Brahms Jokes
Dani Widmer
I need jokes about Johannes Brahms.
Please help me!
Daniel
zick...@gmx.net
Kip & Cathy
"...and this piece goes out to Clara W. from Bob and John."
I guess Brahms jokes aren't a particularly rich field...
--Kip Williams
Malcolm Ogilvie
<dwi...@gmx.net> writes
>Hello everybody
>
>I need jokes about Johannes Brahms.
>Please help me!
>
--
Malcolm
bachch...@my-dejanews.com
Was it from Britten or Beecham?
Andrew.
On Sun, 4 Apr 1999 13:32:38 +0200, "Dani Widmer" <dwi...@gmx.net>
wrote:
>Hello everybody
>
>I need jokes about Johannes Brahms.
>Please help me!
>
>Daniel
>zick...@gmx.net
>
>
>
(To reply, remove "bach" from address.)
Frank Eggleston
Staying with PDQB, I guess "Liebeslieder Polkas" is a Brahms joke.
Frank E
--
"... for it goes without saying."
--- description of cart Milo borrowed from the
cabinet of King Azaz the Unabridged
in "The Phantom Tollbooth", by Norton Juster
David
There's this tourist in Vienna who's lost his way back to his hotel. It's
midnight, and he decides to cut through a graveyard, since it's the best
time to do that sort of thing in jokes.
All of a sudden he hears some music. No one is around, so he starts
searching for the source. Much to his surprise, the music is coming from a
grave! Who would have thought it! The headstone reads:
Johannes Brahms, 1827-1770
Then he realises that the music is none other than the First Symphony, and
it is being played backwards! It's a great improvement, he notices. Tunes
that used to be backwards are now the right way round. He leaves the
graveyard, realising that he now knows where his hotel is, and can get
back in time for Naked Mud Tennis from Jakarta on Sky.
The following night at midnight, he returns to the grave of Johannes
Brahms, bringing with him the renowned Viennese musicologist Hans Killer.
Prof Killer shot to fame in 1953 when he spotted a two-note motif played
upside down and back to front in Schonberg's Maracas Concerto; so he's the
ideal authority to solve the grave mystery.
Killer hears music pouring out from the grave, and confirms that the
tourist wasn't imagining things the previous night.
The music has changed, however. Killer notes that it's The German Requiem
being played backwards, which robs it of much of its maudlin
sanctimoniousness. He taps his foot along to the beat.
"But Herr Professor, how do you explain all this?" demands the tourist
impatiently. "Is that Brahms down there, composing?"
"No," replies Prof. Killer....
.... "He's decomposing!"
Malcolm Ogilvie
<sapp...@cix.co.uk> writes
>
>There's this tourist in Vienna who's lost his way back to his hotel. It's
>midnight, and he decides to cut through a graveyard, since it's the best
>time to do that sort of thing in jokes.
>
jpmfc, in the thread headed "Joke" was rather better :-((
--
Malcolm
Grant Hicks
>Then he realises that the music is none other than the First Symphony, and
>it is being played backwards! It's a great improvement, he notices.
... apparently having no ear for music.
David
Ogilvie) wrote:
But that one wasn't about Brahms, was it.
David
Malcolm Ogilvie
<sapp...@cix.co.uk> writes
--
Malcolm
David
(Grant Hicks) wrote:
If someone doesn't like a piece of music, it doesn't necessarily follow
that he has no ear for music.
David
Kip & Cathy
in this group for at least three days! I'm starting to suffer withdrawal.
--Kip Williams
David
(Kip & Cathy) wrote:
Quick, somebody -- !
David
Alan Bird
<mal...@ogilvie.org> writes
>In article <memo.19990404...@sapphire.compulink.co.uk>, David
><sapp...@cix.co.uk> writes
>>
>>There's this tourist in Vienna who's lost his way back to his hotel. It's
>>midnight, and he decides to cut through a graveyard, since it's the best
>>time to do that sort of thing in jokes.
>>
>I thought the previous version of this joke, posted just 2 days ago by
>jpmfc, in the thread headed "Joke" was rather better :-((
If this 'joke' ever rose above the abysmal, it might have been when it
was first cracked by WS Gilbert some time in the last century. It was
about Bach then. I rather doubt if it raised more than a weak smile
even among WSG's most fanatical followers.
Regards,
Alan (wishing there was a way to killfile the damn thing, but it keeps
on sneaking up on you).
--
Alan Bird
Tjako van Schie
Tjako van Schie, pianist & Brahms-lover!
tjakov...@castel.nl
http://users.castel.nl/~schic02
jp winter
>3B's mean "boring, boring and boring."
>
>Was it from Britten or Beecham?
>
>Andrew.
From the autograph-album of a 19th century French groupie:
"Bach-Beethoven-Brahms, les autres sont crétins! - Buelow"
Next page:
"Mendelssohn-Moscheles-Meyerbeer, les autres sont crétiens! -
Moszkowsky".
Brahms was offered a glass of wine with the words "This is the Brahms
among my wines". Brahms: "Not bad, but now I should like to taste your
Bach, please"
"Your new symphony is really a beautiful work, maestro! Only in some
places it reminds me of other music." Brahms: "Your next symphony
maybe?"
Brahms left his Stammtisch: "In case there is anyone here I didn't
offend yet, I humbly apologize!"
Last but not least a quote from Brahms' father: "Playing in tune on a
double-bass is pure coincidence" (but that's no joke).
regards, jw
Roland van Gaalen
: In article <...>, mal...@ogilvie.org (Malcolm
: Ogilvie) wrote:
:> In article <memo.19990404...@sapphire.compulink.co.uk>, David
:> <sapp...@cix.co.uk> writes
:> >
:> >There's this tourist in Vienna who's lost his way back to his hotel.
:> It's
:> >midnight, and he decides to cut through a graveyard, since it's the
:> best
:> >time to do that sort of thing in jokes.
:> >
:> I thought the previous version of this joke, posted just 2 days ago by
:> jpmfc, in the thread headed "Joke" was rather better :-((
:> --
:> Malcolm
:>
: But that one wasn't about Brahms, was it.
Great punch line!
Although not a joke, Bernard Shaw's comments about Brahms' German Requiem
were funny (if I remember correctly: "intolerable noise"; "can only be
patiently borne by the corpse"; and about Brahms himself: how he used to
"dress up like Handel and Bach").
Roland van Gaalen
Amsterdam
Roland van Gaalen - Amsterdam - NL
: 3B's mean "boring, boring and boring."
: Was it from Britten or Beecham?
: Andrew.
Whoever said that is nuts.
Roland van Gaalen
Amsterdam
Neal
by Oscar The Grouch.
a...@cts.canberra.edu.au wrote in message
<7ebqk7$snm$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <7e7io2$pt6$1...@online-5.internetPLUS.ch>,
> "Dani Widmer" <dwi...@gmx.net> wrote:
>> Hello everybody
>>
>> I need jokes about Johannes Brahms.
>> Please help me!
>>
>> Daniel
>> zick...@gmx.net
>>
>
>Das Johanneslied von Oskar von Grautsch
>
> Oh, I like Brahms,
> Anything sepia, suave and teutonic,
> Nothing Italianate, French or Byronic,
> I love it because it's Brahms
>
> I've a K-Mart Klavierkonzert in d-moll
> An old Deutsches Requiem from Boise City Hall
> Which I wouldn't swap for a whole Parsifal,
> I love it because it's Brahms,
>
> Chorus: Oh I like Brahms [usw]
>
> Just find me a burg, whether Ham, Pitts or Salz,
> One Serious Song or a Liebeslieder Waltz,
> And I'll make Wozzeck sound like a whole load of schmalz,
> It's solid because its Brahms,
>
> Chorus: Oh I like Brahms [usw]
>
> I've every Alto Rhapsody ever cut,
> From Dame Janet Baker to Dame Clara Butt,
> The latest was free, courtesy Pizza Hut,
> But I love it because it's Brahms ...
>
> Chorus: Oh I like Brahms [usw]
>
> When Life's Passacaglia is done, and I fly
> To ring at those pearly gates up in the sky,
> The doorchimes will greet me with *that* Lullaby,
> It's heaven because its Brahms ...
>
>Taken from http://isd.canberra.edu.au/~ajc/minogue/kpapers/brahms.html
>
>Andrew Clarke
>Minogue School of Musicology
>Junee, NSW
>
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Donald Rice
Don
bachch...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> 3B's mean "boring, boring and boring."
