Why have Germans dominated classical music?

[LightSpectra]

Yea, man, you're so right. One would have to listen to every piece of music ever made to be able to conclude that Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner, Haydn, Brahms, Schubert, Schumann, Handel, Mendelssohn, Mahler, Strauss, Bruckner, Telemann, Gluck, Hindemith, Strauss, von Weber and others are any good. Otherwise its just experimentser bias

Do you take enjoyment from your strawmen? Because I find it impossible to believe that anybody could misinterpret my post that badly.

No, actually it isn't :lol How do I use it inconsistently anywhere? I'm obiously referring to the term as its generally used, rather than to the classical period!

Alright, then why not mention the fact that the Germans only (supposedly) dominated two epochs of the classical genre?

Basketball fan: Jordan is the best ever
LightSpectra: Have you seen every human who has ever lived and judged their basketball skills?

One could obviously think that there's a better player than Jordan somewhere out there that's undiscovered. Though that's an atrociously poor analogy anyhow given that we're talking about which musicians were remembered via the standards of the eras that proceeded them, not any sort of objective comparison like which can be said of sports figures.

If you understood my point, I don't see how you could possibly object to what I'm saying. There is no perfectly comparable and agreeable standard as to what constitutes "the best." Thus, the artists whose works have survived the test of time, have only done either because (a) they were popular enough in their own eras to never be forgotten (like Mozart), or (b) their works were obscure in their own time and only became notable after somebody rediscovered them and consequently praised them into fame (like Bach). In both cases, it really comes down to, "we consider them 'the best' because somebody prior to us considered them 'the best.'" So there could be a great deal of English or Polish composers, for instance, that we would consider to be just as good as Wagner or Handel, but we don't know about because some music critic from the 1700s complained them into immortal obscurity.

Thus, your question is reduced from, "why are the best classical musicians mostly German?", to, "why are the musicians that are generally remembered in our time to be 'the best' German?" The answer to that is obviously because the proxies in which we come to know of Bach or Mozart before some other obscure composers, considered the former to be better. At no point in this process is there any sort of objective standard. It all boils down to the opinions of the proxies by which many artists are forgotten to modern times but Mozart and Beethoven are not. Ultimately, then, I ask how you can say that the esteemed French and Italian composers of the 18th century, that were forgotten in the 19th century, were legitimately worse than their German contemporaries, without appealing to the opinions of those who forgot the former but loved the latter.

Wow, and I thought you studied this stuff!

Well, thank you for confirming that you're incapable of responding to any given notion that refutes your beliefs. Makes the remarkable ignorance in this thread a lot easier to ignore.

Moderator Action: When someone starts flaming, please report, don't respond.

 

[Fifty]

Do you take enjoyment from your strawmen? Because I find it impossible to believe that anybody could misinterpret my post that badly.

It wasn't a strawman, it was a logical extension of your incredibly silly argument.

Alright, then why not mention the fact that the Germans only (supposedly) dominated two epochs of the classical genre?

Because thats utterly immaterial to the thread, unless you're an aesthetic relativist, and I have no particular desire to converse with the holders of such a crass and jejune view.

One could obviously think that there's a better player than Jordan somewhere out there that's undiscovered. Though that's an atrociously poor analogy anyhow given that we're talking about which musicians were remembered via the standards of the eras that proceeded them, not any sort of objective comparison like which can be said of sports figures.

Nope, thats what you may be talking about, because you have a silly view of aesthetics. What I am talking about is objective aesthetic splendor. Save the hip relativism for freshman philosophy club.

If you want to just interject hip relativism than fine... I'm sure the mods wouldn't be willing to let me exclude relativists from my threads, but I've no desire at all to to attempt discussion with someone whose view entails that randomly banging on a trash can is as good as Bach. Needless to say, such views leave discussion quite pointless.

Well, thank you for confirming that you're incapable of responding to any given notion that refutes your beliefs. Makes the remarkable ignorance in this thread a lot easier to ignore.

