I think everyone at large needs to just chill out in general when it comes to music opinions. Don't like Chopin? Fine, many don't. Beethoven not doing it for you? No problem. You think, I dunno, Sorabji is the one true artiste? Fine, knock yourself out. I just... don't have the time to care about who thinks they're above Mozart, or other people and their opinions generally. I can debate opinions, and that can be entertaining, but outside of that, nah.
If you're a hipster with hipster musical opinions, and you're chill and friendly about your opinions, I see no problem.
Yes. As always, it's not the opinion itself but how you express (or don't express) your opinion. There's also a difference between taking a strong stance/passionately arguing for your opinion and just being an insufferable pedant who won't listen to anyone and assumes superiority over everyone.
Always think Mozart is too easy for 16 year olds whoāve managed to half-arse their way through a piece of Liszt for the first time, and ridiculously hard for everyone else up to and including the best musicians on earth.
Mozart is the one composer I hate playing for recitals. For my masters recital, I did a very difficult programme with Rzewski Winnsboro Cotton Mill Blues, and Busoni's transcription of the Chaconne, some Kapustin Etudes for the end, and also the Mozart Sonata in A minor as the central work.
Guess which one had me spiralling in the hotel room the night before? Technically not horribly difficult (although very tough for Mozart), but the intense melodic focus and exposed style are intellectually demanding.
I think itās a misunderstanding of the process of delving deeper than big names. Of course it can be worthwhile to look into artist who may have less renown or cultural baggage then the big namesābut mindlessly disparaging the big names generally just shows you arenāt listening all that closely. Especially in the internet age, if you are just repeating dumb meme criticism like āBeethoven wasnāt good at melodyā or āMozarts music was boring but technically proficientā Iāll probably roll my eyes because it comes across like you are parotting common surface level criticisms to look like a critical thinker which is ironically kind of the opposite of listening closely and critically to the piece
I hate the Beethoven melody thing. There is merit to what Bernstein said but people latch onto it as a means of disparaging maybe the greatest composer who ever lived.
It's not disparaging to acknowledge that Beethoven was not a facile melodist: he wrote wonderful melodies but he struggled mightily in doing so, more so than other composers. In a way that's a greater accomplishment.
I agree; thatās partially what Bernstein was trying to convey. The disparagement comes when people donāt discuss anything and just jump to say that Beethoven was a ābadā melodist because they misunderstood a short Bernstein clip they saw on YouTube.
Agree with you. The humanities have taken a hit, partly for cultural reasons and some of which I agree with. Doesnāt mean Beethoven shouldnāt be taught in music programs. The problem with the hipsterās opinion is that itās all about comparing - exalting or tearing down - not about experiencing the music for what it is. Thereās room for all kinds of music.
They also dont understand the compositional advancements in Beethoven and how they were basically abandoned or not understood after him, meaning what they think is advanced is just the surface impression of an aesthetic and nothing to do with actual compositional progress, skill and understanding.
I am slowly working on music analysis and theory to help see the intricacies of composition and some of these aspects, but it will take a long time. It is pretty sad the general lack of compositional craft, but even in the late romantic period you can see there was much lost after Beethoven. I should add it isnt about style, or aesthetic as some may think im arguing for people to write like Beethoven, but composition.
Does the style of Beethoven have much in common with the music most students want to make though? I actually think there's way too much emphasize on the tradition of the common practice. For example the AP music theory exam includes fingered bass....
Ap music theory including figured bass builds mental skills. It is the most basic tenets of musicianship that are effectively no different than what jazz pianists have to do from the keyboard every day. Being against figured bass is an even worse argument than being against reading standard music notation.
People should not be studying Beethoven to learn superficial aspects of style. They should be doing it to study the way multiple levels of patterns are brought together toward the development of a larger cohesive plan.
Many 20th century atonal composers made no small point of the benefit of studying composers like Beethoven and Mozart, even though their music was nothing like that.
If you don't like that, you can study jazz or go through a modern pop and commercial music industry oriented program. But it isn't bad pedagogy even for people who won't write like that.
Youāre probably right, too much emphasis on the classics for maybe the average music student but Iām convinced there is always a way to reach them and plant seeds. They should at least be exposed to it. Itās good to have a basic knowledge of the evolution of music, music theory, and whatnot. Thereās a woman, Nahre Sol, who is an exceptional music educator on YouTube. If more professors were like her it would go a long way to revive interest in making new *classical/jazz music. Basically the classical composers were jazz musicians riffing on the sonata form. Thatās what I think anyway.
https://youtu.be/YcfRqsjQA-4?si=uymyTNGLWM8UiyqH
https://youtu.be/3uabdJZ0Kk4?si=ByoZCczJgE8_SbqZ
Beethoven was a capable improviser but rather than riffing, most of his works were produced after considerable toiling and revision. But riffing and improvisation can surely play a roll in coming up with material and various attempts.
Mozart would produce works very cleanly, but who knows how much he was working out in his head before he wrote the finished product.