>
> Was it from Britten or Beecham?
>
> Andrew.
>
> On Sun, 4 Apr 1999 13:32:38 +0200, "Dani Widmer" <dwi...@gmx.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Hello everybody
> >
> >I need jokes about Johannes Brahms.
> >Please help me!
> >
> >Daniel
> >zick...@gmx.net
> >
> >
> >
>
a...@cts.canberra.edu.au
"Dani Widmer" <dwi...@gmx.net> wrote:
> Hello everybody
>
> I need jokes about Johannes Brahms.
> Please help me!
>
> Daniel
> zick...@gmx.net
>
Das Johanneslied von Oskar von Grautsch
Frank Eggleston
>
> bachch...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> : 3B's mean "boring, boring and boring."
>
> : Was it from Britten or Beecham?
>
> : Andrew.
>
>
> Roland van Gaalen
> Amsterdam
Don't know about the poster, but Benjamin Britten is on record as
having cordially detested Brahms -- particularly his orchestration.
Richard Schultz
: David wrote in message ...
: >Then he realises that the music is none other than the First Symphony, and
: >it is being played backwards! It's a great improvement, he notices.
: ... apparently having no ear for music.
This, unfortunately is *not* a joke: the last movement of Brahms's
First Symphony was used as romantic background music in an episode of
"Bonanza." Yes, you read that correctly. It seems that Hoss had fallen
in love, and was thinking about leaving the Ponderosa to be with his
love. Every time the two were on screen together, in the background,
the big theme from the finale of Brahms's First would well up. I couldn't
make something like that up if I tried.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry tel: 972-3-531-8065
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel fax: 972-3-535-1250
-----
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers that smell bad."
Grant Hicks
>
>> David wrote in message ...
>>
>> >Then he realises that the music is none other than the First Symphony,
>> and
>> >it is being played backwards! It's a great improvement, he notices.
>>
>> ... apparently having no ear for music.
>
>that he has no ear for music.
>
ago when I expressed my dislike of Dvorak in this very forum). Note that I
said "apparently", not "necessarily".
However, I have to wonder whether someone who dislikes the Brahms First
would find it any more appealing played backwards.
Grant
ghic...@sprynet.com
Grant Hicks
Frank Eggleston wrote in message <370A0305...@erols.com>...
>Don't know about the poster, but Benjamin Britten is on record as
>having cordially detested Brahms -- particularly his orchestration.
>
thing Britten had against him. I can't put my finger on it at the moment,
but I own a book that quotes Britten as saying that he would occasionally
pull out some of Brahms's piano music and play through it to see whether he
still found it dreadful - which he invariably did.
Chaikovsky's diaries refer to Brahms as a "giftless bastard". I prefer to
suspect that Brahms's gifts were of a type that Chaikovsky was not equipped
to appreciate.
Grant Hicks
ghic...@sprynet.com
David
(Grant Hicks) wrote:
> David wrote in message ...
> >In article <7e96ve$r97$1...@camel29.mindspring.com>, ghic...@sprynet.com
> >(Grant Hicks) wrote:
> >
> >> David wrote in message ...
> >>
> >> >Then he realises that the music is none other than the First
> > Symphony,
> >> and
> >> >it is being played backwards! It's a great improvement, he notices.
> >>
> >> ... apparently having no ear for music.
> >
> >If someone doesn't like a piece of music, it doesn't necessarily follow
> >that he has no ear for music.
> >
> No, I understand that (I myself was accused of lacking "ear" not too
> long
> ago when I expressed my dislike of Dvorak in this very forum). Note
> that I said "apparently", not "necessarily".
OK, if someone doesn't like a piece of music, it doesn't follow that he
apparently has no ear for music. Is that better?
> However, I have to wonder whether someone who dislikes the Brahms First
> would find it any more appealing played backwards.
In this joke he does.
David
>
> Grant
> ghic...@sprynet.com
>
>
>
David
(Richard Schultz) wrote:
> Grant Hicks (ghic...@sprynet.com) wrote:
> : David wrote in message ...
>
> : >Then he realises that the music is none other than the First
> Symphony, and
> : >it is being played backwards! It's a great improvement, he notices.
>
> : ... apparently having no ear for music.
>
> This, unfortunately is *not* a joke: the last movement of Brahms's
> First Symphony was used as romantic background music in an episode of
> "Bonanza." Yes, you read that correctly. It seems that Hoss had fallen
> in love, and was thinking about leaving the Ponderosa to be with his
> love. Every time the two were on screen together, in the background,
> the big theme from the finale of Brahms's First would well up. I
> couldn't
> make something like that up if I tried.
I'm glad someone found a good use for the music at last.
David
David
(Grant Hicks) wrote:
>
> Frank Eggleston wrote in message <370A0305...@erols.com>...
> >Don't know about the poster, but Benjamin Britten is on record as
> >having cordially detested Brahms -- particularly his orchestration.
> >
> Brahms's orchestration *is* suspect. But this was certainly not the
> only
> thing Britten had against him. I can't put my finger on it at the
> moment,
> but I own a book that quotes Britten as saying that he would
> occasionally
> pull out some of Brahms's piano music and play through it to see
> whether he still found it dreadful - which he invariably did.
It sounds to me that Britten didn't like it. I know that's a funny reason
for not liking something, but it's the best I can come up. If I don't like
something then I don't like it; and the reason I don't like it is because
I don't.
> Chaikovsky's diaries refer to Brahms as a "giftless bastard". I prefer
> to suspect that Brahms's gifts were of a type that Chaikovsky was not
> equipped to appreciate.
I think it's outrageous that Chaikovsky should cast aspersions on Brahms'
parentage.
David
>
> Grant Hicks
> ghic...@sprynet.com
>
>
>
Thomas Ruedas
--
--------------------------------------------
Thomas Ruedas
Institute of Meteorology and Geophysics,
J.W. Goethe University Frankfurt/Main
Feldbergstrasse 47 D-60323 Frankfurt/Main, Germany
Phone:+49-(0)69-798-24949 Fax:+49-(0)69-798-23280
e-mail: rue...@geophysik.uni-frankfurt.de
http://www.geophysik.uni-frankfurt.de/~ruedas/
--------------------------------------------
D.G. Porter
>
>
> However, I have to wonder whether someone who dislikes the Brahms First
> would find it any more appealing played backwards.
In '81 I was visiting a freind at a recording studio, and his fulfilling
job for the day was running off countless copies of a reel of 20 radio
commercials for "Starsky & Hutch." The music for that series was truly
bad, terrrible crap, but it was quite interesting backwards, which is
how the reels were being copied. [One reel ran short, and he handed it
to me -- and thus was made my tape piece lampooning Laurie Anderson's
music, "Hammond Mantra"!]
D.G. Porter
>
>
> Don't know about the poster, but Benjamin Britten is on record as
> having cordially detested Brahms -- particularly his orchestration.
Funny, the only Brahms I like are parts of the 4th Symphony, and only
parts. Of course, Brahms had a lousy 'tude about the music of his day.
Grant Hicks
>
>OK, if someone doesn't like a piece of music, it doesn't follow that he
>apparently has no ear for music. Is that better?
Several responses are competing in my mind, and I can't choose among them.
So:
a) Better for whom?
b) Non sequiturs happen.
c) ... but it may follow that someone who thinks the piece in question is
one of the great works of the 19th century may have serious doubts about the
ear of someone who thinks it sounds better backwards.
d) Sure - maybe he likes it better because when you play it backwards you
hear the subliminal message "I buried Liszt".
e) Remember the Dan Quayle/Murphy Brown thing? He's a *fictional
character*. (Isn't he?)
Good luck with that ear thing.
Grant
ghic...@sprynet.com
Grant Hicks
>>Brahms's orchestration *is* suspect.
>Could you please be more specific?
No.
David
(Grant Hicks) wrote:
> David wrote in message ...
> [snip]
> >
> >OK, if someone doesn't like a piece of music, it doesn't follow that he
> >apparently has no ear for music. Is that better?
>
>
> Several responses are competing in my mind, and I can't choose among
> them.
> So:
> a) Better for whom?
For you.
> b) Non sequiturs happen.
Yes, and my uncle's knee operation went well!
