Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Culture Forum

Culture Forum

  1. Standard member karoly aczel
    the Devil himself
    14 Jul '12 07:50
    Other than yourself , of course.

    I'm going to go with Bosse de Nage. Nearly every reference I've read from him about music has been spot on - as far as my tastes are concerned.
  2. Subscriber sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    14 Jul '12 12:24 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by karoly aczel
    Other than yourself , of course.

    I'm going to go with Bosse de Nage. Nearly every reference I've read from him about music has been spot on - as far as my tastes are concerned.
    Well that would not be exactly objective then, would it? It really means his tastes lines up with your tastes. That question is like, what music is better, classical or rock?

    It's apples and oranges. I love folk music which I consider real music as opposed to say C&W which is just contrived situational crap IMHO. The instrumentals on C&W are all alike, there are no individual virtuoso's like in folk music (Bert Jansch, Martin Simpson, Doc Watson, Tommy People's, Jerry Douglas, Allison Kraus, Robert Johnson, Mississippi John Hurt, Rory Block and the like) only studio musicians who dare not go out on a limb but have to stay within certain stylistic borders.

    So what is in tastes anyway?
  3. 14 Jul '12 17:09 / 2 edits
    I really enjoy the rock band Taste with Rory Gallagher.

    Didn't Gentle Giant have an album called Taste?
  4. Subscriber FMF
    Main Poster
    14 Jul '12 17:21
    Originally posted by karoly aczel
    Whose got the best taste in music on rhp? Other than yourself , of course.
    OK then, I say it's someone other than myself who has taste in music like mine. Of course.
  5. Standard member karoly aczel
    the Devil himself
    15 Jul '12 07:58
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Well that would not be exactly objective then, would it? It really means his tastes lines up with your tastes. That question is like, what music is better, classical or rock?

    It's apples and oranges. I love folk music which I consider real music as opposed to say C&W which is just contrived situational crap IMHO. The instrumentals on C&W are all alike, ...[text shortened]... on a limb but have to stay within certain stylistic borders.

    So what is in tastes anyway?
    Yeah but if someone recs something I'm more likely to check it out if its someone with similar tastes as mine.

    BTW you and the other 2 posters here also have good taste
  6. Subscriber Pianoman1
    Nil desperandum
    16 Jul '12 05:54 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by karoly aczel
    Other than yourself , of course.

    I'm going to go with Bosse de Nage. Nearly every reference I've read from him about music has been spot on - as far as my tastes are concerned.
    Who's (who has).
    What you imply in your loaded question is who has the same (good) taste as you?
    Taste is a deeply personal and subjective concept comprising emotional, historical, geographical, educational, socio-economic, family, intellectual, peer influenced factors, amongst many others.
    The concept of "best taste" is oxymoronic. Someone may be referred to as having good taste (whatever that means), and things can be in bad taste, but there are no superlatives to a subjective notion.
    And while we're on the subject can we please stop pigeon-holing music. I love classical, jazz, rock, ethnic, rap, world, pop, country and western, soul, fusion, dance, trance, garage, drum and bass, dubstep, tribal, primitive and silent. IT IS ALL JUST MUSIC. NONE IS BETTER THAN THE OTHER!!!!
  7. 16 Jul '12 10:27 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Pianoman1
    IT IS ALL JUST MUSIC. NONE IS BETTER THAN THE OTHER!!!!
    Well... I see where you're coming from. I agree with the general sentiment. But be honest, isn't Arthur
    no, not Akiba this time
    Rubinstein better than Richard Clayderman? Isn't B.B. King better than James "my musical tastes are" Blunt?

    Sometimes, you have to take a stand on taste.

    Richard
  8. Subscriber Pianoman1
    Nil desperandum
    16 Jul '12 16:29
    Originally posted by Shallow Blue
    Well... I see where you're coming from. I agree with the general sentiment. But be honest, isn't Arthur [hidden]no, not Akiba this time[/hidden] Rubinstein better than Richard Clayderman? Isn't B.B. King better than James "my musical tastes are" Blunt?

    Sometimes, you have to take a stand on taste.