I'm so sorry that some people don't want this to turn into intro-level dime store relativism discussion time.

I mean, why continue to post in this thread? You've made your point. We get it. Bach is no better than Madonna or your average 5 year old or whoever... all aesthetic worth is just the codification of the machinations of conspiratorial cadres of canon-forming elites.... Can you leave now that your point has been made?

Moderator Action: Trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[LightSpectra]

It wasn't a strawman, it was a logical extension of your incredibly silly argument.

No. It's not. My argument is that you can't say that Bach et al. are "the best" without comparing them to their contemporaries, which very few people actually do nowadays. If you're calling them "the best," it's likely just because they happen to be the ones who have remained popular throughout the ages. Unless you'd care to explain to me how popularity is an objective measure for music being good, then it's impossible not to ultimately accept that it's not really your opinion that they're the best, but rather, the opinion of those in past ages that chose not to remember the musicians that are now obscure.

Now, if you would like to say that the reason why Bach and Schubert are remembered above their contemporaries is because the aforementioned music historians recognized that they were objectively better; then my question is why Bach and Schubert were not considered to be as good as they are not in their own eras, but were later rediscovered and championed. As I've pointed out, you wouldn't know who Bach was if Mendelssohn (who lived a century after him) didn't revive interest in his works. Obviously the denizens of the 18th century didn't have access to your objective aesthetic opinions, because they considered Bach to be an uninnovative composer, and only esteemed him for his performance skills.

This is just logical deduction. If there are objective aesthetic standards that you can use, the same standards weren't common knowledge in the 18th century and prior to that. So you've actually dug a grave for yourself if your argument is that there is an objective aesthetic meter; because then you'd have to admit that the artists that are remembered and forgotten from that era, were remembered or forgotten based on objectively false standards.

Because thats utterly immaterial to the thread, unless you're an aesthetic relativist, and I have no particular desire to converse with the holders of such a crass and jejune view.

Oh, so you can objectively say that the music of the classical and romantic epochs were unilaterally better than that of the medieval, renaissance, and modern epochs? And anybody who disagrees can only do so on relativistic grounds, which is apparently self-evidently "crass and jejune?"

Nope, thats what you may be talking about, because you have a silly view of aesthetics. What I am talking about is objective aesthetic splendor. Save the hip relativism for freshman philosophy club.

Fascinating, because that's exactly what I've thought about your recent posts. The only objective manner by which you can judge art is in how it ethically affects the observer (which was Plato's justification for censorship in the Republic).

There are biological reasons why humans find certain things to be more aesthetically pleasurable than others, but even if they're specific enough to become an objective meter, nobody has turned this meter into any sort of reference-able canon by which you can dismiss the French and Italian artists that were highly esteemed in their own times, but forgotten in our own times. If there is, point me to it and I'll shut up.

If you want to just interject hip relativism than fine... I'm sure the mods wouldn't be willing to let me exclude relativists from my threads, but I've no desire at all to to attempt discussion with someone whose view entails that randomly banging on a trash can is as good as Bach. Needless to say, such views leave discussion quite pointless.

Have I ever said that banging on a trash can is as good as, or comparable whatsoever, to the compositions of Bach? What does that have to do with my point at all?

I mean, why continue to post in this thread? You've made your point. We get it. Bach is no better than Madonna or your average 5 year old or whoever... all aesthetic worth is just the codification of the machinations of conspiratorial cadres of canon-forming elites.... Can you leave now that your point has been made?

I have to admit, it is pretty humorous that you're so quick to dismiss my arguments because they're supposedly intellectually juvenile, when you've repeatedly shown that you don't even understand what I'm saying whatsoever. What's even funnier, I submit, is the fact that you're the one appealing to popularity as being the defining factor of if music is "good" (and if you're not, I'm happy to hear the alternative); yet you're the one accusing me of being some sort of nihilist aestheticist.