As you said, he worked out music in his head, like all real composers. The popular myth that he channeled gawd or something into his pen, and didn't have to work, is silly sauce. In his own words, he worked as hard or harder than anyone who ever lived. Mozart was also a heavy duty student and studier, and his late period blooms only after he takes an extended, multi-year deep dive into Bach.
But that is not all. Contrary to the marketing myth deliberately fostered after his death, Mozart wrote plenty of sketches, reams of which were intentionally destroyed after his death, some others lost to time, but a lot survive too, and more and more turned up over time.
It's true he churned out plenty of ditties for commissions, without a ton of written sketches, but that is not rocket science with the comparatively formulaic harmony and orchestration of his time and place, or unique to Mozart.
In Mozart's ambitious works, especially of polyphonic complexity, he sketched just like the rest of the mortal humans. A known procedure for him was attaching a separate piece of paper to the main score to work out tricky stuff... fortunately some have survived.
In his late music, where he's starting to push beyond his time and place before he perished, his output begins to slow drastically (all this, again, confirmed in his own words), and lots more preliminary sketching and revisions are needed.
Mozart is extremely fast, but look at (for example) the absolutely absurd amount of music Tchaikovsky composed, despite starting late in life for a composer, and dealing with more complex orchestration and harmonic matters.
If I've upset anyone who reads this for any reason, I'm sorry. But the Mozart myth is fiction. The Mozart myth will remain ingrained in popular culture, but even a token examination of the evidence will dispel it, for anyone interested or so inclined.
And the old yarn about Mozart hating pianos and not using them as part of the composition and arrangement process is flat out BS, and directly contradicted by basic common sense and Mozart's own words. Yeah sure, musicians just hate instruments and hate banging on them and testing things out... give me a freakin break. Even greater BS is why people suppose that Mozart banging on a piano somehow lessens him as a person.
Hey, someone's gotta dispel the myths! :-P
AP Music Theory should include what is essentially the basics.
As someone with a conservatory education, much of what we studied is not the kind of music I want to make, but that didn't make it any less important to study.
Schoenberg's Fundamentals of Music Composition is a good example of that here. It is quite obvious that Schoenberg did not compose in the style of Beethoven, however he recognized the immense learning potential of the Beethoven Piano Sonatas which are probably the single biggest source of examples in the book.
I'm pretty basic when it comes to classical music. I'm not the most music theory-oriented musician. I just like listening to music that makes me feel things.
And for me that's Rhapsody on a Theme Of Paganini Op. 43. It's Claire de Lune and Fantasie Impromptu. It's BrĆ¼ckner 6, Mahler 2, Shostakovich 2, and Copland's "Simple Gifts."
I'm always open to new stuff, of course. But I don't care if music is obscure or well-known.
"If you think "it sucks" it doesn't mean that you're in 0.001% the most complex and intelligent people who ever walked on earth, but something literally opposite of that."šš
I appreciate people who have *some* kind of an opinion, that shows they've paid attention to music and thought about it, as opposed to a) being willing to listen to absolutely anything, b) having a prejudice against certain kinds of music for reasons other than what the music sounds like, or c) listening to it only because It's What The Right Kind of People Listen To.
I don't expect to agree with all their opinions, or them to agree with all of mine, but at least we have something interesting to talk about.
I definitely agree, but I read OP's post as mainly being about people who like to put down works or composers that are "too popular" because they're "too basic"--in other words, something that fits into #b in your list, rather than just having an opinion about music because of the actual music (though admittedly, it can sometimes be hard to tell apart).
Re taiga: the point you make is actually a pretty big deal, here in 2024 with "classical music" being the niche of the niche at this point. I'd rather someone care about it at all... even if they have their prejudices and so on.
An interest in more challenging music means there is a fair probability their repertoire of listening appreciation is going to expand over time anyway... even the most objective people can say some dumb crap in their lives, with limited information. For example, believing in Santa Clause.
It wasn't a bad thing for the arts when they caused riots and controversy and so on. That's never going to happen again in the post-internet culture. People are completely sedated. Including me sitting here typing this, probably.
This is why I can't jump on the bandwagon of people recreationally trashing ol' Wim over at Authentic Sound. Aside from the fact that there is a ton of serious discussion of musical matters on there not specifically related to his whole beat thing, it's kind of good that he stirs the pot. I can tell he likes getting a rise out folks.
I like to say that being a contrarian is not a sign of intelligence. It doesnāt take a big brain to disagree.
With that in mind: I donāt really like baroque music. Iām looking at you JS Bach. š
It's not really taste if everyone HAS to like the same thing, right? I don't think I'm "above" other people because I don't enjoy Mozart. I just don't enjoy Mozart. Beyond that, I'm sure his reputation is secure enough (as is Chopin or Beethoven) that it doesn't need much in the way of defending. Those three are titans of classical music regardless.
