Well said, and I agree. Thanks for taking the trouble to write it.

Well we all make judgments about what we think is the “best” and why, and the same is true of the arts.

Societies make judgments. They might not be correct judgments, but they make them. They don't treat everything equally but put things into categories. If you have a museum dedicated to the art of watchmaking, you put what you think are the best watches into your museum. You decide what makes one watch better or more "sophisticated" or "advanced" than another. You might also include examples of "everyday" watches but that’s for reasons of reference or history, but those aren't why you've built the museum. If your museum is specifically dedicated to “everyday” watches then you try and include the very best examples of those.

What's considered serious writing? It's not necessary the best-seller. Usually people consider the best writing to be something that's won an award, like a Pulizer or the Nobel prize. Very often great artists aren't recognized in their time but when they are their works, like a Van Gogh painting, are put in museums.

Is a Van Gogh really “better” than some street painter who sells his stuff at a monthly art show? Well some one thinks he is or they wouldn’t be willing to pay millions of dollars for one of his works.

I thought Tellulah said that to William Bendix in "Lifeboat", just before he flung himself overboard.

You are missing my point actually, which is that on an objective level, classical music as a whole is not superior to popular music as a genre. It's just a different genre of music, composed for a certain purpose and for a certain audience, not better or worse.

Contrary to your statement, I don't define classical as being what I like. I don't even define Scott Joplin's rags as classical music (I consider them popular music).

My only concern is that people who like classical music understand that their genre of choice is not the only genre which has good music and that they shouldn't bash other genres of music as happened earlier in this thread when someone described Joplin ragtime as "childish janglings."

And before you accuse someone of not understanding your point, you should try to understand what they've been saying yourself. I think I've been pretty clear. I also don't need a lesson from you in what the definition of classical music is or how classics are determined by the arts establishment. I just would prefer that people who liked classical didn't look down their noses at everything else.

Right, but the problem with that argument is, Joplin's collective work is metaphorically an unfinished Van Gogh painting.

Also, Scott Joplin did win a pulitzer fyi.

Hrodulf,

I don't think that "childish janglings" represents anyone's opinion of Joplin save for one poster who has said similar (and worse) things about North American culture, universally acclaimed composers (e.g., Wagner, Mahler, Shostakovich, Prokofiev), atonal music and even Mancini's Moon River. If you consider the source, I think you'll see that the comment about Joplin was predictable (and probably not worth taking too seriously).

Steven

Actually I think others share his opinion, they've just been lurking instead of posting. I mean the thread has over 4,000 views, right? Got to be some Joplin haters in that number.

Anyway I take it seriously because I don't think people should be allowed to spout ignorance without their views being challenged. This is the essence of how this is supposed to work, good ideas are supposed to drive out the bad ideas. If I just ignored it, nobody would make any progress towards understanding that it's wrong to stereotype music just based on what genre it is.

Hrodulf,

You are right to challenge ignorance, but it's probably overly ambitious to think you're going to change it.

I started a thread very recently that was thoroughly germane to classical piano and its role in our culture; it attracted some breathtakingly ignorant and even overtly hateful remarks, with the result that it was completely deleted from the board. The opportunity to have a sane, intelligent discussion about an important issue among those to whom it mattered was thus vaporized—and, likewise, any chance to shed some light on it that could have been a learning experience for others evaporated along with it.

You can certainly address hate speech (as I did) as having no place here, but you can't do much about willful ignorance. People have a right to be stupid and a right to resist enlightenment. The more unrelenting your zeal to educate, the more they push back.

I bet there are Chopin haters here, too! I would prefer to interact with Chopin lovers than get exercised over trying to convince the haters that they're wrong. I often need to remind myself to choose my battles wisely, too, but it really is good advice (albeit easier said than done).

Steven

I wasn't planning to change their views, I just don't want them to have their way in this matter. If nobody challenges them, others will assume what they are saying is true.

Everybody isn't that stupid. And even if everyone had amnesia as to who is credible and who isn't, posting histories are available. Consider the source!

To imagine that so many people secretly share one vocal individual's dogmatic, uninformed and inflammatory opinions verges on paranoia, and thinking that such no-account nonsense must be so vigorously debunked is patronizing to everyone who can already see it for what it is.

Steven

But based on people's responses in this thread, I think there are people who believe that there is a hierarchy of musical forms, with classical at the top and everything else below, so I really don't find it patronizing to point out that not everybody shares that view. I don't consider the artistry of the best of jazz, popular, etc to be lower than classical just because it isn't classical music and I think beauty and greatness can also be found in other genres, not just classical.

I still think it's preaching to the choir, and I don't think you can make your position any clearer than you already have countless times.

If others do feel differently from you, and you're compelled to disabuse them of their notions, this thread's never going to end. I don't have a problem with that if it's your mission, but I think many people would say that your time could be spent more profitably at the other keyboard (the black and white one with 88 keys). (And yeah, I know that applies to me, too, and probably the rest of us as well. )

Steven

I was actually just practicing for the Chopin etude recital so I am putting time in at the piano. I plan to practice a lot today because I have the day off so it is a chance.