> c) ... but it may follow that someone who thinks the piece in question
> is one of the great works of the 19th century may have serious doubts
> about the ear of someone who thinks it sounds better backwards.
Sure, if he thinks his taste is better than others'.
> d) Sure - maybe he likes it better because when you play it backwards
> you hear the subliminal message "I buried Liszt".
That reminds me of my Liszt joke...
> e) Remember the Dan Quayle/Murphy Brown thing?
No.
> He's a *fictional character*. (Isn't he?)
I dunno; who are we talking about?
>
> Good luck with that earthling.
I'll do my best.
David
>
> Grant
> ghic...@sprynet.com
D.G. Porter
Casting the part of "Dan Quayle":
Casting Director: Now, look here, son, we decided to cast all our VP's
from a pool of actors. Worked well enough for the 40th Prez.
Actor: What's my character?
CD: Well, he's a Republican from Indiana, so he'll spout the usual, that
is, predictable line of bullshit written by the "religious right" team
we put together in 1980.
A: Oh, yes, I've read their work. Very wearying, unrewarding...
CD: Yes, but the pay is good. Another thing is that this guy is a
little tetched in the head. He's somewhat patterned after Sheridan's
"Mrs. Malaprop."
A: That should make the part fun.
CD: It wil give your other teams in the mainstream media some work.
Now, you think you can give me "Deer caught in the headlights"?
A: [assumes gaze]
CD: You got the part. Report to this spook named ... Bush in the
morning. He's in charge of this Black Bag Op.
[End]
Grant Hicks
>
>Sure, if he thinks his taste is better than others'.
>
>> Good luck with that earthling.
>
You've just got to get your spell-checker under control.
Grant
ghic...@sprynet.com
a...@cts.canberra.edu.au
sapp...@cix.co.uk wrote:
> In article <7eeevk$ju$1...@camel29.mindspring.com>, ghic...@sprynet.com
> > >having cordially detested Brahms -- particularly his orchestration.
> > >
I think we might also consider how Brahms was performed at the time when
Britten was listening to him. Fat sound, heavy brass,sluggish tempi, turgid
phrasing. Perhaps if he'd heard Sir Charles Mackerras and the Scottish Chamber
Orchestra he might have revised his opinion.
> > But this was certainly not the
> > only
> > thing Britten had against him. I can't put my finger on it at the
> > moment,
> > but I own a book that quotes Britten as saying that he would
> > occasionally
> > pull out some of Brahms's piano music and play through it to see
> > whether he still found it dreadful - which he invariably did.
What a twit! Not even the Left Hand Down A Lot school of Brahms
performance can destroy the lucidity, elegance and genuine emotional depth of
the later piano works, especially the Intermezzi, Op. 117.
> It sounds to me that Britten didn't like it. I know that's a funny reason
> for not liking something, but it's the best I can come up. If I don't like
> something then I don't like it; and the reason I don't like it is because
> I don't.
Perhaps one reason for Britten's distaste is that Brahms' later works
are mature masterpieces -- the piano pieces and the clarinet music for
Richard Muhlfeld -- while Britten's later work tended IMHO to become
overblown and mannered. (Compare the wonderful "Serenade" and "Les Ills"
or the first two string quartets with "A Midsummer Night's Dream" or a
good deal of the "War Requiem".)
>
> > Chaikovsky's diaries refer to Brahms as a "giftless bastard". I prefer
> > to suspect that Brahms's gifts were of a type that Chaikovsky was not
> > equipped to appreciate.
Apart from one or two twee ballet scores, Chai produced nothing decent
for orchestra after the "Little Russian" ...
>
> I think it's outrageous that Chaikovsky should cast aspersions on Brahms'
> parentage.
>
> David
Ah, but what's the original Russian? In how many French films does one
hear "con" on the soundtrack and see "bastard" in the subtitles? I
agree the man had chutzpah already ...
> >
> > Grant Hicks
> > ghic...@sprynet.com
David
(Grant Hicks) wrote:
> David wrote in message ...
> [much snipping]
> >
> >Sure, if he thinks his taste is better than others'.
> >
> Well, it almost has to be better than *some* others'.
Why?
> >> Good luck with that earthling.
> >
> You've just got to get your spill-chucker under control.
I've arrranged an appointment with the doctor.
David
>
> Grant
> ghic...@sprynet.com
>
>
>
David
wrote:
> In article <memo.1999040...@sapphire.compulink.co.uk>,
> sapp...@cix.co.uk wrote:
> > In article <7eeevk$ju$1...@camel29.mindspring.com>, ghic...@sprynet.com
> > (Grant Hicks) wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Frank Eggleston wrote in message <370A0305...@erols.com>...
> > > >Don't know about the poster, but Benjamin Britten is on record as
> > > >having cordially detested Brahms -- particularly his orchestration.
> > > >
> > > Brahms's orchestration *is* suspect.
>
> I think we might also consider how Brahms was performed at the time when
> Britten was listening to him. Fat sound, heavy brass,sluggish tempi,
> turgid
> phrasing. Perhaps if he'd heard Sir Charles Mackerras and the Scottish
> Chamber Orchestra he might have revised his opinion.
You've got a 50% chance of being right.
> > > But this was certainly not the
> > > only
> > > thing Britten had against him. I can't put my finger on it at the
> > > moment,
> > > but I own a book that quotes Britten as saying that he would
> > > occasionally
> > > pull out some of Brahms's piano music and play through it to see
> > > whether he still found it dreadful - which he invariably did.
>
> What a twit!
I think you're a twit to call someone a twit because they don't like what
you like.
> Not even the Left Hand Down A Lot school of Brahms
> performance can destroy the lucidity, elegance and genuine emotional
> depth of the later piano works, especially the Intermezzi, Op. 117.
Whether one finds genuine emotional depth, fake emotional depth, or no
emotional depth at all in these pieces is an entirely subjective matter;
and each response is as valid as another.
> > It sounds to me that Britten didn't like it. I know that's a funny
> > reason
> > for not liking something, but it's the best I can come up. If I don't
> > like
> > something then I don't like it; and the reason I don't like it is
> > because I don't.
>
> Perhaps one reason for Britten's distaste is that Brahms' later works
> are mature masterpieces
Perhaps one reason for his distaste is that he didn't like them. And
something is only a masterpiece if one thinks it is.
> -- the piano pieces and the clarinet music for
> Richard Muhlfeld -- while Britten's later work tended IMHO to become
> overblown and mannered. (Compare the wonderful "Serenade" and "Les Ills"
> or the first two string quartets with "A Midsummer Night's Dream" or a
> good deal of the "War Requiem".)
> > > Chaikovsky's diaries refer to Brahms as a "giftless bastard". I
> > > prefer
> > > to suspect that Brahms's gifts were of a type that Chaikovsky was
> > > not
> > > equipped to appreciate.
>
> Apart from one or two twee ballet scores, Chai produced nothing decent
> for orchestra after the "Little Russian" ...
Fine: your personal opinion is as valid as Benjamin Britten's, or anyone
else's.
David
David
wrote:
> David wrote:
> >
> > In article <7eh8h5$bkp$1...@camel25.mindspring.com>, ghic...@sprynet.com
Many thanks for your comprehensive reply - I enjoyed it! Is Murphy Brown
an actor?
Cheers,
David
CLee751159
>>
>> I need jokes about Johannes Brahms.
>> Please help me!
>>
>> Daniel
>> zick...@gmx.net
After a bad student performance of one of his more emotional pieces, a lecturer
at Sheffield University whose name I've forgotten described it a 'murdering
Brahms at the point where he commits suicide'.
D.G. Porter
No, she's an actress. Oops, my non-PC is showin'!
Thanx.
Grant Hicks
>(Grant Hicks) wrote:
>
>> David wrote in message ...
>> [much snipping]
>> >
>> >Sure, if he thinks his taste is better than others'.
>> >
>> Well, it almost has to be better than *some* others'.
>
>Why?
>
public as a bell curve, the odds of any particular person's being at the
extreme left end of the curve, and therefore having worse musical taste than
everyone else in the population, are vanishingly small. I suspect that the
odds of a conservatory-trained composer/theorist who posts to
rec.music.classical falling at the extreme left end of the curve are even
smaller than that, although you could argue the point.
Grant
ghic...@sprynet.com
Grant Hicks
>
>something is only a masterpiece if one thinks it is.