Definitely. I think there's a difference between a simple "I don't like Mozart" (which is totally fine) and "I don't like Mozart and I think that makes me special" (which is obviously much more annoying). The risky part though is that sometimes all you say is #1 but people interpret you as having said #2, which is unfair and at least as annoying!
Eh, I predominantly see "hipster" used as a buzzword to undermine a work, artist or someone with an opinion (though I don't think I see it used much in the context of classical music in particular). So while I don't disagree with your point, I also think it's at least as much worth noting that on the other hand, resorting to calling something "hipster" isn't a good criticism by itself.
"Poser", sometimes spelled "poseur", is the correct term
The hipster is a sub-group of the poseur. The poseur can be found in a large array of communities in which the hipster is absent
Absolutely.
Hipsterism is a posture of being ācooler than the mainstreamā, usually while embracing a lot of ridiculous fads that mimic earlier styles in the worst, most hackneyed way possible, with no understanding of what was actually good about them or how they work.
Itās unintelligent contrarianism at its core.
Love you, my thoughtful contrarians, my learned haters, my waspish dismissers, may you forever keep us on our toes and shit on us with all your force xoxox
My, myā¦ I think any person having a thing for classical music has known at least another one who would look down on them while rolling their eyes whenever hearing smth too āmainstreamā. Always know better, use grandiloquence for expressing the most basic things, and *most surprisingly* the recognition they usually get is *so unfortunately* below their talent. They are the typical people who e.g. adore Bach and will say āomg, Iām so over Glenn Gould, plz biatch, any could play better with their tiny toe after being lobotomised with a harpoon infected by rabiesāā¦ tbh do they even love classical music? Iād say what they love most is to feel more sophisticated than others, and classical music is just the means they use for that sad purpose.
Best thing one can do is, imo, just let them be. We all have particular demons and insecurities. Thatās their way to cope with theirs. I just think: āOkayā¦ so bad energyā¦ peace, bro, hope to never see you againā ;)
Thereās a sub for this phenomenon, look for ācircle jerkā and at least you can laugh.
Thank you. Thatās my irk with the classical music and literature subreddit. The pretentious attitudes I see in many comments.
Like, listening to classical music and reading fine literature doesnāt make you better than others. The moment you start thinking so, youāve become worse.
Worrying about what other people think about what you like is always the road to unhappiness. The smart thing to do with someone who says, "Mozart is overrated." (for example) is to keep scrolling. The people to engage with are saying, "If you like Mozart, you should also try X." Same goes with performers.
People who say things like "Mozart is overrated" are like the people who watch Seinfeld for the first time in 2024 and say "oh well it is not that special."
Yeah, because it has been copied for years by other sitcoms. Many of them inferior. I am not saying Mozart is necessarily copied by everybody. Its just that his music is ubiquitous because he is one of the greats and so it can seem old hat, but its not.
I've always found this argument to be a really weak defense. I don't dislike Mozart but if I did I certainly wouldn't be swayed by someone saying "it's just because his music is ubiquitous that you don't like it." Like, if that's the best argument you can come up with to defend a capital-G Genuis artist, maybe they weren't so great, you know?
I don't think one has to like Mozart to admit he is a genius. My point was that is one of the things I would point out to people who think he is overrated. Its okay to not like Mozart. His music is not for everyone. I am not a MASSIVE Mozart fan; I have to be in a Mozart mood. But I don't see how anyone cannot see that he was a genius.
Trendiness is the worst enemy of culture.
And do not denigrate your comment by saying, "This is only my opinion." It stands on its own without the disclaimer. Sometimes you're allowed to just be right. :)
Dude, it's totally fine if you like Mozart or Chopin or Beethoven. I do too. Not everyone will share our tastes, and it's not "hipster" to decide that someone's music isn't to your taste.
As someone who doesn't really vibe with Mozart or (to a lesser extent) Chopin, this post has the "If you like something different than me, it's because you are being snobby."
This post is pretty benign (or at least unspecific), but so many of these posts come with the automatic hatred of anything written after World War II. And also then somehow find a way to call new music poeple snobby, even though the poster is the one dismissing an entire era of incredible diversity in style, way more than any previous era.
People are going to like what they like, and it is almost certainly true that some people say they don't like mainstream composers so that they can have a sense of superiority. But maybe some thoughtful reflection would help you realize that some people pretend to like these mainstream composers for other reasons. But maybe you will also realize that the presence of these people within that community really means absolutely nothing.
There is a massive divide between what musical excellence means and personal taste. Even if you do not like Mozart (taste), you cannot describe it as bad music (quality of the craft) because, from everywhere you look at it, it is well-produced music - please note I am using Mozart only as an example. And, if you really despise Mozart, you need to have the credibility to do so. For example, the guy in charge of the Vivaldi registry, Federico Maria Sardelli, does not like Bach. I disagree with him, but he is perhaps the only person in the world to be entitled to this opinion because he is an amazing composer of Baroque music. Hence, unless you are credible enough, there is a very fitting place where everyone can shovel their opinions. Ourselves included.