    Richard
    Difficult one. Yes, of course, Artur Rubenstein is a more accomplished pianist than Richard Clayderman, and Chopin's Ballades are more complex, pianistic and generally musical than Ballade pour Adeline, but it doesn't sit very well with me to say that one is better than the other because there is in implication that people who prefer Chopin are somehow better than those who prefer Clayderman.
  9. Standard member karoly aczel
    the Devil himself
    18 Jul '12 05:42
    Originally posted by Pianoman1
    Who's (who has).
    What you imply in your loaded question is who has the same (good) taste as you?
    Taste is a deeply personal and subjective concept comprising emotional, historical, geographical, educational, socio-economic, family, intellectual, peer influenced factors, amongst many others.
    The concept of "best taste" is oxymoronic. Someone may be ref ...[text shortened]... bstep, tribal, primitive and silent. IT IS ALL JUST MUSIC. NONE IS BETTER THAN THE OTHER!!!!
    I agree with your sentiments, but it was not a loaded question - just maybe a chance to get to know your fellow posters a bit better.

    Yes , it's just a personal thing, it doesn't really mean anything.

    I just believe that people with similar tastes may also have other things in common. Just a chance to get to know people a bit better .
  10. Subscriber sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    18 Jul '12 09:14
    Originally posted by Pianoman1
    Difficult one. Yes, of course, Artur Rubenstein is a more accomplished pianist than Richard Clayderman, and Chopin's Ballades are more complex, pianistic and generally musical than Ballade pour Adeline, but it doesn't sit very well with me to say that one is better than the other because there is in implication that people who prefer Chopin are somehow better than those who prefer Clayderman.
    Wouldn't it be safe to say it requires more intelligence to see beauty in more complex ideas, in music or other arts in general? So it would be safe to say to each his own, meaning a persons own favorite music may on a non-linear scale match his or hers own base intelligence and and life experience?
  11. 18 Jul '12 11:56
    Originally posted by Pianoman1
    Who's (who has).
    What you imply in your loaded question is who has the same (good) taste as you?
    Taste is a deeply personal and subjective concept comprising emotional, historical, geographical, educational, socio-economic, family, intellectual, peer influenced factors, amongst many others.
    The concept of "best taste" is oxymoronic. Someone may be ref ...[text shortened]... bstep, tribal, primitive and silent. IT IS ALL JUST MUSIC. NONE IS BETTER THAN THE OTHER!!!!
    Taste is immeasurable indeed. If someone prefers grits to polenta it is simply a matter of taste. Both foods nourish identically, yet taste completely different. Without question it is never about superiority of one genre over another. It is about the degree of complexity and intellectual stimulation one might derive from one style over another or the right moment for one style/genre over another. I would never serve polenta with breakfast for example. However, one could never say that a ditty by Snoop Dog could be comparable to Beethoven's Eroica, a transcendental piece of music over a ditty soon forgotten. Similarly Mozart's offspring never amounted to anything and resembled their grandfather more than their sublime father. WE compare mentally simply from the standpoint of the quality of what we hear. Otherwise street noise could be marketed as serious music, couldn't it?
  12. Subscriber Pianoman1
    Nil desperandum
    19 Jul '12 21:24
    Originally posted by scacchipazzo
    Taste is immeasurable indeed. If someone prefers grits to polenta it is simply a matter of taste. Both foods nourish identically, yet taste completely different. Without question it is never about superiority of one genre over another. It is about the degree of complexity and intellectual stimulation one might derive from one style over another or the r ...[text shortened]... lity of what we hear. Otherwise street noise could be marketed as serious music, couldn't it?
    Street noise is not "music", because it is not organised sound, but simply random noise. But is it in any "worse" taste than some 21st century classical compositions? The piece, I forget the composer, where the instructions were to go off into a desert for 24 hours, meditate and then return and play whatever you have been inspired by the experience to perform is not, I venture to suggest, in any poorer taste than the natural street sounds of a city at night. Although music is simply organised sound, some unorganised sounds such as street noise can be quite satisfying and therapeutic. I agree that the degree of complexity, emotional, spiritual and intellectual content such as Ricard Strauss "The Four Last Songs" are sublime and offer an extraordinary musical experience, this is no "better" than Oscar Petersen, Howling Wolf or Dolly Parton. Each to his own.
  13. 20 Jul '12 03:19 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by Pianoman1
    Street noise is not "music", because it is not organised sound, but simply random noise. But is it in any "worse" taste than some 21st century classical compositions? The piece, I forget the composer, where the instructions were to go off into a desert for 24 hours, meditate and then return and play whatever you have been inspired by the experience to per this is no "better" than Oscar Petersen, Howling Wolf or Dolly Parton. Each to his own.
    You rest my case then don't. Sometimes noise, integrated into a work, can be quite satisfying as in Gershwin's An American in Paris. Indeed to each his own taste-wise. Yet indeed we can never elevate Dolly Parton to the exalted planes of a Beethoven masterwork. Think for a moment of his Opus 131 in C#minor. By then completely deaf, Beethoven's genius shines brightly having created a work of immense subtlety, grace, depth, strange melodies, even stranger harmonies and realizing at last the Beethoven ideal of incredible sturm und drang. There is nothing wrong with Parton yet we could never compare her to the greats of serious music for she does not belong in the same argument. Reality is only apples and apples and oranges and oranges are comparable, perhaps even only one composer with himself for in this case Beethoven truly has no peer. Therefore, the work itself stands like a giant only comparable with the other Beethoven "Die Spaten Streichquartette". Even looking at the grouping of movements and in particular mvt #4 one stares in wonder at the creative process of the great master: 1Adagio ma non troppo e molto espressivo, 2 Allegro molto vivace, 3 Allegro moderato, then 4 Andante ma non troppo e molto cantabile — Più mosso — Andante moderato e lusinghiero — Adagio — Allegretto — Adagio, ma non troppo e semplice — Allegretto, 5 Presto, 6 Adagio quasi un poco andante, and finally 7 Allegro. Even then the most sublime part is the #6 Adagio quasi un poco andante, the saddest music ever written!: YouTube&feature=related and the part alluded to above: YouTube&feature=relmfu, but not be left out is the complicated #4: YouTube&feature=related

