Eneathedevil

heh, I'm running away and leaving you with Giò, damn, you're in great company ;)

Nah, I’m an objectivist; I stick to my views, and you stick to yours. And if you don’t like classical music, that’s your fault! ;D But you backtracked, huh, old slyfox... first you said "classical music lacks variety of sounds," then "all the thousands of C notes you produce with a classical instrument, when processed through a technological sound processor, multiply to reach tens of millions of Cs"... yeah, I’ve seen some kind of difference, hence why I said you were shooting at zero :)

I was certainly getting it ready, you know, but funny enough, you got hung up on what I scolded caz about: I had told him "and also hope that someone who truly knows about music doesn't come by to read what you write"... :D

Yes, Jim, it’s all about de-gustibus, yes, yes, but good tastes are mine :D

Seen it? Come on, classic fans, come here and attack, because for once he's gotten stuck in territory he doesn't know! :)))

...seen, Giuà has already passed by and has seen some of the nonsense you write... let's see if someone else who knows about classical music swings by so we can discuss it better ;D

(...) Do you know who Paganini was? Corelli? Frescobaldi? Well, if you don't, take the time to learn so you can avoid saying misguided things about them. I'm not saying this out of spite, for goodness' sake; I understand humanly that you're not familiar with them, which can lead you to say things that are visibly incorrect. Well, the violin played by Paganini produced a SOUND that was quite different from the violin played by Corelli, I can assure you, and the people attending their performances knew this very well. Just look at what interpretation can determine, huh. But there’s no need to study too much: just read Josie’s review on Sibelius; the various editions even differ from performer to performer of the SAME WORK because the sound produced is different. That's all. And within the same work by the same composer, the "torrent of notes" varies from situation to situation: I assure you, you don’t need a Stratocaster to distort a C: with the most rudimentary violin, you can produce thousands of Cs, depending on the interpretation, the hand, the emotion invested. So a bit more general culture is needed before shooting blindly, that's all. Otherwise, you risk framing a discussion like this as a shield to protect yourself and say: “Well, there are contexts and contexts, so at least if someone asks me who Monteverdi is, I can say he’s just another guy, véh” (...)

(...) The hierarchy is therefore essentially chronological: Beethoven is better than the Pink Floyd because the PF were influenced by Beethoven and not vice versa, according to that shift from Schoenberg to psychedelia I mentioned, just to say. And he came first, what can we do, maybe Waters, living in the nineteenth century, could have influenced a contemporary Beethoven, sure, but since things turned out differently, it's pointless to talk about contexts: that's how it was and how it remains, in the history of music books, Mozart, Bach, Haydn, Chopin will continue to be studied. Let’s move on: I won’t hide my admiration for the knowledge you have regarding much of contemporary music, but regarding pre-20th century classical music, it seems you don’t know much. So, avoid saying things like "Classical music lacks sound variety," and hope that someone who really knows about music doesn't come by to read what you write. Well, do you think that only Stratocasters determine sound varieties? Oh, no, no, buddy, we’re not on the same page. I need to study more about Metallica, but you should make the effort to listen to some classical music up there. But above all, listen to it in its different INTERPRETATIONS. (...)

(...) In short, it risks becoming a mockery. What do I care if you say "what if Hammet was born in the 1600s (which is a date unrelated to Beethoven, but even the '200' years prior has nothing to do with it, never mind those details, editor's note)”: darling, Hammet didn’t live in the 1600s, period. Let's reserve the "ifs," "buts," and "maybes" for socio-psychopedagogy, not for historical studies on music. Beethoven was born first, Metallica later, the former in one context, the latter in another. And alas, the former had the luck of being born into the realm of great 19th-century classical music, while the latter were born into the world of brief metal compositions: go ask Metallica to compose "Fidelio," maybe they could have done it in the 1800s, but poor them, they were born in the late 20th century, a completely different musical context. And now Waters has been working on a mediocre opera for several decades, while Gioachino Rossini ('800) was producing one EVERY SIX MONTHS. Talk about genius. And their stuff, in comparison, lacks the preparatory background of a Beethoven. So be careful when you say "if" and "but": as a fairly true cliché states, "history is not made with ifs and buts" (long live banality), we must stick to the objective fact that is: "Metallica a pleasurable phenomenon, Beethoven an absolute genius." I want to see if in twenty years music books will continue to celebrate Beethoven or the metallers, tell me. (...)

...here we are. Well, I'm really glad we tackled the issue; at least I finally know your point of view on the matter. I know you don't budge an inch, but I've had this discussion in my mind for months and months, to the point that I've imagined all the possible answers and, above all, all my possible responses to those answers. And I won't budge an inch. First of all, let’s start with a fundamental aspect: what you wanted to say, summarizing much of your post, is that every musical production needs to be "contextualized" in the time it exists, hence your "happy" notion comparing Beethoven and Metallica (but damn, you could have toned it down a bit, huh!). Well, I think that the discussion about contextualization should always be approached with caution, or it risks becoming the biggest and dirtiest smokescreen through which everything embedded in the context of its era is passed off as wonderful. (...)