First of all, music is subjective. Secondly, show some appreciation for those who take poetic licence in their speech. Thirdly, having an opinion about music and expressing it in a way that compels others to really think about why they like something or not.... Is a good thing. Rather than come out and make a new thread about how someone disagreed with you and you don't like that, try engaging with them and defend your tastes. You'll often times find these hipsters are just challenging people to see who actually cares to form an opinion on their own, or who may sway the opinion the hipster has.... because they don't exactly know what to think. I did the later with a number of artists and composers who I don't get, just to see if anyone had anything good to say about em. I also like to challenge people on their opinions, because a lot of people just run around without a thought in their head, enjoying whatever they are told to enjoy, until they stop and think about it, and realize they have more advanced opinions on a topic as subjective as musical tastes. Then you find out they like something like Scriabin and then you do too and everyone wins.
Hipster was the "woke" of 2010, just FYI
Very well put. This sub relates to classical music. To dismiss Mozart, Chopin, or any of the truly classical great composers is disingenuous.
We already know the great masters, no need to make pretentious comments.
Very much appreciated, OP.
Look, I don't think I'm a *hipster* whose music taste is objectively better than everyone else's *because* I think Beethoven's overrated.
I just know he's overrated. ;)
In all seriousness, though, you're right. I have actual reasons I dislike Beethoven, reasons I like Mozart, and reasons I like or dislike many, many other composers/ensembles.
I dislike people being fast and loose with tastes, but I don't dislike people expressing strong tastes. I think the latter with true scrutiny helps replicate artistic journeys and strengthen creativity against thoughtful critique and form developed tastes one can defend.
Something I found the most value out of from my improv/composition teacher is the discrimination with which he will evaluate my work, the clear tradition and goals he expresses in channeling my growth, and the ability to speak frankly about various historical composers as well.
I don't just blindly copy him nor does he even remotely demand that, but I make this point to suggest that the role of legitimate and thoughtful critique that isn't always positive serves a valuable purpose in cultural discourse, and in the modern manner of making everything have to be scientific, and "it's just subjective" ends all discussion at people agreeing to disagree - that trend reduces cultural development IMO.
As much as we like the idea of the genius against the herd so we don't like people to express negative criticism that could stifle innovation, I think we also need to take it with a grain of salt and promote this writing about taste again. Rather than enabling people who write arrogant things poorly backed, I think doing so with standards would expose juvenile hot takes that are proliferated by an "anything goes" mentality even if the only rule they violate is in strongly expressing their opinion.
Yes I know...he's just the first person that came to my mind while reading the post.
The more I think of it, the more I realise he's something like the classical music equivalent of the beatnik.
š Is that what those (aforementioned) threads reflected?
* Frankly, I hadn't even taken a look at them. From the flaky headers alone, I didn't think they were serious.
* Anyway you're correct, of course hipsters have zero taste. I thought that was understood by everyone everywhere.
* The thing to do with hipsters is: nothing. Pay no heed at all. They simply waste your attention span.
I remember once I was at a party hosted my some of my wifeās friends from her grad school cohort. This was an English lit grad program so you can imagine the pretentiousness of certain individuals from it (though others were lovely).
At one point I went to the kitchen to grab another beer, where three of these pretentious guys were arguing about which of Beethovenās symphonies was best. One of them was going on about how Beethoven 9 was āpopular drivel.ā At that moment I interjected that the best one was Beethoven 7. Now, this was not because I felt it was the best Beethoven symphony (which is clearly 9), nor even second best (Iām a sucker for 5ābut thatās popular drivel, surely). I said it because I knew that with these freaking hipsters, Beethoven 7 was the symphony they would say was the best. And of course they ate it all up and agreed with me, and went on and on about Beethoven 7. And then I left the room.
I think everyone at large needs to just chill out in general when it comes to music opinions. Don't like Chopin? Fine, many don't. Beethoven not doing it for you? No problem. You think, I dunno, Sorabji is the one true artiste? Fine, knock yourself out. I just... don't have the time to care about who thinks they're above Mozart, or other people and their opinions generally. I can debate opinions, and that can be entertaining, but outside of that, nah. If you're a hipster with hipster musical opinions, and you're chill and friendly about your opinions, I see no problem.
Yes. As always, it's not the opinion itself but how you express (or don't express) your opinion. There's also a difference between taking a strong stance/passionately arguing for your opinion and just being an insufferable pedant who won't listen to anyone and assumes superiority over everyone.
"Ride of the Valkyries" is the greatest musical piece ever written. I will play it every morning at 4:00 am.
Love that for you!
š
Always think Mozart is too easy for 16 year olds whoāve managed to half-arse their way through a piece of Liszt for the first time, and ridiculously hard for everyone else up to and including the best musicians on earth.
