in the British Independent newspaper. On Duchen's weblog there's a
longer version of this anti-Bruckner piece, indicating, perhaps, that
physical attractiveness and a healthy sexual life are the traits of a
good composer.
It does explain why Schubert's music is so awful, too.
>On Apr 9, 5:46 am, herman <her...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Actually, the 7th she mentions is one I do enjoy. Kurt Masur / NYPO
played it at his debut TV concert as Music Director of the NYPO,
although to some criticism, for some reason, as I recall. I watched
that TV broadcast, have the Solti / CSO cd.
I was surprised to find the Bruckner Society of America seems now
headquartered in Iowa. Enthusiasts may wish to reveiw the
discography , downloads at the site. And his 5th Symphony was
performed here just this past February :
> in the British Independent newspaper. On Duchen's weblog there's a
> longer version of this anti-Bruckner piece, indicating, perhaps, that
> physical attractiveness and a healthy sexual life are the traits of a
> good composer.
> It does explain why Schubert's music is so awful, too.
A position/taste different from the current majority could be intesting, but it is really dissapointing that a music journalist is not able to explain her dislike (of Bruckner, in this case) more plausibly in terms of the features of the music being disliked.
On Apr 10, 4:29 pm, EM <emmemmmemnmme...@gnail.com> wrote:
> Johannes Roehl <parrhe...@web.de> - Tue, 10 Apr 2012 21:37:38 +0200:
> it is really dissapointing that a music journalist is not able to
> > explain her dislike (of Bruckner, in this case) more plausibly in terms
> > of the features of the music being disliked.
> Indeed.
> Am 09.04.2012 12:46, schrieb herman:
>> in the British Independent newspaper. On Duchen's weblog there's a
>> longer version of this anti-Bruckner piece, indicating, perhaps, that
>> physical attractiveness and a healthy sexual life are the traits of a
>> good composer.
>> It does explain why Schubert's music is so awful, too.
> A position/taste different from the current majority could be
> intesting, but it is really dissapointing that a music journalist is
> not able to explain her dislike (of Bruckner, in this case) more
> plausibly in terms of the features of the music being disliked.
This follow-up turned up in my e-mail service last weekend:
"It's kind of ironic that this piece is out today, because a week ago, listening to Bernard Haitink coaching young conductors in Lucerne on Bruckner's Seventh, I ended up with the thing on the brain for 36 hours solid. It was the first time - and I mean the first ever - that I started thinking that there might be something more under the hot air after all... "
On 10 avr, 21:37, Johannes Roehl <parrhe...@web.de> wrote:
> A position/taste different from the current majority could be intesting,
> but it is really dissapointing that a music journalist is not able to
> explain her dislike (of Bruckner, in this case) more plausibly in terms
> of the features of the music being disliked.
Probably she was thinking two (mutually exclusive) things.
1) plain folk will like me for being unpretentious. The British love
it when you attack art for being too complicated or long. Except when
it's Elgar's Violin Cto; Elgar was one of us.
2) this piece will get a lot of reader feedback; the editor will
commission a new piece of stupid soon
On 11 avr, 03:16, "Sol L. Siegel" <vod...@aol.com> wrote:
> I ended up with the thing on the brain for 36
> hours solid. It was the first time - and I mean the first ever - that I
> started thinking that there might be something more under the hot air
> after all... "
that doesn't matter. After all, they played it when Hitler died.
> On 10 avr, 21:37, Johannes Roehl <parrhe...@web.de> wrote:
> > A position/taste different from the current majority could be intesting,
> > but it is really dissapointing that a music journalist is not able to
> > explain her dislike (of Bruckner, in this case) more plausibly in terms
> > of the features of the music being disliked.
> Probably she was thinking two (mutually exclusive) things.
> 1) plain folk will like me for being unpretentious. The British love
> it when you attack art for being too complicated or long. Except when
> it's Elgar's Violin Cto; Elgar was one of us.
