Music

[vegetariantaxidermy]

So I don't like Mozart

You've already made that quite clear. Now we know that Mozart is 'too accessible'. Thank you master.

[Hobbes' Choice]

So I don't like Mozart

You've already made that quite clear. Now we know that Mozart is 'too accessible'. Thank you master.

You don't have to be such an old scrote about it. It was you that called me 'ridiculous'.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

So I don't like Mozart

You've already made that quite clear. Now we know that Mozart is 'too accessible'. Thank you master.

You don't have to be such an old scrote about it. It was you that called me 'ridiculous'.

Not you, just your assertion.

[Walker]

Why do relativists crave the old timers. Could it be a clandestine search for the Absolute in music?

Hopefully those evolved beyond monolithic personalities have some cognizance of appropriateness to situation, even for music. Music is emotion, for the unprotected soul.

For a woman or child's music box, Debussy is more modern.

For a good night's sleep, a hot toddy and Debussy. Not for the child.

Just Debussy for the child.

CLAUDE DEBUSSY: CLAIR DE LUNE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvFH_6DNRCY

I'd venture to say Rachmaninoff is for the awakened child, but I'm no expert.

[Hobbes' Choice]

You've already made that quite clear. Now we know that Mozart is 'too accessible'. Thank you master.

You don't have to be such an old scrote about it. It was you that called me 'ridiculous'.

Not you, just your assertion.

My assertion was an opinion. So yes you called me ridiculous.

[Dubious]

Like Warhol, Mozart reduced his art by pandering to popular opinion. Why since he had the greats to follow such as Pachelbel and Purcell did he not build on their art? Who knows.

Pachelbel ??? Whose famous for only ONE composition, his canon!

Purcell, an English composer (some of which I really like) who died in 1695 and not likely known on the continent. Mozart, born in 1756, would certainly never have heard of him. On the under hand he did study Bach intensely whose music he hugely admired when not many did being considered old fashioned.

Bottom Line...No one gives a "rat's arse" whether you like Mozart or not. He's universally regarded, along with Bach, Beethoven, among the half dozen greatest composers in the canon of Western Music. That you find him boring and barely adequate for background music in a kid's birthday party is due to your own obvious and extreme limitations and nothing whatever to do with Mozart who's clearly beyond your ability to comprehend. To a mind like yours, that translates to being beneath you.

Your demented screwed-up assertions are nothing more than another Hobbes Choice Special in a nutshell...because that's where they come from.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Like Warhol, Mozart reduced his art by pandering to popular opinion. Why since he had the greats to follow such as Pachelbel and Purcell did he not build on their art? Who knows.

Pachelbel ??? Whose famous for only ONE composition, his canon!

Purcell, an English composer (some of which I really like) who died in 1695 and not likely known on the continent. Mozart, born in 1756, would certainly never have heard of him. On the under hand he did study Bach intensely whose music he hugely admired when not many did being considered old fashioned.

Bottom Line...No one gives a "rat's arse" whether you like Mozart or not. He's universally regarded, along with Bach, Beethoven, among the half dozen greatest composers in the canon of Western Music. That you find him boring and barely adequate for background music in a kid's birthday party is due to your own obvious and extreme limitations and nothing whatever to do with Mozart who's clearly beyond your ability to comprehend. To a mind like yours, that translates to being beneath you.

Your demented screwed-up assertions are nothing more than another Hobbes Choice Special in a nutshell...because that's where they come from.

Thankfully Europeans of the 17thC were not so ignorant of music as you, and knew a lot more about Pachelbel and Purcell that the scant piece of information you have managed to dreg up from Google.
You might like to know that printed (yes with presses and ink) circulated Europe at that time.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Bottom Line...No one gives a "rat's arse" whether you like Mozart or not..

Not true. There are at least two people on this Forum that thinks enough of it to get hot under the collar.

I can't think why since I was only expressing an opinion, and as most of us seem to agree that art is to be appreciated subjectively, moves to attempt some sort of objectivity are at best dubious.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Bottom Line...No one gives a "rat's arse" whether you like Mozart or not..

Not true. There are at least two people on this Forum that thinks enough of it to get hot under the collar.

I can't think why since I was only expressing an opinion, and as most of us seem to agree that art is to be appreciated subjectively, moves to attempt some sort of objectivity are at best dubious.