>
someday I'm going to write a comprehensive and irrefutable critique of it.
But not tonight.
Meanwhile, I think the situation is this: you've chosen to express, in no
uncertain terms, a heterodox opinion about the worth of Brahms's music -
which is fine as far as it goes; I have a few heterodox opinions myself.
However, you must be prepared for the fact that when you express an opinion
of this sort, people are going to disagree, sometimes vigorously. Those of
us who consider Brahms a great composer are going to persist in doing so
regardless of your opinion. We may even suspect, in our heart of hearts,
that if there are people who don't appreciate Brahms's achievement, it's not
because the achievement isn't there, but rather because, for whatever
reason, they just don't get it.
With all best wishes that you'll eventually come around,
Grant
ghic...@sprynet.com
David
(Grant Hicks) wrote:
> David wrote in message ...
> >In article <7ejrmb$o88$1...@camel25.mindspring.com>, ghic...@sprynet.com
> >(Grant Hicks) wrote:
> >
> >> David wrote in message ...
> >> [much snipping]
> >> >
> >> >Sure, if he thinks his taste is better than others'.
> >> >
> >> Well, it almost has to be better than *some* others'.
> >
> >Why?
> >
> If you imagine the distribution of good musical taste among the general
> public as a bell curve,
I don't. One person's musical taste is as good as another's. So I should
replace your bell curve with a dot.
David
David
(Grant Hicks) wrote:
> David wrote in message ...
> >
> >Perhaps one reason for his distaste is that he didn't like them. And
> >something is only a masterpiece if one thinks it is.
> >
> I get tired of the glib relativism so often displayed on this ng,
I presume it's glib because you don't agree with it; please correct me if
that's not the case.
> and
> someday I'm going to write a comprehensive and irrefutable critique of
> it. But not tonight.
O what a shame; I look forward to it with mounting excitement.
> Meanwhile, I think the situation is this: you've chosen to express, in
> no
> uncertain terms, a heterodox opinion about the worth of Brahms's music -
Did I? I don't remember mentioning the worth of Brahms' music at all.
> which is fine as far as it goes;
>I have a few heterodox opinions myself.
Most commendable.
> However, you must be prepared for the fact that when you express an
> opinion
> of this sort, people are going to disagree, sometimes vigorously.
I don't need to be prepared. People can think and like what they like.
> Those of
> us who consider Brahms a great composer are going to persist in doing so
> regardless of your opinion.
Fine; I'm not interested in the slightest about changing anyone's opinion
about Brahms, not even my own.
> We may even suspect, in our heart of hearts,
> that if there are people who don't appreciate Brahms's achievement,
> it's not because the achievement isn't there,
I do not care less about appreciating Brahms' achievement, whatever that
might be. What does he want, a pat on the head? If I don't like a piece of
music then I don't like it; it's as simple as that.
> but rather because, for whatever reason, they just don't get it.
If Brahms has got something for me to "get", and I haven't got it, it's
his fault. He needs a rethink about his communication skills. I should
write "You want me to "get" it? Then try harder!" in his exercise book.
> With all best wishes that you'll eventually come around,
OK, what's your address?
David
>
> Grant
> ghic...@sprynet.com
>
>
>
Michael Subotin
> > If you imagine the distribution of good musical taste among the general
> > public as a bell curve,
>
> I don't. One person's musical taste is as good as another's. So I should
> replace your bell curve with a dot.
Hmm... I can think of two reasons one might want to do that:
1) You're Hitler
2) (in soft tones) We've just replaced these mathematicians' regular
probability distributions with Folders Crystals. Let's see if they
notice.
Michael
--
E-mail: mvsst3+@pitt{DOT}edu Replace {DOT} with a dot
CLee751159
>
>: Andrew.
>
>Whoever said that is nuts.
>
>Roland van Gaalen
>Amsterdam
By the way, is there a compilation of Beechamisms on the web?
Roland van Gaalen
:>: Was it from Britten or Beecham?
I'm being quoted out of context! :-) :-)
Back to Brams:
(1) Joseph Helmesberger: "When Brahms is in extra good spirits, he sings
`The grave is my joy'."
(2) George Bernard Shaw: "Brahms's Requiem has not the true funeral
relish; it is so execrably and ponderously dull that the very flattest of
funerals would seem like a balle, or al least a danse macabre, after it."
(3) Hugo Wolf: "I once sent him a song and asked him to mark a cross
wherever he thought it was faulty. Brahms returned it untouched, saying,
`I don't want to make a cemetery of your composition.'"
(4) Colin Wilson: "Benjamin Britten claims that he plays through `the
whole of Brahms' at intervals to see whether Brahms is really as bad as he
thought, and ends by discovering only that he is actually much worse."
FROM: Chambers Music Quotations, compiled by Derek Watson,
W & R Chambers Ltd, Edinburgh (1991) -- a book that I recommend.
Michael Subotin
> Perhaps one reason for Britten's distaste is that Brahms' later works
> are mature masterpieces -- the piano pieces and the clarinet music for
> Richard Muhlfeld -- while Britten's later work tended IMHO to become
> overblown and mannered. (Compare the wonderful "Serenade" and "Les Ills"
> or the first two string quartets with "A Midsummer Night's Dream" or a
> good deal of the "War Requiem".)
Then:
David wrote:
>
> In article <7emhrd$frf$1...@camel15.mindspring.com>, ghic...@sprynet.com
> (Grant Hicks) wrote:
>
> > David wrote in message ...
> > >
> > >Perhaps one reason for his distaste is that he didn't like them. And
> > >something is only a masterpiece if one thinks it is.
> > >
> > I get tired of the glib relativism so often displayed on this ng,
>
> I presume it's glib because you don't agree with it; please correct me if
> that's not the case.
>
> > and
> > someday I'm going to write a comprehensive and irrefutable critique of
> > it. But not tonight.
>
> O what a shame; I look forward to it with mounting excitement. <...>
Well, I *was* going to make my bid for the most long and boring post in
the history of r.m.c in the Relativism vs. Communication thread, but I
wasted what time I had rambling about aristocrats, and it's becoming
increasingly silly to dig those bones up. Hence, I'll disappoint the
world by foregoing lots of excruciating detail which I thought would've
come in handy in talking about relativism coherently. Instead, I'll make
a half-hearted attempt here, and, in the spirit of pretentious name-
dropping, compensate by furnishing this post with an epigraph. One of
the nice perks of the Short Story 101 class I had to take for general
requirements credits was that it forced me to be a good boy and discover
the world of American writers who aren't Stephen King. From 1955's
"Good Country People" by the blessed good country person Flannery
O'Connor:
"Nothing is perfect. This was one of Mrs.Hopewell's favorite sayings.
Another was: that is life! And still another, the most important, was:
well, other people have their opinions too. She would make these
statements, usually at the table, in a tone of gentle insistence as if
no one held them but her, and the large hulking Joy, whose constant
outrage had obliterated every expression from her face, would stare just
a little to the side of her, her eyes icy blue, with the look of someone
who has achieved blindness by an act of will and means to keep it."
I'll mention again that the reason I started that thread was not because
I disagree with the premises of relativism (which I don't <-- !) but
because a) the relativist commentary I got wasn't in contradiction
with what I was saying, b) it wasn't relevant to what I was trying to
get accross, and c) my saying what I was saying was entirely independent
of whether or not I subscribed to aesthetic relativism.
Hence my use of the word perspective. In the context, perspective didn't
mean creed, as it is often used to mean. It meant the concepts one uses
to approach a given context. The laws of wave mechanics are true and
useful for talking about tuning, but less useful for dealing with claims
that Bach is better than Handel, though still quite true. Likewise, the
notions of fact/opinion are great for dismantling the follies which
seemed to be held by some people associated with mid-century serialism
(aesthetic worth depending on adherence to the series, etc.), but they
hardly make a dent on discussions of classical greatness, masterpieces,
etc. Being wedded to a given perspective regardless of the questions
being posed can be unreasonable, even when the answers are accurate.
(What can I know for certain about reality? -- Cogito ergo sum. -- How
do statistics relate to experimental reproducibility? -- Cogito ergo
sum. -- Should I take an umbrella with me today? -- Cogito ergo sum. --
What about the lamppost up ahead? -- Cogito ergDONG.)