 

[Fifty]

No. It's not. My argument is that you can't say that Bach et al. are "the best" without comparing them to their contemporaries, which very few people actually do nowadays.

You'd have to compare them to everyone ever to get a truly infallible judgment of whether they are the best (I like your little hip relativist scare quotes around "the best", by the way ). Such a demand is patently ridiculous.

If you're calling them "the best," it's likely just because they happen to be the ones who have remained popular throughout the ages.

Nope, its because they achieve higher levels of aesthetic, creative, and cognitive power than anyone else. This is not difficult to grasp.

Unless you'd care to explain to me how popularity is an objective measure for music being good, then it's impossible not to ultimately accept that it's not really your opinion that they're the best, but rather, the opinion of those in past ages that chose not to remember the musicians that are now obscure.

If only you could follow this bit of basic logic and see the consequences of this epistemology you're demanding here...

I mean, do you really want me to go into detail about how hilariously confused you are, or can you just accept my admission that you're right! Its all just a historical conspiracy and random-musician-nobody-has-heard-of x is as good as Bach, for all we know!

Oh, so you can objectively say that the music of the classical and romantic epochs were unilaterally better than that of the medieval, renaissance, and modern epochs?

No, that doesn't follow from what I said *at all*. I mean, not even close. Just on purely logical grounds that doesn't follow at all, nevermind anything about music!

The only objective manner by which you can judge art is in how it ethically affects the observer

....aaaand now we've gone completely off the rails.

There are biological reasons why humans find certain things to be more aesthetically pleasurable than others, but even if they're specific enough to become an objective meter, nobody has turned this meter into any sort of reference-able canon by which you can dismiss the French and Italian artists that were highly esteemed in their own times, but forgotten in our own times.

In other words, standard hip teenage relativism! How am I not surprised! Again, I'm not saying you cannot discuss this subject. Every kid goes through a little relativism kick. For the love of God though, please go discuss it some place else! Heck, if you make the thread I'll even play the part of the canonizing white male elitist that you can shoot down! I just don't want it in my threads, please!

If there is, point me to it and I'll shut up.

For the nth time, this is not freshman philosophy club. I'm not here to do your research for you, nor is this thread about aesthetic relativism.

Have I ever said that banging on a trash can is as good as, or comparable whatsoever, to the compositions of Bach? What does that have to do with my point at all?

It logically follows from your point (although you consistently fail to apprehend this fact, somewhat unsurprisingly).

you've repeatedly shown that you don't even understand what I'm saying whatsoever.

Its not that I don't understand what you're saying, its that you don't understand what is entailed by what you are saying, so when I bring up those entailments you just get confused. Now you might reply "explain how they are so entailed!", to which I'll reply for the (n+1)th time, this is not the venue for me to educate you on the relevant issues. PM me if you wish and I'll get back to you if I ever feel so inclined.

What's even funnier, I submit, is the fact that you're the one appealing to popularity as being the defining factor of if music is "good" (and if you're not, I'm happy to hear the alternative);

I'm not appealing to popularity, I'm appealing to objective aesthetic splendor.

Anyways, its time to put a stop to this little "conversation". This thread is predicated on aesthetic norms. If you think objective aesthetic norms are non-existent (or you hold a view that entails that they are non-existent), there is just no point in discussing the matter.

Go ahead and "get the last word", as I'm sure you'll never stop until you do.

PS: I'm happy at least with how spirited this exchange has been!


Moderator Action: Trolling.

And I'm done reading this, I'll just head off to the end and close it.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[LightSpectra]

I could go through and sort out all of the strawmen and logical errors you've made, but let's just focus on this one, because it's so mind boggingly fallacious that I would hope that you can grasp it.

This was the exchange we just had:

(1) Your contention: that Germans dominated classical music. (given)

(2) My response: this does not consider the epochs of classical music that were not dominated by Germans.