> 2) this piece will get a lot of reader feedback; the editor will
> commission a new piece of stupid soon
> On 10 avr, 21:37, Johannes Roehl <parrhe...@web.de> wrote:
> > A position/taste different from the current majority could be intesting,
> > but it is really dissapointing that a music journalist is not able to
> > explain her dislike (of Bruckner, in this case) more plausibly in terms
> > of the features of the music being disliked.
> Probably she was thinking two (mutually exclusive) things.
> 1) plain folk will like me for being unpretentious. The British love
> it when you attack art for being too complicated or long. Except when
> it's Elgar's Violin Cto; Elgar was one of us.
> 2) this piece will get a lot of reader feedback; the editor will
> commission a new piece of stupid soon
Instead of engaging in ad hominem attacks and daring feats of mind
reading why not instead enlighten us as to why Bruckner's music is
worth taking seriously? Those benighted few of us who don't care for
his music would like to know.
On 11 avr, 22:44, John Thomas <abrasax...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Instead of engaging in ad hominem attacks and daring feats of mind
> reading why not instead enlighten us as to why Bruckner's music is
> worth taking seriously? Those benighted few of us who don't care for
> his music would like to know.
You don't habe to like Bruckner. No doubt you like a couple of
composers I don't care for.
The point is there is very little space for classical music journalism
in mass circulation media.
It's a very bad thing to use that space to demolish a major composer
with juvenile stuff like he isn't good-looking and his music is so
longwinded it's boring.
> On Apr 10, 11:59 pm, herman <her...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On 10 avr, 21:37, Johannes Roehl <parrhe...@web.de> wrote:
> > > A position/taste different from the current majority could be intesting,
> > > but it is really dissapointing that a music journalist is not able to
> > > explain her dislike (of Bruckner, in this case) more plausibly in terms
> > > of the features of the music being disliked.
> > Probably she was thinking two (mutually exclusive) things.
> > 1) plain folk will like me for being unpretentious. The British love
> > it when you attack art for being too complicated or long. Except when
> > it's Elgar's Violin Cto; Elgar was one of us.
> > 2) this piece will get a lot of reader feedback; the editor will
> > commission a new piece of stupid soon
> Instead of engaging in ad hominem attacks and daring feats of mind
> reading
What, if not exactly that, is Ms Duchen's "article"?
> why not instead enlighten us as to why Bruckner's music is
> worth taking seriously? Those benighted few of us who don't care for
> his music would like to know.
It should be enough for you to note that there are many, many
musicians and music lovers who get a lot out of the music. And no,
that's not the "if quantity counts then Lady Gaga must be great music"
argument since we are talking about a special interest segment of
music and a special interest group of musicians and music lovers.
What's the point in trying to explain to you things in words that you
don't get from listening? Would it help you? I doubt that.
Listening to Klemperer/philharmonia Bruckner 9 right now. Any good recording of this work shows it to be one of the most beautiful and profound compositions ever written.
> On Apr 11, 4:44 pm, John Thomas <abrasax...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 10, 11:59 pm, herman <her...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On 10 avr, 21:37, Johannes Roehl <parrhe...@web.de> wrote:
> > > > A position/taste different from the current majority could be intesting,
> > > > but it is really dissapointing that a music journalist is not able to
> > > > explain her dislike (of Bruckner, in this case) more plausibly in terms
> > > > of the features of the music being disliked.
> > > Probably she was thinking two (mutually exclusive) things.
> > > 1) plain folk will like me for being unpretentious. The British love
> > > it when you attack art for being too complicated or long. Except when
> > > it's Elgar's Violin Cto; Elgar was one of us.
> > > 2) this piece will get a lot of reader feedback; the editor will
> > > commission a new piece of stupid soon
> > Instead of engaging in ad hominem attacks and daring feats of mind
> > reading
> What, if not exactly that, is Ms Duchen's "article"?