Relativist perspective is attractive because the notions of objective
fact and subjective opinion are rigorous generalizations -- it would
seem the only such generalizations pertaining to aesthetics on a global
scale. Some people don't agree, maybe because of a little conceptual
sloppiness, maybe for other reasons. But there's a difference between
*phrasing* an aesthetic judgment as though it were objective ("what
formal prowess and invention; definitely a masterpiece!") and
*making* them in an objective manner ("no recapitulation? trash!")
In the latter case, a convincing relativist argument pulls the rug from
under the aesthetic Weltanschauung, while in the former it's just
yanking off its toupee, and even then only if there's an actual belief
in objective aesthetic standards rather than a mere choice of wording
involved. (Again, some people actually label a fairly esoteric, though
quite tangible chunk of their reality by the term 'classical
masterpiece,' which is too cumbersome to communicate using the word
'like.')
As an analogy, many people seem to think that natural numbers are real
things. It wouldn't be so terrible if everyone took a minute to realize
they're actually abstracted generalizations of generalizations of
things. On occasion, I don't even mind cornering a willing soul for
a natural numbers chat; I think numbers are kind of neat, myself. But
telling this to everyone who I think might be misguided would only cause
a lot of eye-rolling. People's beliefs about the nature of numbers
don't affect how they ballance their checkbook. Closer to home,
after a stint in medical statistics, I can tell you that most of the
people who report p-values (statistical significance) in their
scientific papers either don't bother to find out what a p-value is,
or are grossly misinformed. It hasn't brought the edifice of science
down, either.
Likewise, most often it appears that Mr.Expert who claims he's using
'objective standards' in determining artistic worth is erring only
on the level of terminology. He doesn't actually approach the score
with rulers and calculators. An interesting thing about the classical
canon is that it can give you an *impression* of objective standards
(to my mind, considerably more so than other genres, though this is,
of course, also a matter of interpretation.) I could adumbrate mine as
grace-depth-coherence-eloquence-statement, but that wouldn't tell anyone
except myself much. The important point is that for me the classical
canon *behaves* as though it were united by objectifiable standards,
and that continued exposure improves my grasp of these standards and
how they are met in specific pieces -- even though I believe that it's
just an illusion. Hence, arguing for relativism with (some) classical
music fans may be like saying that god doesn't exist to people who
keep having epiphanies. The best relativism could do for Mr. Objective
Expert is make him say 'objectiv-y subjective' instead of 'objective.'
The main point I wanted to bring in was that there seems to be a cross-
Atlantic discrepancy in the attitudes towards the relativist
perspective. It *might* have something to do with the state of
classical music in Great Britain and here in the US.
One reason for rejecting generalizations (including notions; words are
generalizations, too -- nouns generalize over 'things', verbs over
'processes', etc) is due to its perceived value (or lack thereof) in
a given context. The point of the original 'Rel vs Com' post was to
consider the value of the relativist perspective in the context of my
post in the film music thread to which it was applied.
Another good reason for rejecting a generalization has to do with
its value when the use of the generalization is generalized over all
contexts of one's reality. People in the US can probably recall the
noise over a book called IIRC The Bell-Shaped Curve. I didn't pay much
attention, but apparently, some guy used elementary statistics for
cross-racial comparisons and wrote a book about it. There's a tinge of
confused hypocricy in a beer-bellied suit-wearing suburbanite's
unblinking condemnation of the statement that blacks are more likely to
commit violent crimes than whites. In the context of walking home from
work at night, liberal knee might not be quite so quick to jerk in
indignation. However, when generalized over all relevant contexts of
public life, the value of such generalizations shoots below zero-point,
since idiots and racial stereotypes abound, and making such statements
in a public context invokes a lot of responsibility.
There might be something about the state of affairs in the UK that
would prompt one to apply relativist analysis in contexts where it would
seem to have some annoyance potential, but little value in terms of
constructive communication, polemical impact ("Schoenberg is Dead" --
there's an objective fact), entertainment, or even scoff. Personally,
I find it a bit disturbing to see eloquent and witty people giving out
what seems to be a knee-jerk buzzword response and falling into a kind
of Borgian three-word refrain -- torso locking in an erect posture,
eye's devious spark drowned in glassy conviction: All Opinions Are
Valid. chorus: valid. Tastes Are Relative. chorus: relative. All
Opinions Are Valid. chorus: down with the experts. Tastes Are Relative.
chorus: I knows what I likes. Ad nauseam.
Here in the States the surroundings tend to prompt the opposite
reaction. Many of us would give our eye-tooth for your radio of some
years ago, and perhaps one of the crappy ones for its current form.
I'm grateful that there's a local radio station which plays a selection
of obscure polite instrumental music from late baroque to conservative
modern during the day, and broadcasts and good shows in the evening.
However, the only time I heard Carter on the radio was during the weekly
listener request stretch, and the fact that the station honored this
request surprized the hell out of me. More importantly, there are those
semi-subliminal things that take place in the environment. I would
actually much prefer being told to be a good little boy and appreciate
Birtwistle (whose music I don't much care for) to being told to be
a good American and buy the Titanic soundtrack.
Basically, Ben hit the nail on the head. What I'm trying to get accross
is a call to discretion. The use of words like 'objective standards'
*can* have an effect on the real world, and it's none of my business to
judge how the pan-context value of this notion weighs in in relation
to somebody else's reality. But consider also how this all relates to
a given context -- throwing darts at Uncle Bob only because he's using
the same words as Mr.Expert wouldn't seem like a nice thing to do.
David
Subotin) wrote:
> David wrote:
>
> > > If you imagine the distribution of good musical taste among the
> > > general
> > > public as a bell curve,
> >
> > I don't. One person's musical taste is as good as another's. So I
> > should
> > replace your bell curve with a dot.
>
> Hmm... I can think of two reasons one might want to do that:
>
> 1) You're Hitler
Maybe in a past life; but I regress...
> 2) (in soft tones) We've just replaced these mathematicians' regular
> probability distributions with Folders Crystals. Let's see if they
> notice.
Ja, es ist Crystalnacht!
Adolf
David
Subotin) wrote:
I began reading your message with interest. After some minutes the thought
dawned on me that were I to have a fatal heart attack the next moment, I
would pass over without knowing what your point was. It was in this state
of mild anxiety that I accelerated my rate of progress, and much to my
relief got to the end - still not knowing what your point was, but still
in the Land of the Living.
Best of luck,
David
Michael Subotin
>
> I began reading your message with interest. After some minutes the thought
> dawned on me that were I to have a fatal heart attack the next moment, I
> would pass over without knowing what your point was. It was in this state
> of mild anxiety that I accelerated my rate of progress, and much to my
> relief got to the end - still not knowing what your point was, but still
> in the Land of the Living.
Well, Usenet discussions are like conversations at the bar, so, in
this setting, arguments which try to articulate tricky points with
maximum clarity are like the guy who wants to relate you his life story
with preservation of actual time scale. Frankly, what I most wanted to
do was to figure out why I often find relativist commentary wearisome
and unreasonable. I should thank you and Ben for your cooperation in my
little cathartic moment, since I was able to do this sorting out only
working against the force of your impervious nonchalance. Now, instead
of being vaguely irked by ongoing 'glib relativism,' I'll be able to
shake my head sagely behind the computer screen and so be at peace.
Cheers,
Bryan Putnam
>
> Hello everybody
>
> I need jokes about Johannes Brahms.
> Please help me!
>
> Daniel
> zick...@gmx.net
OK, how about this one.
Brahms and Clara Schumann walk into a bar. Robert Schumann is already
in the bar and confronts Brahms. Robert says, "You miserable low down
excuse for a composer, first you steal my musical ideas and then you
steal my wife, I'm going to kill you." Brahms says, "If my music sounds
anything like yours than go ahead and shoot, I don't deserve to live."
Clara then starts laughing hysterically and a fuming Robert stomps out
of the bar.
Bryan
David
Subotin) wrote:
> David wrote:
> >
> > I began reading your message with interest. After some minutes the
> > thought
> > dawned on me that were I to have a fatal heart attack the next
> > moment, I
> > would pass over without knowing what your point was. It was in this
> > state
> > of mild anxiety that I accelerated my rate of progress, and much to my
> > relief got to the end - still not knowing what your point was, but
> > still
> > in the Land of the Living.