The thread speaks for itself. I just don't like musical snobbery so when I see it I respond in kind. I know I'm unlikely to change anyone's prejudices but if I don't at least try then I feel like I didn't even give it a chance.

Well I might agree with much of what you've said here except you haven't been very specific. For you to say a certain type of music is "not superior" to another, I would think you'd have reasons for this. The study of Aesthetics tries to do that: determine why one work of art is "better" than another. So in what way are you judging one not to be superior to the other? And again, I'm not saying I necessarily disagree with you on your premise.

I still feel like you haven't understood a key point I've tried to make and it could well be I haven't articulated it clearly. The concept of "classical music" isn't a fixed concept but has changed constantly over the years -- and will continue to do so. In this way I don't see how you could think I'm offering "my definition" of it any more than if I say aesthetics means "principles concerned with the appreciation of beauty..." that I am giving you my definition of the word "aesthetics." I'm not trying to give you my definition but the generally accepted definition.

You see, you're talking about whether an individual work of art is better than another. My point is that you can't say a genre of music is better than another, because a genre of music inevitably contains both very good, and very bad pieces.

You are the one who is failing to understand my point. I am not saying there is no standards of quality in judging music. I am just saying that you can't condemn an entire genre of music as garbage just because you like another genre better, because like I said, a genre consists of a continuum of artists and composers, and it's ignorant to judge all of their music in one fell swoop.

Hrodulf says: "You see, you're talking about whether an individual work of art is better than another. "

All I've been trying to do is weigh in on the question asked by this thread ("Why isn't Scott Joplin's music "classical.") That's all.

Hrodulf says: "My point is that you can't say a genre of music is better than another..."

Well again I think it depends on your criteria for making that judgement.

Are you saying someone couldn't make an argument that the Classical period (or "genre," to use your term) isn't "better" (however one defines that) than the Renaissance period of music? Again, we might not agree with this opinion but that doesn't mean a valid argument can't be made. It depends on your criteria.

Or maybe a better question is: When you say two genres are equally as good, one not better than the other, what's the basis for saying this? Just because any genre can have good works and bad (I agree), why does that necessarily mean one genre is equally as good as another?

You may not have read some of my other posts but if you had (specifically regarding Joplin) I don't think you can say I'm a snooty classical person (not that you have specifically claimed I am), and I agree with you people can turn up their nose about something, but that happens with any style of music. I've met some heavy metal fans who think theirs is the "true" music and are as close-minded about theirs as any classical music fan might be about his.

Anyway, good points. I think we both are getting the gist of what each other is saying and good luck with your practicing.

You can say you prefer a genre of music, but I don't think you can really say a genre is objectively better than another one. I didn't say they were equal, they are different. They are uncomparable. I don't see why this is so hard for you to grasp. The phrase "comparing apples and oranges" comes to mind. What's better, an apple or an orange? It is an absurd question. You can prefer apples to oranges, or vice versa, but you can't say one is objectively better than the other.

If you're going back to food analogies, let's compare anew fast food and gourmet food as "genres." I suspect that what a four-star restaurant throws away is better in terms of the quality of ingredients and the skillfulness of preparation than anything available at McDonald's.

The comparison of apples and oranges doesn't work because they are products of nature; it would be equally pointless to say cats are better than dogs or green is better than red. Musical compositions, like restaurant food, are man-made, and humans do vary in intelligence and ability.

If you carry the equality of genres to a logical extreme in artistic activities, then is a Rembrandt no better than a finger painting? Is Shakespeare no better than a reading primer? Are Beethoven's late sonatas no better than method book pieces? After all, aren't they just different genres of the same disciplines?

Steven

I thought your piano's keys were arranged in a rainbow spectrum, to match your flag?

A reading primer isn't intended to be a dramatic play, so a comparison is inappropriate. The same for Beethoven versus method pieces, and Rembrant and finger painting. Those works were created for different reasons and different contexts. Comparing them is ridiculous.

On the other hand, a genre of music is not normally considered to encompass method books, a genre of literature is not normally considered to encompass a reading primer, and finger painting is associated with the artistic efforts of children, and is not normally considered a genre of art. I'm not talking about those "genres," but music that was intended to be listened to for its own value, not as a training exercise.

Your comparison to my statement is inept because it fails to acknowledge that the "bad" things you mentioned were not intended to be art!

You said "Musical compositions, like restaurant food, are man-made, and humans do vary in intelligence and ability." Yes, individual compositions can be better than each other. I never claimed otherwise. I am stating that no genre of music is better than another.

As for the fast food argument, it fails because anyone who bothers to sit down and compose something or improvise something, even if it isn't good, has already exerted more effort and intelligence than is required to produce a fast food meal. Comparing fast food to musical endeavors is a comparison that is empty of meaning.