I've already explained the 'objective' thing. Those three didn't just come out of someone's arse, for no reason. I you look at their manuscripts side by side, Purcell's looks like a child's next to Bach's (I love Purcell btw). I suppose Shakespeare was no better than Barbara Cartland. I mean, it's all 'subjective opinion' isn't it? And it doesn't bother me one bit if you dislike Mozart; it's your complete dismissal of his value as a composer, just because you don't like his music, that I have a beef with.

[Conde Lucanor]

Another song from Latin America's song book: Para Decir Adiós (To Say Goodbye), duet by Danny Rivera and Eydie Gourme:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nvl13C-gAc

[Hobbes' Choice]

Not true. There are at least two people on this Forum that thinks enough of it to get hot under the collar.

I can't think why since I was only expressing an opinion, and as most of us seem to agree that art is to be appreciated subjectively, moves to attempt some sort of objectivity are at best dubious.

I've already explained the 'objective' thing. Those three didn't just come out of someone's arse, for no reason. I you look at their manuscripts side by side, Purcell's looks like a child's next to Bach's (I love Purcell btw). I suppose Shakespeare was no better than Barbara Cartland. I mean, it's all 'subjective opinion' isn't it? And it doesn't bother me one bit if you dislike Mozart; it's your complete dismissal of his value as a composer, just because you don't like his music, that I have a beef with.

Rubbish, all of it. And I was talking to Dubious.
Purcell was a man of his time, no less than anyone else of them; but a master of his craft, unrepeatable.
As I told you popularity is no measure of greatness. No Cartland is not better than Shakespeare; Macdonalds burgers are not better than the Michel Roux; Abba is not as good as Led Zepellin and Mozart is not better than Purcell.
Mozart is chintzy and populist.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Another song from Latin America's song book: Para Decir Adiós (To Say Goodbye), duet by Danny Rivera and Eydie Gourme:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nvl13C-gAc

Yuk.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Purcell was a man of his time, no less than anyone else of them; but a master of his craft, unrepeatable.
As I told you popularity is no measure of greatness. No Cartland is not better than Shakespeare; Macdonalds burgers are not better than the Michel Roux; Abba is not as good as Led Zepellin and Mozart is not better than Purcell.
Mozart is chintzy and populist.

Game, set and match--to me. Grumpy old scrote.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Purcell was a man of his time, no less than anyone else of them; but a master of his craft, unrepeatable.
As I told you popularity is no measure of greatness. No Cartland is not better than Shakespeare; Macdonalds burgers are not better than the Michel Roux; Abba is not as good as Led Zepellin and Mozart is not better than Purcell.
Mozart is chintzy and populist.

Game, set and match--to me. Grumpy old scrote.

I can tell you are still wrong, because you are still typing.

Did someone remove your irony detection kit?

[Dubious]

Thankfully Europeans of the 17thC were not so ignorant of music as you, and knew a lot more about Pachelbel and Purcell that the scant piece of information you have managed to dreg up from Google.

As a hobby, I was into music history long before Google, Youtube or email came into existence. For any kind of reading you either had to buy the book or go to the library which I did a few times a week. In addition to a a half dozen volumes in music history, in my teens I ordered a book of Mozart's letters and I can tell you for sure the idiot in Amadeus (likely your source) doesn't exist in those letters and neither could a character like that have written the music Mozart wrote even if he possessed some of his talent.

If you made the same derogatory statements about Mozart to someone in person who knows something about music, even if they prefer other composers, they'd laugh in your face for getting it so ludicrously wrong.

You might like to know that printed (yes with presses and ink) circulated Europe at that time.

Don't say. Thanks for the revelation. If Bach was barely acknowledged in Germany during his lifetime and even less so in Europe, what makes you think 18th century Europe would be interested or even know about a composer called Purcell who wrote anthems for the Church of England and secular music for the nobility in the 17th century?

You haven't got a clue regarding, period, content, form and history or how to compare apples to apples.

I can't think why since I was only expressing an opinion, and as most of us seem to agree that art is to be appreciated subjectively, moves to attempt some sort of objectivity are at best dubious.

Is it your CHOICE not to know the difference between slanderous, disparaging remarks regarding one of the world's greatest talents and simply expressing an opinion or preference. Backtracking now as if it were ONLY an opinion proves you to be a total hypocrite and liar.