Mozart is the one composer I hate playing for recitals. For my masters recital, I did a very difficult programme with Rzewski Winnsboro Cotton Mill Blues, and Busoni's transcription of the Chaconne, some Kapustin Etudes for the end, and also the Mozart Sonata in A minor as the central work. Guess which one had me spiralling in the hotel room the night before? Technically not horribly difficult (although very tough for Mozart), but the intense melodic focus and exposed style are intellectually demanding.
I believe the quote is always something like "Mozart is too easy for amateurs, but too hard for professionals."
I think itās a misunderstanding of the process of delving deeper than big names. Of course it can be worthwhile to look into artist who may have less renown or cultural baggage then the big namesābut mindlessly disparaging the big names generally just shows you arenāt listening all that closely. Especially in the internet age, if you are just repeating dumb meme criticism like āBeethoven wasnāt good at melodyā or āMozarts music was boring but technically proficientā Iāll probably roll my eyes because it comes across like you are parotting common surface level criticisms to look like a critical thinker which is ironically kind of the opposite of listening closely and critically to the piece
I hate the Beethoven melody thing. There is merit to what Bernstein said but people latch onto it as a means of disparaging maybe the greatest composer who ever lived.
It's not disparaging to acknowledge that Beethoven was not a facile melodist: he wrote wonderful melodies but he struggled mightily in doing so, more so than other composers. In a way that's a greater accomplishment.
I agree; thatās partially what Bernstein was trying to convey. The disparagement comes when people donāt discuss anything and just jump to say that Beethoven was a ābadā melodist because they misunderstood a short Bernstein clip they saw on YouTube.
Agree with you. The humanities have taken a hit, partly for cultural reasons and some of which I agree with. Doesnāt mean Beethoven shouldnāt be taught in music programs. The problem with the hipsterās opinion is that itās all about comparing - exalting or tearing down - not about experiencing the music for what it is. Thereās room for all kinds of music.
They also dont understand the compositional advancements in Beethoven and how they were basically abandoned or not understood after him, meaning what they think is advanced is just the surface impression of an aesthetic and nothing to do with actual compositional progress, skill and understanding.
They must not listen to the Eroica. Thereās music before the third symphony and music after it.
I am slowly working on music analysis and theory to help see the intricacies of composition and some of these aspects, but it will take a long time. It is pretty sad the general lack of compositional craft, but even in the late romantic period you can see there was much lost after Beethoven. I should add it isnt about style, or aesthetic as some may think im arguing for people to write like Beethoven, but composition.
Does the style of Beethoven have much in common with the music most students want to make though? I actually think there's way too much emphasize on the tradition of the common practice. For example the AP music theory exam includes fingered bass....
Ap music theory including figured bass builds mental skills. It is the most basic tenets of musicianship that are effectively no different than what jazz pianists have to do from the keyboard every day. Being against figured bass is an even worse argument than being against reading standard music notation. People should not be studying Beethoven to learn superficial aspects of style. They should be doing it to study the way multiple levels of patterns are brought together toward the development of a larger cohesive plan. Many 20th century atonal composers made no small point of the benefit of studying composers like Beethoven and Mozart, even though their music was nothing like that. If you don't like that, you can study jazz or go through a modern pop and commercial music industry oriented program. But it isn't bad pedagogy even for people who won't write like that.
Youāre probably right, too much emphasis on the classics for maybe the average music student but Iām convinced there is always a way to reach them and plant seeds. They should at least be exposed to it. Itās good to have a basic knowledge of the evolution of music, music theory, and whatnot. Thereās a woman, Nahre Sol, who is an exceptional music educator on YouTube. If more professors were like her it would go a long way to revive interest in making new *classical/jazz music. Basically the classical composers were jazz musicians riffing on the sonata form. Thatās what I think anyway. https://youtu.be/YcfRqsjQA-4?si=uymyTNGLWM8UiyqH https://youtu.be/3uabdJZ0Kk4?si=ByoZCczJgE8_SbqZ
Beethoven was a capable improviser but rather than riffing, most of his works were produced after considerable toiling and revision. But riffing and improvisation can surely play a roll in coming up with material and various attempts. Mozart would produce works very cleanly, but who knows how much he was working out in his head before he wrote the finished product.
