Swelling Vs Fiddling

[Dubversion]

And I think you need to acquire some habits. One is to stop getting personal with everybody who disagreedswith you. Andother is to accept that some views are different from yours and that expressing them does not "kill threads".

You are quite happy to pronounce on every subject under the sun, aggressively so, but when somebody has contrary or critical opinions you are intolerant of them. It is thoroughly tiresome.

No, Donna, you asserted - in a very absolute way - that my comments on Mozart were not matters of taste, but were matters of fact. I made no such absolute claims

So it's YOU that needs to accept that some views are different from yours.

I'm NOT intolerant of your opinions, I'm intolerant of your refusal to accept that they ARE opinions. Surely someone of your towering intellect can appreciate that distinction?

 

[Donna Ferentes]

No, Donna, you asserted - in a very absolute way - that my comments on Mozart were not matters of taste, but were matters of fact.

Well, it can be helpful to distinguish taste from fact, since they are two different things. If you prefer, you may replace the term "fact" with "understanding", which may make it easier. The point is that without understanding we must rely on impressions, which may mislead and which may lead us to say things which will strike the well-informed observer as absurd. We of course have the right to these opinions, as aforesaid observers have the right to their opinions about our opinions. But taste is something else, though not altogether different, since it changes with experience.

 

[killer b]

can you two not add each other on msn or something?

 

[Dubversion]

oh whatever, donna. This was quite an interesting thread, now it's another edition of the Donna Holds Forth show.

it's just a shame that you're SO blind to your faults but so eager to carp on about what you believe to those of others.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

oh whatever, donna. This was quite an interesting thread, now it's another edition of the Donna Holds Forth show.

Well not really, Dub. You expressed an opinion, I expressed one that differed. How is this the Donna Holds Forth Show? Don't you actually mean that it was intended to be the Dub Holds Forth Show?

 

[Guineveretoo]

oh whatever, donna. This was quite an interesting thread, now it's another edition of the Donna Holds Forth show.

it's just a shame that you're SO blind to your faults but so eager to carp on about what you believe to those of others.

I agree, and am disappointed that this thread has gone awry, as I was looking forward to reading some people's views about classical music, since it is something I am particularly interested in, and I am curious as to how knowledgeable people who are into modern music are about classical.

From what I can see, Donna has derailed this thread by attacking Dub's use of specific descriptive words with reference to Mozart. Fact, Donna - Mozart's music could accurately be described as "fussy". Fact, Donna - Mozart's music could accurately be described as "busy". Some people like that, some don't. I do. Dub doesn't. End of.

Please can you go away now, so others feel able to express their views without fear of being attacked for not using words to which you agree?

Thank you.

 

[Dubversion]

Well not really, Dub. You expressed an opinion, I expressed one that differed. How is this the Donna Holds Forth Show? Don't you actually mean that it was intended to be the Dub Holds Forth Show?

no, donna, you stated quite plainly

It's not about taste.

which is you - once again - professing to state facts when others are merely expressing opinions. It's this arrogance, this refusal to see your own posts for what they are, which makes conversing with you such an arid experience.

But I'm sure your comeback will be erudite, possibly quoting one or other of the notable Greek philosophers, and slip in a cheeky nod to Johnson.

However, I won't be reading it.

 

[Guineveretoo]

Well not really, Dub. You expressed an opinion, I expressed one that differed. How is this the Donna Holds Forth Show? Don't you actually mean that it was intended to be the Dub Holds Forth Show?

No you didn't. You challenged Dub's vocabulary and, in doing so, challenged his view/taste. That wasn't expressing your opinion of the music, but your opinion of Dub's use of particular words.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Please can you go away now, so others feel able to express their views without fear of being attacked for not using words to which you agree?

Oh, dear. Might the poor loves be disagreed with? On a discussion board?

Whatever next?

 

[Donna Ferentes]

That wasn't expressing your opinion of the music,

Yes it was. I was saying that it could not really be described in the way in which he described it, not accurately.

That's what music criticism is about, isn't it? What discussion is about, no? Whether propositions are true or not, or reasonable or not, or accurate or not?

 

[Guineveretoo]

Oh, dear. Might the poor loves be disagreed with? On a discussion board?

Whatever next?

Challenging people's vocabulary is not disagreeing with them, it's being patronising and nasty. Querying people's opinions is, of course, what one expects on a bulletin board, but it is certainly not what you have done on this thread!

Can you not see how Mozart's music could be described as "fussy" and "busy"? Have you heard any of his music?

 

[Guineveretoo]

Yes it was. I was saying that it could not really be decsribed in the way in which he described it, not accurately.

That's what music criticism is about, isn't it?

No.

ETA Ooh, you have added a bit. I am only responding to this bit.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

No.

Then it is without purpose: it seeks to learn nothing and hence fails to do so.

 

[Guineveretoo]

What discussion is about, no? Whether propositions are true or not, or reasonable or not, or accurate or not?

As someone who knows Mozart's music very well, I can completely understand what Dub means by his descriptions of his music, I believe it to be accurate and appropriate, and I appreciate and comprehend that this means Dub doesn't like listening to Mozart. I can promise you that there is other music which Dub likes which I don't!

So, are we moving on, or is this thread so derailed now that we need to let it die?