> > why not instead enlighten us as to why Bruckner's music is
> > worth taking seriously? Those benighted few of us who don't care for
> > his music would like to know.
> It should be enough for you to note that there are many, many
> musicians and music lovers who get a lot out of the music. And no,
> that's not the "if quantity counts then Lady Gaga must be great music"
> argument since we are talking about a special interest segment of
> music and a special interest group of musicians and music lovers.
> What's the point in trying to explain to you things in words that you
> don't get from listening? Would it help you? I doubt that.
So neither you nor herman can actually defend your claim that Bruckner is a "major" composer. No problem; I've learned over the years that musical judgements are generally just a matter of personal taste. But I can't help but wonder why you and herman (and Duchen) are so emotional about what are just personal preferences. And I wonder why you're all so determined to manufacture massive posts on r.m.c.r. explaining and defending your tastes. And are so judgmental of those who don'r share them. The music threads are really not that different from the political threads. Let me recommend "Free Will," by Sam Harris, for your edification.
-- John Thomas
> Instead of engaging in ad hominem attacks and daring feats of mind
> reading why not instead enlighten us as to why Bruckner's music is
> worth taking seriously? Those benighted few of us who don't care for
> his music would like to know.
Au contraire, the onus is entirely on you to *dis*enlighten us, as to why he isn't "worth
taking seriously". If you can't do that considerably better than La Duchen, you might be best to keep mum and wallow in darkness. For her this sort of thing is short-term gain, long-term pain, as fewer and fewer editors take *her* seriously.
Anti-intellectualism is a particularly British disease, but even in its Rampant (as opposed to Passant Gardant) mode, it is alas not confined to these shores.
> In article
> <cc4b7bbc-b32a-4adb-9447-ad3142e54...@m18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
> M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 11, 4:44 pm, John Thomas <abrasax...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Apr 10, 11:59 pm, herman <her...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On 10 avr, 21:37, Johannes Roehl <parrhe...@web.de> wrote:
> > > > > A position/taste different from the current majority could be intesting,
> > > > > but it is really dissapointing that a music journalist is not able to
> > > > > explain her dislike (of Bruckner, in this case) more plausibly in terms
> > > > > of the features of the music being disliked.
> > > > Probably she was thinking two (mutually exclusive) things.
> > > > 1) plain folk will like me for being unpretentious. The British love
> > > > it when you attack art for being too complicated or long. Except when
> > > > it's Elgar's Violin Cto; Elgar was one of us.
> > > > 2) this piece will get a lot of reader feedback; the editor will
> > > > commission a new piece of stupid soon
> > > Instead of engaging in ad hominem attacks and daring feats of mind
> > > reading
> > What, if not exactly that, is Ms Duchen's "article"?
> > > why not instead enlighten us as to why Bruckner's music is
> > > worth taking seriously? Those benighted few of us who don't care for
> > > his music would like to know.
> > It should be enough for you to note that there are many, many
> > musicians and music lovers who get a lot out of the music. And no,
> > that's not the "if quantity counts then Lady Gaga must be great music"
> > argument since we are talking about a special interest segment of
> > music and a special interest group of musicians and music lovers.
> > What's the point in trying to explain to you things in words that you
> > don't get from listening? Would it help you? I doubt that.
> So neither you nor herman can actually defend your claim that Bruckner
> is a "major" composer.
Dunno about Herman, but I could explain that to you - the question is:
would it be worth my time? Would it be useful for you? Would you be
able to understand what I might say?
> No problem; I've learned over the years that
> musical judgements are generally just a matter of personal taste.
In some respects, yes, in others, no. In some, it's somewhere in
between. If you are still on the level of insight in which you think
these things are *generally* a matter of random personal taste, then I
think the answer to the questions I asked above would be "no".
> But I
> can't help but wonder why you and herman (and Duchen) are so emotional
> about what are just personal preferences.