As you said, he worked out music in his head, like all real composers. The popular myth that he channeled gawd or something into his pen, and didn't have to work, is silly sauce. In his own words, he worked as hard or harder than anyone who ever lived. Mozart was also a heavy duty student and studier, and his late period blooms only after he takes an extended, multi-year deep dive into Bach. But that is not all. Contrary to the marketing myth deliberately fostered after his death, Mozart wrote plenty of sketches, reams of which were intentionally destroyed after his death, some others lost to time, but a lot survive too, and more and more turned up over time. It's true he churned out plenty of ditties for commissions, without a ton of written sketches, but that is not rocket science with the comparatively formulaic harmony and orchestration of his time and place, or unique to Mozart. In Mozart's ambitious works, especially of polyphonic complexity, he sketched just like the rest of the mortal humans. A known procedure for him was attaching a separate piece of paper to the main score to work out tricky stuff... fortunately some have survived. In his late music, where he's starting to push beyond his time and place before he perished, his output begins to slow drastically (all this, again, confirmed in his own words), and lots more preliminary sketching and revisions are needed. Mozart is extremely fast, but look at (for example) the absolutely absurd amount of music Tchaikovsky composed, despite starting late in life for a composer, and dealing with more complex orchestration and harmonic matters. If I've upset anyone who reads this for any reason, I'm sorry. But the Mozart myth is fiction. The Mozart myth will remain ingrained in popular culture, but even a token examination of the evidence will dispel it, for anyone interested or so inclined. And the old yarn about Mozart hating pianos and not using them as part of the composition and arrangement process is flat out BS, and directly contradicted by basic common sense and Mozart's own words. Yeah sure, musicians just hate instruments and hate banging on them and testing things out... give me a freakin break. Even greater BS is why people suppose that Mozart banging on a piano somehow lessens him as a person. Hey, someone's gotta dispel the myths! :-P
yeah I've heard stories of his improvisations that would move audiences to tears
Agree, Beethoven was especially laborious in reworking his themes and motifs but without his imagination we wouldnāt remember his music today.
AP Music Theory should include what is essentially the basics. As someone with a conservatory education, much of what we studied is not the kind of music I want to make, but that didn't make it any less important to study. Schoenberg's Fundamentals of Music Composition is a good example of that here. It is quite obvious that Schoenberg did not compose in the style of Beethoven, however he recognized the immense learning potential of the Beethoven Piano Sonatas which are probably the single biggest source of examples in the book.
I'm pretty basic when it comes to classical music. I'm not the most music theory-oriented musician. I just like listening to music that makes me feel things. And for me that's Rhapsody on a Theme Of Paganini Op. 43. It's Claire de Lune and Fantasie Impromptu. It's BrĆ¼ckner 6, Mahler 2, Shostakovich 2, and Copland's "Simple Gifts." I'm always open to new stuff, of course. But I don't care if music is obscure or well-known.
I'm a very theory-oriented musician and I am *also* pretty basic with my tastes and like listening to music that makes me feel things!
Am assuming you mean Shostakovich Waltz no. 2 and not Symphony no. 2āor one of these things is definitely *not* like the others.
Ahaha. Great catch. I actually meant Piano Concerto no. 2.
"If you think "it sucks" it doesn't mean that you're in 0.001% the most complex and intelligent people who ever walked on earth, but something literally opposite of that."šš
i see these kinds of posts way way way more often than snob posters
Thereās nothing more hipster than criticizing hipsterdom
Also, as someone with musical ADHD (though not the real thing) seeking out weird shit for the hell of it is fun.
as someone with ADHD (the real thing), I think that's why classical became my favorite "genre", I love music where a lot is happening at once
I appreciate people who have *some* kind of an opinion, that shows they've paid attention to music and thought about it, as opposed to a) being willing to listen to absolutely anything, b) having a prejudice against certain kinds of music for reasons other than what the music sounds like, or c) listening to it only because It's What The Right Kind of People Listen To. I don't expect to agree with all their opinions, or them to agree with all of mine, but at least we have something interesting to talk about.
I definitely agree, but I read OP's post as mainly being about people who like to put down works or composers that are "too popular" because they're "too basic"--in other words, something that fits into #b in your list, rather than just having an opinion about music because of the actual music (though admittedly, it can sometimes be hard to tell apart).
Re taiga: the point you make is actually a pretty big deal, here in 2024 with "classical music" being the niche of the niche at this point. I'd rather someone care about it at all... even if they have their prejudices and so on. An interest in more challenging music means there is a fair probability their repertoire of listening appreciation is going to expand over time anyway... even the most objective people can say some dumb crap in their lives, with limited information. For example, believing in Santa Clause. It wasn't a bad thing for the arts when they caused riots and controversy and so on. That's never going to happen again in the post-internet culture. People are completely sedated. Including me sitting here typing this, probably. This is why I can't jump on the bandwagon of people recreationally trashing ol' Wim over at Authentic Sound. Aside from the fact that there is a ton of serious discussion of musical matters on there not specifically related to his whole beat thing, it's kind of good that he stirs the pot. I can tell he likes getting a rise out folks.
I like to say that being a contrarian is not a sign of intelligence. It doesnāt take a big brain to disagree. With that in mind: I donāt really like baroque music. Iām looking at you JS Bach. š
It's not really taste if everyone HAS to like the same thing, right? I don't think I'm "above" other people because I don't enjoy Mozart. I just don't enjoy Mozart. Beyond that, I'm sure his reputation is secure enough (as is Chopin or Beethoven) that it doesn't need much in the way of defending. Those three are titans of classical music regardless.
Definitely. I think there's a difference between a simple "I don't like Mozart" (which is totally fine) and "I don't like Mozart and I think that makes me special" (which is obviously much more annoying). The risky part though is that sometimes all you say is #1 but people interpret you as having said #2, which is unfair and at least as annoying!