>
> Well, Usenet discussions are like conversations at the bar, in
> this setting, arguments which try to articulate tricky points with
> maximum clarity are like the guy who wants to relate you his life story
> with preservation of actual time scale.
Reading your last message I experienced the "guy who wants to relate you
his life story" bit, but not the "maximum clarity" bit.
> Frankly, what I most wanted to
> do was to figure out why I often find relativist commentary wearisome
> and unreasonable. I should thank you and Ben for your cooperation in my
> little cathartic moment, since I was able to do this sorting out only
> working against the force of your impervious nonchalance. Now, instead
> of being vaguely irked by ongoing 'glib relativism,' I'll be able to
> shake my head sagely behind the computer screen and so be at peace.
Glad to be of service.
David
David
Putnam) wrote:
On a cold, snowy night Brahms arrives at a pub and sees Robert Schumann
standing outside, naked and shivering. He hurries inside, thinking
happily, "If Robert keeps going nuts, I'm in with a good chance of
shagging his wife!"
Inside he sees his favourite violinist Joachim and Clara Schumann sitting
at a table, so he goes over to join them.
"Hello," Brahms says to Joachim, "How are you?" and Joachim says "I'm free
but alone. How are you?" And Brahms answers, "I'm free but happy."
Then Brahms asks Clara, "How's Robert?" and she says, "He's freezing his
balls off outside."
"That's a shame," says Brahms. "And how are you?" And Clara says, "I'm
free but I don't fancy you."
David
Michael Subotin
>
> In article <37126F...@shalt.not.spam>, th...@shalt.not.spam (Michael
> Subotin) wrote:
> > Well, Usenet discussions are like conversations at the bar, in
> > this setting, arguments which try to articulate tricky points with
> > maximum clarity are like the guy who wants to relate you his life story
> > with preservation of actual time scale.
>
> Reading your last message I experienced the "guy who wants to relate you
> his life story" bit, but not the "maximum clarity" bit. <...>
Sounds like you haven't met the guy.
Michael
P.S. I notice you did some editorial work with the quote above. Had you
been frightened by a sentence containing the word 'so' as a child?
Peter H. Granzeau
>On a cold, snowy night Brahms arrives at a pub and sees Robert Schumann
>standing outside, naked and shivering. He hurries inside, thinking
>happily, "If Robert keeps going nuts, I'm in with a good chance of
>shagging his wife!"
>
>Inside he sees his favourite violinist Joachim and Clara Schumann sitting
>at a table, so he goes over to join them.
>
>"Hello," Brahms says to Joachim, "How are you?" and Joachim says "I'm free
>but alone. How are you?" And Brahms answers, "I'm free but happy."
>
>Then Brahms asks Clara, "How's Robert?" and she says, "He's freezing his
>balls off outside."
>
>"That's a shame," says Brahms. "And how are you?" And Clara says, "I'm
>free but I don't fancy you."
I guess this is proof that I will never understand German humor.
Regards, PHG
(To reply by mail, send to my initials at the same site)
Michael Subotin
Not to worry. Here's an American humor translation:
A priest, a rabbi, and Brahms walk into a bar. Brahms sees Robert
Schumann standing outside with his pants around his ankles. Brahms:
"why do people wear pants?" Schumann: "hehehehe... cool dude." Brahms
to Joachim and Clara: "what's with him?" Joachim: "He's running for
president", Clara: "I won't play with him cause he's going bonkers, so
he's doing duos with a 12-inch pianist again". Brahms to Clara: "Wanna
play on my organ?", Clara: "Hu-LLO! Ugh... Beethoven just called, says
he wants his theme back". Brahms: "D'oh!"
Hope this helps.
Michael
Michael Subotin
>
> On 13 Apr 1999 08:22:52 GMT, sapp...@cix.co.uk (David) wrote:
>
> >On a cold, snowy night Brahms arrives at a pub and sees Robert Schumann
> >standing outside, naked and shivering. He hurries inside, thinking
> >happily, "If Robert keeps going nuts, I'm in with a good chance of
> >shagging his wife!"
> >
> >Inside he sees his favourite violinist Joachim and Clara Schumann sitting
> >at a table, so he goes over to join them.
> >
> >"Hello," Brahms says to Joachim, "How are you?" and Joachim says "I'm free
> >but alone. How are you?" And Brahms answers, "I'm free but happy."
> >
> >Then Brahms asks Clara, "How's Robert?" and she says, "He's freezing his
> >balls off outside."
> >
> >"That's a shame," says Brahms. "And how are you?" And Clara says, "I'm
> >free but I don't fancy you."
>
> I guess this is proof that I will never understand German humor.
Not to worry. Here's an American humor translation:
A priest, a rabbi, and Brahms walk into a bar. Brahms sees Robert
Schumann standing outside with his pants around his ankles. Brahms:
"why do people wear pants?" Schumann: "heehehehe... cool dude." Brahms
to Joachim and Clara: "what's with him?" Joachim: "He's running for
president," Clara: "I won't play with him cause he's going bonkers, so
he's playing with his 12-inch pianist again". Brahms to Clara: "Wanna
play on my organ?" Clara: "Hu-LLO! Ugh.. Beethoven just called, says he
Colin Rosenthal
Michael Subotin <th...@shalt.not.spam> wrote:
>Not to worry. Here's an American humor translation:
>
>A priest, a rabbi, and Brahms walk into a bar. Brahms sees Robert
>Schumann standing outside with his pants around his ankles. Brahms:
>"why do people wear pants?" Schumann: "heehehehe... cool dude." Brahms
>to Joachim and Clara: "what's with him?" Joachim: "He's running for
>president," Clara: "I won't play with him cause he's going bonkers, so
>he's playing with his 12-inch pianist again". Brahms to Clara: "Wanna
>play on my organ?" Clara: "Hu-LLO! Ugh.. Beethoven just called, says he
>wants his theme back". Brahms: "D'oh!"
>
>Hope this helps.
"I'm just decomposing, but the Cello burns longer"
--
Colin Rosenthal
Astrophysics Institute
University of Oslo
Martin
Brahms had four friends who played in a string quartet. They were awful
musicians, but very nice people, and Brahms greatly enjoyed their company.
A month or so before Brahms' birthday, his friends decided to learn his
latest string quartet and perform it for him. So they practiced and
practiced, and finally, on his birthday, invited him over to hear them play.
Well, the first movement was about as much as Brahms could stand. So with a
sickly smile on his face, he thanked his friends, mumbled some excuses, and
got out the door as fast as he could.
The first violinist, suspecting what was wrong, rushed after him. "Herr
Brahms, I hope you enjoyed our playing. Did you think our tempi were all
right?"
"Your tempi were all good," replied Brahms. "I think I liked yours the
best."
-------------
Jeremy Martin
jma...@euclid.ucsd.edu
Frank Eggleston
>
> On 13 Apr 1999 08:22:52 GMT, sapp...@cix.co.uk (David) wrote:
>
> >On a cold, snowy night Brahms arrives at a pub and sees Robert Schumann
> >standing outside, naked and shivering. He hurries inside, thinking
> >happily, "If Robert keeps going nuts, I'm in with a good chance of
> >shagging his wife!"
> >
> >Inside he sees his favourite violinist Joachim and Clara Schumann sitting
> >at a table, so he goes over to join them.
> >
> >"Hello," Brahms says to Joachim, "How are you?" and Joachim says "I'm free
> >but alone. How are you?" And Brahms answers, "I'm free but happy."
> >
> >Then Brahms asks Clara, "How's Robert?" and she says, "He's freezing his
> >balls off outside."
> >
> >"That's a shame," says Brahms. "And how are you?" And Clara says, "I'm
> >free but I don't fancy you."
>
> I guess this is proof that I will never understand German humor.
>
> (To reply by mail, send to my initials at the same site)
I'm hoping that most of our readers know about the FAE sonata, a
collaboration of (?) Brahms, Schumann, and somebody else. The main
theme was F -- A -- E (higher),and it was known as "Frei aber einsam"
(free but lonely). Brahms varied it to F -- A -- F ("Frei aber froh:
-- free but happy). Just in case. The relevant pieces are almost
never performed; I don't think they've been recorded.
Admittedly, it's still not very funny. :o\
Frank E
--
".... the isle is full of noises,
"Sounds and sweet airs, that give delight, and hurt not.