Again, I can't really speak for Herman, but his posts didn't strike me
as particularly emotional. In fact, his observations were rather dry
and to the point. My one brief point about this subject can't really
be interpreted as "so emotional" either. It's just two brief, basic
observations. So why do you use that kind of rhetoric?
> And I wonder why you're all
> so determined to manufacture massive posts on r.m.c.r. explaining and
> defending your tastes.
What an odd statement in this context in which I just said I am not
really interested in trying to explain this at length. Your responses
here have little to nothing to do with what Herman or I actually said.
You are randomly making up reactions we never gave. Why is that?
> And are so judgmental of those who don'r share
> them.
Not at all. That's another freely made up comment which doesn't have
anything to do with anything I actually said. Why do you do that?
> The music threads are really not that different from the political
> threads. Let me recommend "Free Will," by Sam Harris, for your
> edification.
What do you think can I get from that book? What did you get from it?
> > Instead of engaging in ad hominem attacks and daring feats of mind
> > reading why not instead enlighten us as to why Bruckner's music is
> > worth taking seriously? Those benighted few of us who don't care for
> > his music would like to know.
> Au contraire, the onus is entirely on you to *dis*enlighten us, as to
> why he isn't "worth
> taking seriously". If you can't do that considerably better than La
> Duchen, you might be best to keep mum and wallow in darkness. For her
> this sort of thing is short-term gain, long-term pain, as fewer and
> fewer editors take *her* seriously.
> Anti-intellectualism is a particularly British disease, but even in its
> Rampant (as opposed to Passant Gardant) mode, it is alas not confined to
> these shores.
Not at all - so why do you say it is a "particularly British" disease?
What I mean by asking that is that I am not at all familiar with the
arts and intellectual "scene" in Britain. So is that kind of rant in
any way typical, in fashion, considered cutting edge?
> On Apr 10, 11:59 pm, herman <her...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On 10 avr, 21:37, Johannes Roehl <parrhe...@web.de> wrote:
> > > A position/taste different from the current majority could be intesting,
> > > but it is really dissapointing that a music journalist is not able to
> > > explain her dislike (of Bruckner, in this case) more plausibly in terms
> > > of the features of the music being disliked.
> > Probably she was thinking two (mutually exclusive) things.
> > 1) plain folk will like me for being unpretentious. The British love
> > it when you attack art for being too complicated or long. Except when
> > it's Elgar's Violin Cto; Elgar was one of us.
> > 2) this piece will get a lot of reader feedback; the editor will
> > commission a new piece of stupid soon
> Instead of engaging in ad hominem attacks and daring feats of mind
> reading why not instead enlighten us as to why Bruckner's music is
> worth taking seriously? Those benighted few of us who don't care for
> his music would like to know.
They can't.
It's like trying to explain the virtues of Diarrhea.
> On 11 avr, 22:44, John Thomas <abrasax...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Instead of engaging in ad hominem attacks and daring feats of mind
> > reading why not instead enlighten us as to why Bruckner's music is
> > worth taking seriously? Those benighted few of us who don't care for
> > his music would like to know.
> You don't habe to like Bruckner. No doubt you like a couple of
> composers I don't care for.
> The point is there is very little space for classical music journalism
> in mass circulation media.
> It's a very bad thing to use that space to demolish a major composer
> with juvenile stuff like he isn't good-looking and his music is so
> longwinded it's boring.
Demolish? Is his music not still available? By the carload? Do you
think conductors are going to stop conducting it?
Silly hyperbole.
Ms. Duchen is just expressing what a huge majority of classical music
lovers feel deep down about this composer.
> On Apr 11, 4:56 pm, herman <her...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On 11 avr, 22:44, John Thomas <abrasax...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Instead of engaging in ad hominem attacks and daring feats of mind
> > > reading why not instead enlighten us as to why Bruckner's music is
> > > worth taking seriously? Those benighted few of us who don't care for
> > > his music would like to know.