As a composer, you will understand this without question. What I've found to be true is that those who don't create music and rely solely on their reproduction of the notes on a printed page as a sole mean of expression are sadly not in a position to fully, functionally understand this.

I don't know what your background is in music, Hrodulf, but comparing two pieces of music from two different time periods is hardly comparing apples to oranges and is something you do all the time in the study of music, at least at the university level.

Anyway, I was going to suggest that we do have our own criteria for judging something, even if it isn't necessarily that well thought out. Usually pieces or composers you find yourself returning to again and again is a clue that there's something about that type of music that is more meaningful to you than some other type. It sounds to me like you are unwilling to make any kind of judgments and that's certainly your right, but that doesn't mean that others won't continue to make them.

Also I forgot to mention that Joplin wrote in more classical forms but none of it survived except Treemonisha, so he was trying to be a classical composer but sadly it didn't work out.

As for ragtime, yes it existed as a popular short form piano genre, but Joplin did what he could to take it further, even going so far as orchestrating some of his rags (the orchestrations have been lost).

Joplin's story is in the end, a tragedy. Due to his premature death we really lost out on the full development of his mature work. But it is known he wrote or at least attempted to write a ragtime symphony which will sadly never be heard; had that survived, there may have been more acceptance of ragtime as "serious" music than there has been.

I am not talking about comparing two different pieces of music from different time periods. I am talking about comparing genres as a whole. How many times do I have to explain this to you?

All I'm saying is that different musical styles have just as much value as classical. The musical world would be very boring if it was only classical music! Not everybody wants to listen to a Bach fugue every day of their life. That's why we have choices. Now if you want to put classical on a pedestal above everything else, fine, but all I'm saying is there's no objective basis for doing that. I mean, just type in Oscar Peterson or Art Tatum on youtube and tell me that they weren't geniuses. I don't see why their music is lesser music.

The average lifespan for males born around the time of the Civil War was less than 50 years of age.

Doesn't change the fact that we lost a lot of his music due to his death due to illness. By premature I meant that an illness killed him, not old age. Also those life expectancy figures from that era of worse medical care tend to be skewed by a high child mortality rate. It was therefore entirely possible for a person who survived to adulthood to live longer than 50 years. For example, Wilbur Sweatman, an acquaintance of Joplin, was born in 1882 and died in 1961. I doubt things changed so much between 1868 and 1882 to skew the life expectancy average that much.

Please try to be more careful with your quotes, okay? I thought you were responding to me since you quoted me. But after some thought, I realized you were most likely responding to the person I had quoted.

Hroduff says: "I am not talking about comparing two different pieces of music from different time periods. I am talking about comparing genres as a whole. How many times do I have to explain this to you?"

Well since you refuse to actually clarify any of the terms you are using, including genre, it's really anyone's guess what you are actually saying.

Since you are more interested in being right than in actually having a discussion (which is fine with me as I've already spent way more time on this than I care to) the study of aesthetics deals with what you aren't: a system for deciding how or why we might call one work of art better than another.

Common sense tells you that artists do this. If you agree that you can say one work within a genre (a word you still haven't defined, as Renaissance and Classical are clearly two different genres of music) is better than another work (something you have said), then it's only common sense to say you could apply those same principles, whatever they may be, to comparing two works of art in two different "genres."

In fact, the study of art routinely draws comparisons between entirely different fields in the arts: for example, comparisons between sculpture and music, or painting and architecture. These are not only different genres but entirely different arts: spacial vs. temporal.

You simply don't want to discuss why you believe what you believe in any depth, and that's fine. But don't blame people for not being able to follow what you are saying.

Final point: you can't judge a composer by his non existent works. For all you know they could have been some of the "bad" examples in the genre you have mentioned.

It's probably foolhardy to ask this, but exactly what is the objective basis for saying all musical genres are equal in value and worth?

If someone says and honestly believes that country & western is a vastly superior genre to classical (and I think I know someone who would say that), I don't think there is any basis for objectively proving that statement untrue. Not to them, anyway. We would have to agree on the criteria, and that just wouldn't happen. But the question is, would they be wrong? In their terms, it's true that C&W is obviously and unarguably better than classical. At best, they might agree that they don't really understand what it is about classical music that a person like me finds so worthwhile, but that's hardly the same as admitting the genres are equal in value. And unless they actually could hear classical the way I do, there's no hardly any possibility to convince them that they should reconsider their position through mere words.

I have to add, there's something deeply ironic to me about this thread, because since childhood (and that was a long time ago), I have been faced with disdain, sneers, and the like from friends, relatives, schoolmates, colleagues, and casual acquaintances for being deeply into classical music, to the point that I learned to avoid mentioning it, through most of my adult life. Getting scapegoated and reviled as a "snob" because of it isn't exactly a new experience. Idiot that I am, at one time back when I first discovered this forum I would have thought it might be a safe haven from that sort of experience. Ha!!

How is it that objective criteria exist for gauging quality within a genre but not between genres?

Steven