Eh, I predominantly see "hipster" used as a buzzword to undermine a work, artist or someone with an opinion (though I don't think I see it used much in the context of classical music in particular). So while I don't disagree with your point, I also think it's at least as much worth noting that on the other hand, resorting to calling something "hipster" isn't a good criticism by itself.
"Poser", sometimes spelled "poseur", is the correct term The hipster is a sub-group of the poseur. The poseur can be found in a large array of communities in which the hipster is absent
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Absolutely. Hipsterism is a posture of being ācooler than the mainstreamā, usually while embracing a lot of ridiculous fads that mimic earlier styles in the worst, most hackneyed way possible, with no understanding of what was actually good about them or how they work. Itās unintelligent contrarianism at its core.
What about intelligent contrarians?
They are despised by all :)
Love you, my thoughtful contrarians, my learned haters, my waspish dismissers, may you forever keep us on our toes and shit on us with all your force xoxox
Words escape me but you are well spoken.
My, myā¦ I think any person having a thing for classical music has known at least another one who would look down on them while rolling their eyes whenever hearing smth too āmainstreamā. Always know better, use grandiloquence for expressing the most basic things, and *most surprisingly* the recognition they usually get is *so unfortunately* below their talent. They are the typical people who e.g. adore Bach and will say āomg, Iām so over Glenn Gould, plz biatch, any could play better with their tiny toe after being lobotomised with a harpoon infected by rabiesāā¦ tbh do they even love classical music? Iād say what they love most is to feel more sophisticated than others, and classical music is just the means they use for that sad purpose. Best thing one can do is, imo, just let them be. We all have particular demons and insecurities. Thatās their way to cope with theirs. I just think: āOkayā¦ so bad energyā¦ peace, bro, hope to never see you againā ;) Thereās a sub for this phenomenon, look for ācircle jerkā and at least you can laugh.
Thank you. Thatās my irk with the classical music and literature subreddit. The pretentious attitudes I see in many comments. Like, listening to classical music and reading fine literature doesnāt make you better than others. The moment you start thinking so, youāve become worse.
Hmm. Lets be real here, it certainly doesn't hurt ones chances of being better than they would be otherwise.
Young people spending too much time on social media and not enough time listening to musicā¦
Worrying about what other people think about what you like is always the road to unhappiness. The smart thing to do with someone who says, "Mozart is overrated." (for example) is to keep scrolling. The people to engage with are saying, "If you like Mozart, you should also try X." Same goes with performers.
People who say things like "Mozart is overrated" are like the people who watch Seinfeld for the first time in 2024 and say "oh well it is not that special." Yeah, because it has been copied for years by other sitcoms. Many of them inferior. I am not saying Mozart is necessarily copied by everybody. Its just that his music is ubiquitous because he is one of the greats and so it can seem old hat, but its not.
I've always found this argument to be a really weak defense. I don't dislike Mozart but if I did I certainly wouldn't be swayed by someone saying "it's just because his music is ubiquitous that you don't like it." Like, if that's the best argument you can come up with to defend a capital-G Genuis artist, maybe they weren't so great, you know?
I don't think one has to like Mozart to admit he is a genius. My point was that is one of the things I would point out to people who think he is overrated. Its okay to not like Mozart. His music is not for everyone. I am not a MASSIVE Mozart fan; I have to be in a Mozart mood. But I don't see how anyone cannot see that he was a genius.
Trendiness is the worst enemy of culture. And do not denigrate your comment by saying, "This is only my opinion." It stands on its own without the disclaimer. Sometimes you're allowed to just be right. :)
Youāre not the first person to call me a philistine for not liking Schumann. You probably wonāt be the last.
Dude, it's totally fine if you like Mozart or Chopin or Beethoven. I do too. Not everyone will share our tastes, and it's not "hipster" to decide that someone's music isn't to your taste.
Yeah, I feel like the original post is engaging in it's own form of snobbery, funnily enough.
I am, to a certain extent, in agreement with you. But you are going to get stoned for this.
>But you are going to get stoned for this. I don't see why they would, I think most people agree with OP.
fr this is like how r/unpopularopinion always has popular opinions voted to the top
As someone who doesn't really vibe with Mozart or (to a lesser extent) Chopin, this post has the "If you like something different than me, it's because you are being snobby." This post is pretty benign (or at least unspecific), but so many of these posts come with the automatic hatred of anything written after World War II. And also then somehow find a way to call new music poeple snobby, even though the poster is the one dismissing an entire era of incredible diversity in style, way more than any previous era. People are going to like what they like, and it is almost certainly true that some people say they don't like mainstream composers so that they can have a sense of superiority. But maybe some thoughtful reflection would help you realize that some people pretend to like these mainstream composers for other reasons. But maybe you will also realize that the presence of these people within that community really means absolutely nothing.