> > You don't habe to like Bruckner. No doubt you like a couple of
> > composers I don't care for.
> > The point is there is very little space for classical music journalism
> > in mass circulation media.
> > It's a very bad thing to use that space to demolish a major composer
> > with juvenile stuff like he isn't good-looking and his music is so
> > longwinded it's boring.
> Demolish? Is his music not still available? By the carload? Do you
> think conductors are going to stop conducting it?
> Silly hyperbole.
> Ms. Duchen is just expressing what a huge majority of classical music
> lovers feel deep down about this composer.
As a lover of Bruckner's music, that statement is akin to saying that
deep down, the majority of classical music lovers hate Beethoven.
I really don't see what there is that is off-putting about Bruckner's
music. Perhaps it's just too sophisticated for the average classical
music lover. Unfortunately, Bruckner is long dead, so he can't make an
effort to write less-sophisticated music...which leaves it up to the
rabble to endeavor to become musically sophisticated to the point
where they realize what it is about Bruckner that inspires such love
and devotion from so many top-tier musicians.
Seriously - I thought this was a settled issue. Certainly the number
of recordings and performances of Bruckner these days would indicate
he has entered the mainstream. But then, we live in a time when
certain people want to refight long-settled arguments, be it about a
woman's right to contraception or Bruckner's worth as a composer...
> Demolish? Is his music not still available? By the carload? Do you
> think conductors are going to stop conducting it?
[...]
> Ms. Duchen is just expressing what a huge majority of classical music
> lovers feel deep down about this composer.
Do I sense a little contradiction in Bruckner's music being avaialble
(per cd) "by the carload" and "a huge majority of classical music
lovers" being averse to Bruckner?
And, as I said before, I have no problem with people not liking
Bruckner's music, I just hope their taste is a little more
sophisticated that Duchen, who seems to think Bruckner is no good
becuase he didn't look like George Clooney.
On 12 avr, 00:04, John Thomas <abrasax...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So neither you nor herman can actually defend your claim that Bruckner
> is a "major" composer. No problem; I've learned over the years that
> musical judgements are generally just a matter of personal taste. But I
> can't help but wonder why you and herman (and Duchen) are so emotional
> about what are just personal preferences.
Perhaps I expressed myself unclearly; perhaps you weren't quite awake.
I wasn't defending Bruckner; he doesn't need my defense.
What my post was about is the lamentable state of music journalism, if
a music critic in a major British newspaper uses the scarce space
alotted to classical music for such a juvenile attack on a long
established composer, using lowbrow arguments that are ultimately
damaging to every single composer. No composer I can think of is sexy
enough to fit Duchen's bill, and pretty much every piece of music
longer than five minutes is too complicated and too long if you're
avowing this attitude.
Let me add (sigh) this is not an "ad hominem" attack. Some people
think (and pardon my Latin) any sort of disagreeing is ad hominem per
se. It's not about whether Ms Duchen herself is sexy or unboring (even
though that is perhaps what's she's trying to get across); it's about
what she's writing. I hope you can see the difference.
> On Apr 11, 5:37 pm, td <tomdedea...@mac.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 11, 4:56 pm, herman <her...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On 11 avr, 22:44, John Thomas <abrasax...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Instead of engaging in ad hominem attacks and daring feats of mind
> > > > reading why not instead enlighten us as to why Bruckner's music is
> > > > worth taking seriously? Those benighted few of us who don't care for
> > > > his music would like to know.
> > > You don't habe to like Bruckner. No doubt you like a couple of
> > > composers I don't care for.
> > > The point is there is very little space for classical music journalism
> > > in mass circulation media.
> > > It's a very bad thing to use that space to demolish a major composer
> > > with juvenile stuff like he isn't good-looking and his music is so
> > > longwinded it's boring.
> > Demolish? Is his music not still available? By the carload? Do you
> > think conductors are going to stop conducting it?