 

[Dubversion]

 

[Dubversion]

So, are we moving on, or is this thread so derailed now that we need to let it die?

the latter. Donna's self-importance won't allow him to drop anything. Ever.

he's here to help us out of our ignorance, you see.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Challenging people's vocabulary is not disagreeing with them, it's being patronising and nasty.

Nonsense. It is saying "I think that description does not fit the thing to which it is being applied". It provides reasons for doing so. It is a perfectly normal way of proceeding.


Querying people's opinions is, of course, what one expects on a bulletin board, but it is certainly not what you have done on this thread!

Can you not see how Mozart's music could be described as "fussy" and "busy"?

Only in the pedantic sense that one may describe anything as anything.

 

[Guineveretoo]

Then it is without purpose: it seeks to learn nothing and hence fails to do so.

Rubbish. Dub was stating his view of Mozart's music, ffs. I learnt from that, that he knows some Mozart music and doesn't like it. As you pointed out, this is a bulletin board, and Dub's view is valued and worthwhile. And clearly relatively well informed, in so far as he has heard Mozart's music and reached a view about whether or not he wants to hear more. There is the purpose. This is not a treatise on Mozart, nor even a book on classical music.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

the latter. Donna's self-importance won't allow him to drop anything. Ever.

he's here to help us out of our ignorance, you see.

What I don't, do, Dub, is the manifestly dishonest approach of expressing firm opinions and rubbishing those of others, and then saying "oh, it's only my opinion". There's a sizeable dissonance there between the reality of what is done and the description that is applied to it.

Which, interestingly, leads us right back to the accurate use of words and why it is important.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Rubbish. Dub was stating his view of Mozart's music, ffs. I learnt from that, that he knows some Mozart music and doesn't like it. As you pointed out, this is a bulletin board, and Dub's view is valued and worthwhile.

And what we then do is to discuss that view: since in fact, it's only on examination of a thesis that we can really determine whether it's valuable or not. I find that one aspect of what he says fails to meet the test of reality. You, perhaps, have a contrary view to mine. So we proceed, citing examples, parallels, comparisons and what you will. This is not a difficult procedure nor a controversial one.

 

[Guineveretoo]

Nonsense. It is saying "I think that description does not fit the thing to which it is being applied". It provides reasons for doing so. It is a perfectly normal way of proceeding.


Querying people's opinions is, of course, what one expects on a bulletin board, but it is certainly not what you have done on this thread!

Only in the pedantic sense that one may describe anything as anything.

Then maybe you ought to read some music criticism, or attend some lectures on music, and you will soon find out that, in fact, lots of esteemed critics and academics agree with Dub about Mozart's music being, on occasion, "fussy" and "busy". Google it, if you don't believe me

If I could be bothered staying on this thread, I would dig out some of the music criticism I have got in print, and quote you some paragraphs, but it is clear that you are not really interested. What started as an attack on Dub has, seemingly, become an attack on me!

 

[Dubversion]

 

[Dubversion]

Mozart's music can be undeniably fussy;

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20051204/ai_n15904445

 

[Guineveretoo]

Okay, I am off out of this thread. At best, it has become a debate between Guineveretoo and Donna Ferentes and, to be honest, that's not terribly interesting to me, never mind anyone else!

Perhaps, another time, I will find (or start) a thread which will allow me to find out what people on this board think of classical music, and how much they know.

I am disappointed in how this has turned out, but I am now unsubscribing from the thread.

*bye*

 

[Dubversion]

me too, guineveretoo.

shame, innit?

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Let us suppose, for instance, that I expressed the view that Turner is a poor student of light. I could express it: it would be an opinion. Nobody could prove it was wrong and I could, in fact, show at least one example that would back up my claim (it's in the National Gallery: the building of Carthage or some similar title, in which the sun on the water looks completely wrong).

But it wold be nonsense, really, wouldn't it?

 

[E. Coli]

before the thread dies completely, can i suggest Ralph Vaughn-Williams who sits in the swelling camp. Very nice. And DF there's absoultely no reason to comment on my post.

 

[cybertect]

Yes, but it's a curious claim. It's like saying Motorhead are too loud

I know plenty of people who would say that, starting with my mum and dad

Anyhow, Dubversion, you may want to check out Peter Sculthorpe. One of my favourite modern composers.

Some samples here.

http://www.nla.gov.au/epubs/sculthorpe/music.html

http://www.amazon.com/Peter-Sculthorpe-Earth-Piano-Concerto/dp/B00068CVKI

[kudos for the XTC reference, BTW ]

 

[sam/phallocrat]

Poulenc and Bruckner are good for swelling (chorally especially)

 

[phildwyer]

Let us suppose, for instance, that I expressed the view that Turner is a poor student of light. I could express it: it would be an opinion. Nobody could prove it was wrong and I could, in fact, show at least one example that would back up my claim (it's in the National Gallery: the building of Carthage or some similar title, in which the sun on the water looks completely wrong).

But it wold be nonsense, really, wouldn't it?

Yes. It is absurd to say that any art is a "just a matter of taste." There is such a thing as objectivity in aesthetics. My problem with Dubversion's argument is not so much that it is wrong (though I believe it is), but that he doesn't bother defending it. He claims in fact that it needs no defending because it is "just a matter of taste." That is a naively relativistic view of art--one which incidentally would have commanded no credence whatsoever before 1960 or so.