"Sometimes a thousand twangling instruments
"Will hum about mine ears; and sometimes voices...."
----- "The Tempest", Shakespeare
Tauser
Josef Joachim.
Tauser
RandyF926
movement was written by the otherwise forgotten Dietrich.
Spencer Doidge
>As an unapologetic Brahms fan, I offer my favorite joke of all:..
A good one. I must say, I got over the "Brahms is a bad composer"
thing so many years ago I have forgotten when it happened.
It is inappropriate to argue with opinions. Having said that, I will
also observe that the majority of negative opinions I have run across
have come more from inexperience and misunderstanding than from
experience and understanding. When we are talking about a composer
whose music has thrived now more than a hundred years after his death,
one must wonder about the perceptual depth and breadth of his
detractors.
Spencer Doidge
---------------------------------------------------
offering downloadable arrangements and compositions
for classical and fingerpicking guitar at
http://www.teleport.com/~spencerd
CDs and MP3s at
http://www.mp3.com/spencer_doidge
---------------------------------------------------
Dan Koren
>>(Grant Hicks) wrote:
>>
>>> David wrote in message ...
>>> >
>>> >Sure, if he thinks his taste is better than others'.
>>> >
>>> Well, it almost has to be better than *some* others'.
>>
>>Why?
>>
>extreme left end of the curve, and therefore having worse musical taste than
>everyone else in the population, are vanishingly small. I suspect that the
>odds of a conservatory-trained composer/theorist who posts to
>rec.music.classical falling at the extreme left end of the curve are even
>smaller than that, although you could argue the point.
And what if it isn't a bell curve after all?
Maybe it is a Poisson distribution?
:)
dk
David
(Spencer Doidge) wrote:
> On 14 Apr 1999 15:48:31 GMT, jma...@euclid.ucsd.edu (Martin) wrote:
>
> >As an unapologetic Brahms fan, I offer my favorite joke of all:..
>
> A good one. I must say, I got over the "Brahms is a bad composer"
> thing so many years ago I have forgotten when it happened.
>
> It is inappropriate to argue with opinions. Having said that, I will
> also observe that the majority of negative opinions I have run across
> have come more from inexperience and misunderstanding than from
> experience and understanding.
I dislike virtually every piece by Brahms I've ever heard. Now,
Would you care to prove that your experience of Brahms is better than
mine?
Would you care to prove that your understanding of Brahms is better than
mine?
> When we are talking about a composer
> whose music has thrived now more than a hundred years after his death,
I couldn't care less.
> one must wonder about the perceptual depth and breadth of his
> detractors.
Let's hear about how good yours are, then.
David
Spencer Doidge
>In article <37151a97....@news.teleport.com>, spen...@teleport.com
>(Spencer Doidge) wrote:
>
>> On 14 Apr 1999 15:48:31 GMT, jma...@euclid.ucsd.edu (Martin) wrote:
>>
>> >As an unapologetic Brahms fan, I offer my favorite joke of all:..
>>
>> A good one. I must say, I got over the "Brahms is a bad composer"
>> thing so many years ago I have forgotten when it happened.
>>
>> It is inappropriate to argue with opinions. Having said that, I will
>> also observe that the majority of negative opinions I have run across
>> have come more from inexperience and misunderstanding than from
>> experience and understanding.
>
>I dislike virtually every piece by Brahms I've ever heard. Now,
>
>Would you care to prove that your experience of Brahms is better than
>mine?
I like Brahms' music. Q.E.D.
>Would you care to prove that your understanding of Brahms is better than
>mine?
I like Brahms' music. Q.E.D.
>
>> When we are talking about a composer
>> whose music has thrived now more than a hundred years after his death,
>
>I couldn't care less.
These are indeed very boorish and insensitive things to say to a
Brahms fan. It bespeaks a shallowness in perceiving music as an
intellectual exercise rather than a spiritual expression.
I of course expected something like this in response to my post. I had
a generalized purpose in going ahead with this exercise. Let me
explain:
The messages and attitudes expressed in his music have been a valuable
spiritual resource to me for many years. It has brought me great
comfort in times of distress. For me it is a key component of what
religion is for others. Brahms' music speaks for what is good in
mankind. He was a good man, and his music expresses his unselfishness
and devotion to excellence, which he also expressed in his generosity
with his own family members.
These are ideals that far transcend the shallow sophism expressed in
this arrogant, boorish, insensitive, and tactless post, sadly all to
common on Internet.
This is the point I wanted to make. Thank you for setting up this
opportunity to make it.
David
(Spencer Doidge) wrote:
> On 15 Apr 1999 08:54:13 GMT, sapp...@cix.co.uk (David) wrote:
>
> >In article <37151a97....@news.teleport.com>,
> spen...@teleport.com
> >(Spencer Doidge) wrote:
> >
> >> On 14 Apr 1999 15:48:31 GMT, jma...@euclid.ucsd.edu (Martin) wrote:
> >>
> >> >As an unapologetic Brahms fan, I offer my favorite joke of all:..
> >>
> >> A good one. I must say, I got over the "Brahms is a bad composer"
> >> thing so many years ago I have forgotten when it happened.
> >>
> >> It is inappropriate to argue with opinions. Having said that, I will
> >> also observe that the majority of negative opinions I have run across
> >> have come more from inexperience and misunderstanding than from
> >> experience and understanding.
> >
> >I dislike virtually every piece by Brahms I've ever heard. Now,
>
> >
> >Would you care to prove that your experience of Brahms is better than
> >mine?
>
> I like Brahms' music. Q.E.D.
That's nice!
> >Would you care to prove that your understanding of Brahms is better
> than mine?
>
> I like Brahms' music. Q.E.D.
That's nice!
> >> When we are talking about a composer
> >> whose music has thrived now more than a hundred years after his
> > death,
> >
> >I couldn't care less.
>
> These are indeed very boorish and insensitive things to say to a
> Brahms fan. It bespeaks a shallowness in perceiving music as an
> intellectual exercise rather than a spiritual expression.
It does? Oh well, let it bespeak whatever you like, sunbeam.
> I of course expected something like this in response to my post.
How boring for you.
> I had
> a generalized purpose in going ahead with this exercise. Let me
> explain:
>
> The messages and attitudes expressed in his music have been a valuable
> spiritual resource to me for many years.
That's good!
It has brought me great
> comfort in times of distress. For me it is a key component of what
> religion is for others. Brahms' music speaks for what is good in
> mankind. He was a good man, and his music expresses his unselfishness
> and devotion to excellence, which he also expressed in his generosity
> with his own family members.
That's nice!
> These are ideals that far transcend the shallow sophism expressed in
> this arrogant, boorish, insensitive, and tactless post, sadly all to
> common on Internet.
Insensitive? tactless? You poor thing, you! How dare someone not like what
you like!
May you survive the trauma,
David
Spencer Doidge
No, one can like or dislike whatever he wants. You can like or dislike
Catholics, Protestants, Jews, or Moslems, Serbs, Albanians, gays,
straights, or anyone else who holds anything sacred or profane.
However, good taste and civility require that you use tact at all
times, that is, if you deem yourself so worthy.
BHeneg8560
writes:
[Excerpt from some short story]
What's the relevance of this?
[snip]
>Hence my use of the word perspective. In the context, perspective didn't
>mean creed, as it is often used to mean. It meant the concepts one uses
>to approach a given context.
[snip]
>the
>notions of fact/opinion are great for dismantling the follies which
>seemed to be held by some people associated with mid-century serialism
>(aesthetic worth depending on adherence to the series, etc.), but they
>hardly make a dent on discussions of classical greatness, masterpieces,
>etc.
Well, that's assuming it's necessary to make a dent on such discussions.
> Being wedded to a given perspective regardless of the questions
>being posed can be unreasonable, even when the answers are accurate.
>(What can I know for certain about reality? -- Cogito ergo sum. -- How
>do statistics relate to experimental reproducibility? -- Cogito ergo
>sum. -- Should I take an umbrella with me today? -- Cogito ergo sum. --
>What about the lamppost up ahead? -- Cogito ergDONG.)
This isn't a good analogy. Whoever insisted that anyone should be wedded to a
given perspective regardless of ANY questions being posed? If someone's using
opinions as though they were facts, it doesn't matter how manifold and myriad
the ways in which this fallacy is embodied, it's basically the SAME question,
not a number of different questions. You're using "Cogito ergo Sum" as a
response to a number of *truly* different questions, which is an entirely
different situation.