    Complex does not mean better, but it certainly means the composer struggled mightily to birth a wondrous work of art unlike any other before its time. It takes many a listen before one can fully appreciate this incredible work. Once Opus 131 becomes clearer other works become less satisfying, even Mozart's string quartets. Not until Brahms do we hear another quartet worthy to stand alongside Beethoven's late quartets fond as we may be of Schubert's and Schumann's.

    The composers you allude to are jokes and geniuses only in their own minds, worthy of being forgotten, and to your credit you have done so!
  14. Subscriber Pianoman1
    Nil desperandum
    20 Jul '12 07:21
    Originally posted by scacchipazzo
    You rest my case then don't. Sometimes noise, integrated into a work, can be quite satisfying as in Gershwin's An American in Paris. Indeed to each his own taste-wise. Yet indeed we can never elevate Dolly Parton to the exalted planes of a Beethoven masterwork. Think for a moment of his Opus 131 in C#minor. By then completely deaf, Beethoven's genius sh ...[text shortened]... nly in their own minds, worthy of being forgotten, and to your credit you have done so!
    You will have perhaps surmised that I have been a bit mischievous and playful in this thread. When you start talking about the late string quartets of the Master, I am forced to accede and stop the facile banter. How refreshing to communicate with another person who worships at the altar of the finest music ever conceived by man.
    For any string quartet, performances of the late Beethoven quartets represent the summit of their craft, a challenge to stretch their intellectual and musical powers to their limits. Just as Beethoven's symphonies redefined the form and set its development on an utterly new track that continued right through the 19th century, so his string quartets, and the series of late works that began with the E flat Quartet, Op 127, in particular, set a new standard for the musical significance of the medium - and put in train a line of development which is carried on even today.
    When I listen to the Tacacs Quartet I melt. Words are incapable of expressing the extraordinary emotional, spiritual and intellectual journey that these works offer to the listener. I also feel so sad that to some people Dolly Parton or Howling Wolf are as musically challenging as they are prepared to go. Scacchipazzo, I bow to you.
  15. 20 Jul '12 13:29
    Originally posted by Pianoman1
    You will have perhaps surmised that I have been a bit mischievous and playful in this thread. When you start talking about the late string quartets of the Master, I am forced to accede and stop the facile banter. How refreshing to communicate with another person who worships at the altar of the finest music ever conceived by man.
    For any string quartet, p ...[text shortened]... wling Wolf are as musically challenging as they are prepared to go. Scacchipazzo, I bow to you.
    You have made me blush musically speaking, Pianoman1! However, I do feel venue makes the musical selection. I'd rather have Dolly Parton blaring at the honky tonk rather than the most sublime Beethoven! Also, if I could go back in time, although I'd love meeting the great Beethoven I also would much rather spend a few nights in Schubertiades rather than with the irascible, morose misanthrope. Why I might even drag old Ludwig Van over to a Schubertiade and perhaps loosen him up and have him improvise. Can you imagine what that might have been like? Schubert and Beethoven maybe even challenging one another to an improvisation contest? I slobber at the thought! To be quite honest I also dream of the food that might have been served at these artistic yet raucous reunions!