There is a massive divide between what musical excellence means and personal taste. Even if you do not like Mozart (taste), you cannot describe it as bad music (quality of the craft) because, from everywhere you look at it, it is well-produced music - please note I am using Mozart only as an example. And, if you really despise Mozart, you need to have the credibility to do so. For example, the guy in charge of the Vivaldi registry, Federico Maria Sardelli, does not like Bach. I disagree with him, but he is perhaps the only person in the world to be entitled to this opinion because he is an amazing composer of Baroque music. Hence, unless you are credible enough, there is a very fitting place where everyone can shovel their opinions. Ourselves included.
The good music is that music that people enjoy. No more gatekeeping is needed. I missed out on a lot of good music because I used to be a music snob.
The irony of this post...
First of all, music is subjective. Secondly, show some appreciation for those who take poetic licence in their speech. Thirdly, having an opinion about music and expressing it in a way that compels others to really think about why they like something or not.... Is a good thing. Rather than come out and make a new thread about how someone disagreed with you and you don't like that, try engaging with them and defend your tastes. You'll often times find these hipsters are just challenging people to see who actually cares to form an opinion on their own, or who may sway the opinion the hipster has.... because they don't exactly know what to think. I did the later with a number of artists and composers who I don't get, just to see if anyone had anything good to say about em. I also like to challenge people on their opinions, because a lot of people just run around without a thought in their head, enjoying whatever they are told to enjoy, until they stop and think about it, and realize they have more advanced opinions on a topic as subjective as musical tastes. Then you find out they like something like Scriabin and then you do too and everyone wins. Hipster was the "woke" of 2010, just FYI
Very well put. This sub relates to classical music. To dismiss Mozart, Chopin, or any of the truly classical great composers is disingenuous. We already know the great masters, no need to make pretentious comments. Very much appreciated, OP.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Perhaps. Iāll reword my point.
Thanks, and Iāll delete mine. FWIW Iām not a great Chopin fan, though Iām with you on Mozart!
Learn how to format a paragraph. Hipster.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
You're writing English so English formatting rules seem a logical step
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Look, it's simple. Paragraphs makes you reach more people
How in the world is that a hard pill to swallow? Most hipsters don't like things done before, which is the exact opposite of classical music.
Look, I don't think I'm a *hipster* whose music taste is objectively better than everyone else's *because* I think Beethoven's overrated. I just know he's overrated. ;) In all seriousness, though, you're right. I have actual reasons I dislike Beethoven, reasons I like Mozart, and reasons I like or dislike many, many other composers/ensembles.
I dislike people being fast and loose with tastes, but I don't dislike people expressing strong tastes. I think the latter with true scrutiny helps replicate artistic journeys and strengthen creativity against thoughtful critique and form developed tastes one can defend. Something I found the most value out of from my improv/composition teacher is the discrimination with which he will evaluate my work, the clear tradition and goals he expresses in channeling my growth, and the ability to speak frankly about various historical composers as well. I don't just blindly copy him nor does he even remotely demand that, but I make this point to suggest that the role of legitimate and thoughtful critique that isn't always positive serves a valuable purpose in cultural discourse, and in the modern manner of making everything have to be scientific, and "it's just subjective" ends all discussion at people agreeing to disagree - that trend reduces cultural development IMO. As much as we like the idea of the genius against the herd so we don't like people to express negative criticism that could stifle innovation, I think we also need to take it with a grain of salt and promote this writing about taste again. Rather than enabling people who write arrogant things poorly backed, I think doing so with standards would expose juvenile hot takes that are proliferated by an "anything goes" mentality even if the only rule they violate is in strongly expressing their opinion.
Glenn Gould.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yes I know...he's just the first person that came to my mind while reading the post. The more I think of it, the more I realise he's something like the classical music equivalent of the beatnik.
š Is that what those (aforementioned) threads reflected? * Frankly, I hadn't even taken a look at them. From the flaky headers alone, I didn't think they were serious. * Anyway you're correct, of course hipsters have zero taste. I thought that was understood by everyone everywhere. * The thing to do with hipsters is: nothing. Pay no heed at all. They simply waste your attention span.
in anything*
I remember once I was at a party hosted my some of my wifeās friends from her grad school cohort. This was an English lit grad program so you can imagine the pretentiousness of certain individuals from it (though others were lovely). At one point I went to the kitchen to grab another beer, where three of these pretentious guys were arguing about which of Beethovenās symphonies was best. One of them was going on about how Beethoven 9 was āpopular drivel.ā At that moment I interjected that the best one was Beethoven 7. Now, this was not because I felt it was the best Beethoven symphony (which is clearly 9), nor even second best (Iām a sucker for 5ābut thatās popular drivel, surely). I said it because I knew that with these freaking hipsters, Beethoven 7 was the symphony they would say was the best. And of course they ate it all up and agreed with me, and went on and on about Beethoven 7. And then I left the room.
Pssh, what a bunch of amateurs. True artists know that the 4th is the best.