>Relativist perspective is attractive because the notions of objective
>fact and subjective opinion are rigorous generalizations -- it would
>seem the only such generalizations pertaining to aesthetics on a global
>scale. Some people don't agree, maybe because of a little conceptual
>sloppiness, maybe for other reasons. But there's a difference between
>*phrasing* an aesthetic judgment as though it were objective ("what
>formal prowess and invention; definitely a masterpiece!") and
>*making* them in an objective manner ("no recapitulation? trash!")
>
>In the latter case, a convincing relativist argument pulls the rug from
>under the aesthetic Weltanschauung, while in the former it's just
>yanking off its toupee, and even then only if there's an actual belief
>in objective aesthetic standards rather than a mere choice of wording
>involved.
I agree, but it's not unknown for habits of speech to influence or perpetuate
habits of thought.
>(Again, some people actually label a fairly esoteric, though
>quite tangible chunk of their reality by the term 'classical
>masterpiece,' which is too cumbersome to communicate using the word
>'like.')
I don't know exactly what you're saying here.
>As an analogy, many people seem to think that natural numbers are real
>things. It wouldn't be so terrible if everyone took a minute to realize
>they're actually abstracted generalizations of generalizations of
>things.
I agree. I annoy my kids with questions like "How much does a number weigh?"
[snip]
>the important point is that for me the classical
>canon *behaves* as though it were united by objectifiable standards,
Objectifiable? I'm not clear what you mean by that.
>and that continued exposure improves my grasp of these standards and
>how they are met in specific pieces -- even though I believe that it's
>just an illusion.
What I don't understand is that you seem to imply that these (illusory)
standards are more important than the pieces of music that (supposedly)
exemplify the standards. If I've misinterpreted you, please enlighten me, but
how much do the standards actually matter compared with the music itself? What
I'm thinking of is the hypothetical situation where you like some music that
doesn't actually exemplify your favoured standards and so you reason yourself
out of liking it. Would that actually happen?
[snip]
>One reason for rejecting generalizations (including notions; words are
>generalizations, too -- nouns generalize over 'things', verbs over
>'processes', etc) is due to its perceived value (or lack thereof) in
>a given context.
[snip]
>Another good reason for rejecting a generalization has to do with
>its value when the use of the generalization is generalized over all
>contexts of one's reality.
Er..yes. Aren't these two reasons the same?
[snip]
>There might be something about the state of affairs in the UK that
>would prompt one to apply relativist analysis in contexts where it would
>seem to have some annoyance potential, but little value in terms of
>constructive communication, polemical impact ("Schoenberg is Dead" --
>there's an objective fact), entertainment, or even scoff.
Why call it "relativist analysis"? Who's analysing? As for constructive
communication, surely the DEstruction of a fallacy is actually a CONstructive
thing to do, if the fallacy were responsible for preserving "bad" things and
stopping "good" things from happening. (These uses of "good" and "bad" are
subject to the usual disclaimers, naturally.)
>Personally,
>I find it a bit disturbing to see eloquent and witty people giving out
>what seems to be a knee-jerk buzzword response and falling into a kind
>of Borgian three-word refrain -- torso locking in an erect posture,
>eye's devious spark drowned in glassy conviction: All Opinions Are
>Valid. chorus: valid. Tastes Are Relative. chorus: relative. All
>Opinions Are Valid. chorus: down with the experts. Tastes Are Relative.
>chorus: I knows what I likes. Ad nauseam.
Anyone can present a view that he disparages as though it's being mouthed by a
moron. Personally, I find it a bit disturbing that you haven't realised that.
[snip]
> I would
>actually much prefer being told to be a good little boy and appreciate
>Birtwistle (whose music I don't much care for) to being told to be
>a good American and buy the Titanic soundtrack.
I don't really like either option.
best wishes
Ben Heneghan
David
(Spencer Doidge) wrote:
Thank you.
> However, good taste and civility require that you use tact at all
> times, that is, if you deem yourself so worthy.
I previously wrote, "I dislike virtually every piece by Brahms I've ever
heard." Apparently this isn't tactful enough for you. So how about -
Listening to Brahms' music makes me want to throw up or gas myself. Is
that OK?
Cheers,
David.
Rob Kerr
>
> I'm hoping that most of our readers know about the FAE sonata, a
> collaboration of (?) Brahms, Schumann, and somebody else. The main
> theme was F -- A -- E (higher),and it was known as "Frei aber einsam"
> (free but lonely). Brahms varied it to F -- A -- F ("Frei aber froh:
> -- free but happy). Just in case. The relevant pieces are almost
> never performed; I don't think they've been recorded.
>
The Scherzo Brahms wrote for the FAE has been recorded, and Tasmin
Little played it at the Proms in the Park last year. I have a recording
of a version for clarinet & piano, which sounds ace.
Rob Kerr
David
Eggleston) wrote:
> Peter H. Granzeau wrote:
> >
> > On 13 Apr 1999 08:22:52 GMT, sapp...@cix.co.uk (David) wrote:
> >
> > >On a cold, snowy night Brahms arrives at a pub and sees Robert
> > Schumann
> > >standing outside, naked and shivering. He hurries inside, thinking
> > >happily, "If Robert keeps going nuts, I'm in with a good chance of
> > >shagging his wife!"
> > >
> > >Inside he sees his favourite violinist Joachim and Clara Schumann
> > sitting
> > >at a table, so he goes over to join them.
> > >
> > >"Hello," Brahms says to Joachim, "How are you?" and Joachim says
> > "I'm free
> > >but alone. How are you?" And Brahms answers, "I'm free but happy."
> > >
> > >Then Brahms asks Clara, "How's Robert?" and she says, "He's freezing
> > his
> > >balls off outside."
> > >
> > >"That's a shame," says Brahms. "And how are you?" And Clara says,
> > "I'm
> > >free but I don't fancy you."
> >
> > I guess this is proof that I will never understand German humor.
> >
> > Regards, PHG
> > (To reply by mail, send to my initials at the same site)
>
> I'm hoping that most of our readers know about the FAE sonata, a
> collaboration of (?) Brahms, Schumann, and somebody else. The main
> theme was F -- A -- E (higher),and it was known as "Frei aber einsam"
> (free but lonely). Brahms varied it to F -- A -- F ("Frei aber froh:
> -- free but happy).
The FAF motif launches and pervades the 3rd symphony.
David
> Just in case. The relevant pieces are almost
> never performed; I don't think they've been recorded.
>
Keith Edgerley
>
>
>
> The Scherzo Brahms wrote for the FAE has been recorded, and Tasmin
> Little played it at the Proms in the Park last year. I have a recording
> of a version for clarinet & piano, which sounds ace.
There are about 20 recordings of the Scherzo without the other movements
in the catalogue.
It seems a shame that the sonata is not recorded whole.
Pierre Amoyal went on a recital tour a few years ago with all the Brahms
sonatas plus the
scherzo. I heard him in Notre Dame des Sablons in Aigues-Mortes on what
must have been the
hottest night of the year and don't know how he managed to play in
formal dress.
It sounds an indigestible programme, but his playing carried it. The
idea
of a Frenchman playing Brahms sounded highly suspect to me but it really
worked.
(If anyone is interested, there some pictures of Aigues-Mortes where I
have my second home
at http://www.softadventure.net/provence.htm)
--
Keith
Sapere aude
John Glesener
Rob Kerr wrote:
> Frank Eggleston wrote:
> >
> > I'm hoping that most of our readers know about the FAE sonata, a
> > collaboration of (?) Brahms, Schumann, and somebody else. The main
> > theme was F -- A -- E (higher),and it was known as "Frei aber einsam"
> > (free but lonely). Brahms varied it to F -- A -- F ("Frei aber froh:
> > -- free but happy). Just in case. The relevant pieces are almost
> > never performed; I don't think they've been recorded.
> >
>
> The Scherzo Brahms wrote for the FAE has been recorded, and Tasmin
> Little played it at the Proms in the Park last year. I have a recording
> of a version for clarinet & piano, which sounds ace.
>
> Rob Kerr
There is also a recording of this piece for piano and viola. The sad thing
is that 2nd rate unpublished Brahms consists of pieces that almost any other
composer of the era would be happy to take credit for.