> > Silly hyperbole.
> > Ms. Duchen is just expressing what a huge majority of classical music
> > lovers feel deep down about this composer.
> As a lover of Bruckner's music, that statement is akin to saying that
> deep down, the majority of classical music lovers hate Beethoven.
How so? I fail to see the equivalence.
> I really don't see what there is that is off-putting about Bruckner's
> music.
You're not the one who "fails to see".
To turn the statement on its head?
I really don't see what there is about Bruckner's music.
> Perhaps it's just too sophisticated for the average classical
> music lover.
Hmmm. Somehow I doubt that, Mark.
> Unfortunately, Bruckner is long dead, so he can't make an
> effort to write less-sophisticated music.
Less-sophisticated music is unimaginable. Unless you listen to a lot
of pop music, I guess.
>..which leaves it up to the
> rabble to endeavor to become musically sophisticated to the point
> where they realize what it is about Bruckner that inspires such love
> and devotion from so many top-tier musicians.
I really think you have to belly up to the bar and make an argument
FOR Bruckner, Mark. One has to wonder why it seems so hard to do.
> Seriously - I thought this was a settled issue.
Even Wagner is not a settled issue, Mark.
> Certainly the number
> of recordings and performances of Bruckner these days would indicate
> he has entered the mainstream.
That's easy. Record execs are weak. They say yes to conductors too
often and too easily.
Conductors? They LOVE to be the star for hours and hours and hours
while conducting simple-minded music of zero sophistication which
makes such a lot of noise.
> But then, we live in a time when
> certain people want to refight long-settled arguments, be it about a
> woman's right to contraception or Bruckner's worth as a composer...
Unnecessary equivalence, Mark, and in bad taste. Let's leave a woman's
sexual organs to the women of this world.
On Apr 12, 1:34 am, herman <her...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 12 avr, 02:37, td <tomdedea...@mac.com> wrote:
> > Demolish? Is his music not still available? By the carload? Do you
> > think conductors are going to stop conducting it?
> [...]
> > Ms. Duchen is just expressing what a huge majority of classical music
> > lovers feel deep down about this composer.
> Do I sense a little contradiction in Bruckner's music being avaialble
> (per cd) "by the carload" and "a huge majority of classical music
> lovers" being averse to Bruckner?
See my answer to MS.
> And, as I said before, I have no problem with people not liking
> Bruckner's music, I just hope their taste is a little more
> sophisticated that Duchen, who seems to think Bruckner is no good
> becuase he didn't look like George Clooney.
> On 12 avr, 00:04, John Thomas <abrasax...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > So neither you nor herman can actually defend your claim that Bruckner
> > is a "major" composer. No problem; I've learned over the years that
> > musical judgements are generally just a matter of personal taste. But I
> > can't help but wonder why you and herman (and Duchen) are so emotional
> > about what are just personal preferences.
> Perhaps I expressed myself unclearly; perhaps you weren't quite awake.
> I wasn't defending Bruckner; he doesn't need my defense.
> What my post was about is the lamentable state of music journalism, if
> a music critic in a major British newspaper uses the scarce space
> alotted to classical music for such a juvenile attack on a long
> established composer, using lowbrow arguments that are ultimately
> damaging to every single composer. No composer I can think of is sexy
> enough to fit Duchen's bill, and pretty much every piece of music
> longer than five minutes is too complicated and too long if you're
> avowing this attitude.
> Let me add (sigh) this is not an "ad hominem" attack. Some people
> think (and pardon my Latin) any sort of disagreeing is ad hominem per
> se. It's not about whether Ms Duchen herself is sexy or unboring (even
> though that is perhaps what's she's trying to get across); it's about
> what she's writing. I hope you can see the difference.
Yes, you DO need to mount a defense of Bruckner's music. It has just
been trashed. Have you nothing to say in its favour? Except to blather
about how ignorant Ms. Duchen is?
