To the dilettante I was recently engaging with on here:
All baroque composers borrowed music. It is what they did with the borrowings that counts. Bach never wrote an original chorale, he borrowed all of them. Handel, as one critic said, changed rocks into diamonds when he borrowed. You are in the .0001 group who thinks Vivaldi is greater than Handel. He is not even in the same league.
I am extremely well informed having worked in musicology for years. Insecurity does not exist for me, because I don't debate things I know nothing about. Music is for me the grandest art and when crape comes out of mouths like yours, I speak up, and I can back up it up. So be careful.
If you love Vivaldi fine, but you cross the line when you compare his music to the greatest Baroque composers. I would in addition to the great two, Handel and Bach, rate several other composers of the time over Vivaldi. There is no arguing about taste, that is why your comments on Vivaldi are valid. But that does not change the fact that your principal statement (that Vivaldi is superior) is agreed upon by an extremely small minority.
You are also uniformed on Handel's borrowings (a common practice in the Baroque Era). Go to the Handel forum and read the papers on his borrowing and how he could transform a nothing idea into a gem. You obviously have tastes of approval and disapproved that are in the minority. Vivaldi is never rated as a top master, while Wagner is. Your knowledge of music and art seems to be minimal at best. I would bet that you have never heard a Handel or Wagner opera in your life. You are a sad person indeed.
>music is for me the grandest art Mediums are not ranked, and ranking them just shows your order of familiarity.
Isaac Hill
>posting outside of /classical/ Idiot.
Colton Ortiz
>mediums are not ranked Idiot.
Grayson Collins
>muh music expresses the unexpressible so does everything
Andrew Carter
might be a good idea to read up a bit on baroque-classical era philosophy before spouting pomo bullshit
there is a reason the term "pure art" is most readily applied to music. it is, in essence, literature acting as blueprint for a self-purposed piece; it exists for its own form, its form is its function, etc
normally some argument of "b-but how is that different from other art" would come into play, whereupon one simply has to point to the plethora pf advanced theory applications centered around the concept of music. it is the intuitive language binding all peoples, with its own science made purely to describe this effect
show me theater which compares in richness and poignance to a well constructed melody
show me a painting which makes men feel at the very memory of it
show me anything other than your childish relatavism
Jackson Wilson
so you're more familiar with music than other art forms? that's cool that you are knowledgeable about it, but disparaging painting (the oldest art form) is just lazy and stupid.
militant relativism is cancer, what can you expect from Sup Forums though.
Luis Young
What do you mean I have nothing. Even if I answered your questions you could easily just deny it. I wouldn't win you over with proof. >show me theater which compares in richness and poignancy to a well-constructed melody Glass Menagerie >show me a painting which makes men feel at the very memory of it too subjective to even argue but pic-related makes me anxious to think about and more so to look at
William Russell
Wait a minute you dummies film is objectively best medium
Jackson Ward
shit thread full of retarded faggots
Matthew Miller
All German composers are degenerate bogbillies who ruined Western art music by gradually making lower hominid hollering, jittery gigues, and syphilitic fanfares acceptable.
Jaxson Lee
Which composers do you like?
Grayson Wood
>what do you mean I have nothing I mean that you can only speak in thought-terminating cliches
when you dismiss the argument from transcendental communication you are incorrectly asserting that because other forms of art can achieve this so must they be equal at accomplishing it in measure. my best guess is that this is due to you being taught that a man is a product purely of his context (present and past), and that sociocultural factors influence apprecition of art more thn anything else. we know that this stance is incorrect based on what most people understand as "human nature" or more precisely bioligical and paychological imprints that exist almost entirely independent of sociocultural influences.
leonard bernstein gave a series of lectures at harvard which coversd a theory of universal musical languages (melody and harmony as building blocks of universal intuitive language) which explores this idea more in depth. theyre collected in the "unanswered question" series. >lol unsupported assertions they have aupports, just not enough to be anything other than a jumping off point, unfortunately. neat ideas though.
Adam Moore
...
Robert Cox
are the lectures it or have you read too? What did you read?
Grayson White
>It would be more accurate to say that Vivaldi had five hundred ideas for a concerto, and that none of them ever was fully worked out. It is only after his wonderful opening bars, his extraordinary beginnings (which taught J. S. Bach so much), that his concertos bog down and begin to resemble each other in the deployment of harmonic cliches-cliches which would not matter (as they do not matter in Handel) if the large harmonic form were coherent and interesting, the cliches given a sense of direction and movement instead of a feeling of jogging on a treadmill. >Vivaldi's operas are coming in for attention now: the same faults and virtues are manifest there. The arias begin strikingly, but continue with little of Handel's energy, Bach's intensity, or Alessandro Scarlatti's subtlety. These deficiencies are less crippling here: an aria is generally much shorter than a concerto movement. In comparing Vivaldi to Bach and Handel, some of his admirers (Marc Pincherle, for example) either refused to face his weaknesses, or else-what is worse-they never understood the strengths of the already established masters
>Overrated: Antonio Vivaldi. I'm tired of him. Stravinsky once said that Vivaldi wrote the same concerto 500 times. I disagree. Instead, I think he began 500 concertos and never achieved anything in them. So he kept trying over and over again without ever quite succeeding.
Jace Jenkins
Actually, poetry is the highest of the arts, as it requires intellect to understand such seemingly random lines, whereas music is far more visceral, that is it has the advantage of humans being more adept at audiovisual mediums.
Jackson Parker
+snippets of lectures and courses and texts too numerous to remember
if I ever get my kindle running I will upload the wealth of music texts it contains
Ian Perry
cool, go experience other forms of art you crazy kid and realize that they really are quite capable themselves.
