of music that happens to be very successful with the public. Nowadays young composers tend to recycle all these different styles and mix them up into one big stretch of music, containing a little bit of Mahler, a little bit of Stravinsky, a little bit of Gershwin, a little bit of minimalism, a little bit of 12 tone music (not too much of course), a lot of John Williams, etc. And this is a type of music I usually can’t stand.

Welcome to a postmodern world, where everything goes~ Throwing whichever sense of aesthetics exist out the window! I don't even know what progressive music is. I mean, I know what progressive ROCK is. But uh. So many words with no context to explain them... (again.)

Originally Posted by Qccowboy

Actually, no, but it's arrogant beyond belief to think that a nobody like yourself has the balls to presume to know an "absolute truth" about music and art, and to feel so confident of your own musical experience and academic credentials that you can summarily dismiss the work of so many artists.

Good luck in life. I hope you're well-built and strong, because with a mouth like yours, you're going to be eating a lot of knuckle sandwiches in life.

Talking out of personal experience I suppose? Come on. Calling someone a nobody and then telling them to "watch out" because their opinions are going to invite knuckle sandwiches?

Really, now.

Well, something tells me that it’s gonna be Karlheinz, who IMHO was by far the greater of the two, but feel free to disagree.

Neither will.

Honestly? I pity you. You've been blinded by a bad musical education and fooled into thinking that those opinions you so blithely spew are anything OTHER than "opinions". The musicians you've badmouthed, some of whom I have met in person or had the pleasure of studying with, are far greater musicians than those who have so sadly twisted your little mind.

That is just a generalisation.

Actually, no, but it's arrogant beyond belief to think that a nobody like yourself has the balls to presume to know an "absolute truth" about music and art, and to feel so confident of your own musical experience and academic credentials that you can summarily dismiss the work of so many artists.

Arrogance is [i]not[/not] a bad thing.

Gianluca: I think X is better than Y because [argument A].
Qcc: I disagree, because [counterargument B].
Gianluca: Sorry but I reject B because [argument C] so I stick to my belief that X is better than Y.
Etc.
...
Finally Qcc: What gives you the authority to decide that X is better than Y? You are snobby, closed-minded, arrogant, pretentious, etc.

With the small amount of experience here that I have this is what I have:

AW7: I think X, because of [argument A]
Qcc: No, you are wrong. [argument A] is balony.

Originally Posted by ArcticWind7

Arrogance is [i]not[/not] a bad thing.

I usually try to be open-minded towards other people's opinions but I'm sorry, there is just no way I can possibly empathize with that statement. Maybe you mean to say "confidence". Confidence is not a bad thing. A composer needs to have some degree of confidence in his work. If he/she can't even enjoy it, then how does he/she ever expect anyone else to enjoy it? But arrogance....no, just no.

ar·ro·gance [ar-uh-guhns]

–noun offensive display of superiority or self-importance; overbearing pride.

To say that "arrogance" is a good thing is to argue directly with the English language. If you don't find someone's arrogance "offensive" then it's not really arrogance. Yes, arrogance is a very subjective word since not everyone finds the same things offensive but none the less, by its very definition, arrogance is a bad thing.

Curious...
why did you quote two things, yet talk about one?

Originally Posted by ArcticWind7

Curious...
why did you quote two things, yet talk about one?

Sorry, my mistake. Accidentally quoted two when I only intended to talk about one. It's been fixed now. Also, sorry if I came off as a dick. I'm not usually that straight forward.

Sorry, my mistake. Accidentally quoted two when I only intended to talk about one. It's been fixed now. Also, sorry if I came off as a dick. I'm not usually that straight forward.

Don't worry, the forums I came from... that's being nice. I also won most hated, and most missed* at those forums.


*I was perma banned three times. Still trying to get out of the third.

That's not exactly what I’m saying. What I’m trying to say is that this eclectic approach of embracing so many different styles and aesthetics (as reflected in the music of Corigliano and many other - mostly younger - composers) doesn’t enhance artistic progression or the development of a distinctive musical personality, although paradoxically this is exactly the type of music that happens to be very successful with the public. Nowadays young composers tend to recycle all these different styles and mix them up into one big stretch of music, containing a little bit of Mahler, a little bit of Stravinsky, a little bit of Gershwin, a little bit of minimalism, a little bit of 12 tone music (not too much of course), a lot of John Williams, etc. And this is a type of music I usually can’t stand. But apparently this is what the public likes to hear nowadays. However, that doesn’t mean that it is completely impossible to be progressive artistically and combine that with success – Ligeti and Berio are two examples of composers who wrote highly original and progressive music, which at the same time seemed to be relatively successful with the public.

Well said. I agree to an extent, but I still think some of these composers stand out amongst the group (John Adams moreso, who you seem to dislike. Like him or not, he's the most well respected minimalist composer and damn can he orchestrate). Also I think part of it is just having respect for composers who can write for a living. In this day and age, a composer who can eat and live in a decent house (or hell, maybe much better that) isn't exactly a bad thing, and one just has to respect them whether you like their music or not.

Again, well stated on your part, though we still completely disagree. That's life. I applaud gianluca for sparking such passionate debate anyway.

Originally Posted by ArcticWind7

With the small amount of experience here that I have this is what I have:

AW7: I think X, because of [argument A]
Qcc: No, you are wrong. [argument A] is balony.

Haha, lol

Originally Posted by gms5287

Well said. I agree to an extent, but I still think some of these composers stand out amongst the group (John Adams moreso, who you seem to dislike. Like him or not, he's the most well respected minimalist composer and damn can he orchestrate). Also I think part of it is just having respect for composers who can write for a living. In this day and age, a composer who can eat and live in a decent house (or hell, maybe much better that) isn't exactly a bad thing, and one just has to respect them whether you like their music or not.

Again, well stated on your part, though we still completely disagree. That's life. I applaud gianluca for sparking such passionate debate anyway.

Actually I'd say Steve Reich is the most well-respected minimalist composer (at least among critics, scholars and fellow composers), but let's not be picky this time.... Yeah we may fundamentally disagree on this matter, but at least you state your disagreement in a polite, tactful and articulate manner. That's the kind of mentality one needs to take going into a debate!