Crikey there are some right pretentious fools at large.
Einstein
Sort:
0
#104
roflmao...I just figured out where that freaky white noise came from!
I was going up and down the floors of my building and that noise followed me round everwhere except when I leave the building!...Was driving me crazy...it was loudest in the basement
turns out it's my wireless homephone in my pocket that's making that freaky noise...no wonder it was following me everywhere
Musical taste is all subjective. What to one person may be a hauntingly beautiful, chromatic melody, to another may be a bit twee. And vice versa. And there are many who would agree with me about Mozart. It's all just a matter of musical taste. I tend to find Mozart a bit dull and repetitive. Some others do too and some don't. But I don't find it so dull that I never listen to it; it's just that I don't rate him in my top twenty composers, although he isn't far outside that lucky lot.
I mean, can he really live with Tommy Steele or Benny Hill as far as the classics go?
<<<are you actully calling someone else pretentious?! lol>>>
What I'm doing is stating an opinion about Mozart. What you are doing is disagreeing with it. However, like so many people, your mode of discussion is not so much to put forward a clever or interesting discussion, as to call other people names. It's about as bright the football song "Charlton is better than Pele, for Pele is a ---- " (insert disparaging epithet to taste), which hardly helps Charlton's case in a direct comparison but then, they're football supporters.
Jack of Clubs, if you wish to put forward a strong argument, don't try too overtly to make your opponent look like a fool because, almost invariably, that attempt will reflect badly on you. Any neutral person will see at once who the real fool is. Best to try to imagine that your opponent may actually be intelligent, even if you can't see how, and try to say something interesting?
0
#107
You know you're being both the kettle and the pot, right?
I see the shoes fit on all your feet.
Intelligence is recognizable...in your case, pretentiousness occupies all recognizable space.
0
#108
Jack_of_Clubs wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Since much of what Mozart wrote can be sung, it can be considered as songs or tunes, whether or not they were expressly written for voice accompaniment, which many, of course, were. A lot of his tunes are simplistic or childlike although some of them are more ambitious but he repeats the same motifs both within his tunes and between them. In general Mozart is boring, unlike some other Baroque composers. He composed what would now be considered "light music", the pop music of his era, written to appeal to those without a sophisticated appreciation of music as opposed, say, to pop's equivalent in jazz-rock. It's typical of some chess players to get all pedantic over detail and entirely miss the intention. Never mind, when you worship achievment, it's easy to get it mixed up with brilliance.
This is a staggeringly ignorant post and belies very little musical understanding. Just because a piece of music might be mellifluous doesn't make it a song! One could hardly consider his Fantasie (KV475) a "song" - you must consider the form. And what exactly is "voice accompaniment"?? How familiar are you with Mozart's body of work exactly? Please, give examples of these simplistic/childlike "tunes". Mozart's roccoco style produces beautifully ornate, expressive and colourful melodies - to dismiss his compositions as child's play is just plain ignorant. Take the opening bars of the said work, for example - a hauntingly beautiful, chromatic melody. With perhaps the exception of J.S. Bach, his body of work (which is substantial) demonstrates a consistent level of technical mastery, invention and expressiveness that is arguably unequalled. You are also far wide of the mark when you suggest that Mozart's music was for the musically illiterate - he wrote for the highest calibre of musicians (consider his clarinet concerto for example, written for his virtuoso friend Anton Stadler) and they all held in the highest regards (Haydn said he was the greatest composer known to him) - scholars, musicians of today still do. The intended derogatory comparison to "pop music" is utter nonsense.
Not being a musician, I can still appreciate music...and I appreciate genius when I see it...
One of my favourite pieces of music here
I was brought up on music like that. Not that my parents liked anything other than light classics or maybe a bit of Grieg, but because I used to listen to the wireless a lot. But as the wireless became the radio, my taste started to conform to the norms of my times. I learned to appreciate the Beatles, Rolling Stones, Manfred Mann, Animals and others. Indeed, to have any credibility, I had to. But I genuinely liked them and now my musical taste is very broad. For instance, I have really liked the Andrews Sisters, Leadbelly and many more. I owned a music shop in the 1980s and sold musical instruments and records ... and sadly watched as heavy metal came into vogue. Actually some of the pop of the early 80s had been pretty good. My brother's a professional musician and my mother had a superb contralto voice, nearly as good as Ferrier's. Music has been a big part of my life and I reserve the right to make whatever comparisons I wish. 
So please stop making yourself look a fool and accept that others have the same right to expression of their opinions as you, EVEN if your taste doesn't coincide with theirs. Also, if you learn to recognise when you are being out-argued, you won't make such an enormous great dick of yourself all the time, and the same goes for all the other repressed denizens of the chess underworld who choose to make themselves great by attempting to reduce the credibility of others with different opinions. There's a word for it ... and it isn't nice. A lot of chess players are a bit odd. Repeat that until you learn it.
0
#112
good grief, another internet whack job who pretends to know so much as to call Einstein a wife-beater and a thief and Mozart and Beethoven not worth being in his "repetoire" of music....
You expect anybody to take you seriously?
You're a drunken idiot. Still, hope you're enjoying the chess.
teehee
@ Optimissed - you are welcome to your opinions, even if they are appear bigoted and seem to stem from little more than superficial, stereotyped clichés, rather than genuine musical understanding. However, you made assertions (quite distinct from opinion) that should rightfully be challenged - I've asked you to provide specific examples of Mozart's music that is "simplistic", are you capable of substantiating these assertions? Perhaps you'd care to explain how the opening two bars of K475 are composed if it is so simple, and how it is treated in the following two bars? You also asserted that his music was written for unsophisticated people with little musical appreciation - again, please provide some specific musical examples that demonstrates this kind of dumbed-down pandering that you allege. I'm quite sure you won't be able to provide a single piece of music, even from his early years, that demonstrates the kind of "Muzak" that you accuse him of, because his music stands up to the most rigorous musical analysis. His music may not be to your taste, but to brazenly cast it in the light you have shows a certain level of ignorance on your part, in my opinion.
You imagine that it appears bigoted to have different opinions on music from you.
Well, there's no more to be said. Again, you have your opinions on that and I have mine. Goodbye.
Optimissed wrote:
It might very well be convenient for you to pretend this is simply a difference of opinion, but there is a difference between an opinion and an assertion. I accept you find Mozart's music boring (your personal opinion) but don't accept your assertions that his music is "simplistic" or "written to appeal to those without a sophisticated appreciation of music". If you aren't able to provide specific music examples to substantiate these assertions, then I agree there is nothing more to be said and bid you good day.
You imagine that it appears bigoted to have different opinions on music from you.
Well, there's no more to be said. Again, you have your opinions on that and I have mine. Goodbye.
Please Sign Up to comment.
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.
Since much of what Mozart wrote can be sung, it can be considered as songs or tunes, whether or not they were expressly written for voice accompaniment, which many, of course, were. A lot of his tunes are simplistic or childlike although some of them are more ambitious but he repeats the same motifs both within his tunes and between them. In general Mozart is boring, unlike some other Baroque composers. He composed what would now be considered "light music", the pop music of his era, written to appeal to those without a sophisticated appreciation of music as opposed, say, to pop's equivalent in jazz-rock. It's typical of some chess players to get all pedantic over detail and entirely miss the intention. Never mind, when you worship achievment, it's easy to get it mixed up with brilliance.