Either [a] you're referring to the genre of "classical music" but failing to mention artists from the medieval and renaissance periods (coincidentally, I think St. Hildegard von Bingen was the best pre-classical musician and she was German, but in those periods, the people often remembered are Spanish and Italian), or you're referring to the "classical era" equivocally and are erroneously placing romantic-era and modern-era musicians in the same category.

(3) Your response:

I'm obiously referring to the term as its generally used, rather than to the classical period!

This clarified that you were referring to [2a] and not [2b], but did not address my actual point of [2a]. So, I repeated:

Alright, then why not mention the fact that the Germans only (supposedly) dominated two epochs of the classical genre?

(4) Your response:

Because thats utterly immaterial to the thread, unless you're an aesthetic relativist, and I have no particular desire to converse with the holders of such a crass and jejune view.

Thus, when I asked why you are not considering the medieval, renaissance and modern epochs of the classical genre in your inquiry, you responded, "because that's immaterial ... unless you're an aesthetic relativist," thus implying that you consider the epochs of music dominated by Germans to be superior to the epochs of music not so, and that this can only be denied on relativistic grounds. If this interpretation of your post is incorrect, then please set me straight now. I might be wrong, but what you have stated is literally quite concise: I asked if you are referring to just the classical epoch, or the entire genre; you said the genre; I asked what about time periods that you're not mentioning; you said that it's irrelevant unless you're an aesthetic relativist. You said that the music of the medieval, renaissance and modern epochs are irrelevant to this discussion, because by your objective aesthetic standards, they are not the best as Bach, Haydn, Mozart, et al. are. Even if this is not what you intended, it is incontrovertibly what you said in your posts.

(5) My response:

Oh, so you can objectively say that the music of the classical and romantic epochs were unilaterally better than that of the medieval, renaissance, and modern epochs? And anybody who disagrees can only do so on relativistic grounds, which is apparently self-evidently "crass and jejune?"

This was simply an inquiry into your stated position.

(6) Your response:

No, that doesn't follow from what I said *at all*. I mean, not even close. Just on purely logical grounds that doesn't follow at all, nevermind anything about music!

All I did was restate your position, which you dismissed as being completely wrong; you dismissed your own opinion as being "not even close [to] anything about music" and logically fallacious. Once more, even if your intention has been lost through this exchange, this is in fact what you literally stated, so I'm attempting to clear up where either your error or mine has occurred. Please set me straight now.

Now, I apologize for cutting out half of my argument in this post, but given how extremely specific and concise I had to be in order to demonstrate how frustrating this debate is for just this one fraction of our exchanges, I feel I'm justified in doing so. It's quite irritating that you continue to refer to me as an aesthetic relativist, even though that's neither my position nor relevant whatsoever to this debate, but I'm hoping that by sorting out this one mess, both of our opinions will become clearer and we can continue from there.

 

[Fifty]

I CAN'T RESIST!!!!!!!! one more!

Thus, when I asked why you are not considering the medieval, renaissance and modern epochs of the classical genre in your inquiry, you responded, "because that's immaterial ... unless you're an aesthetic relativist," thus implying that you consider the epochs of music dominated by Germans to be superior to the epochs of music not so, and that this can only be denied on relativistic grounds.

No such thing is implied! I mean, forget about music, just on purely logical grounds that doesn't follow, unless you are a relativist (hence my point):

Suppose each element a, b, ... , i in some set of objects S is assigned some number, 1-100, according to some consistent criteria, and then each of those elements is organized into subsets A, B, or C as follows:

A: a, b, c
B: d, e, f
C: g, h, i

Now suppose the number assignments are as follows:

a: 50
b: 50
c: 50
d: 100
e: 1
f: 1
g: 50
h: 50
i: 50

As you can see, d has the highest number, but it doesn't follow that B thereby contains the highest sum of the numbers of its elements. Furthermore, whether or not d is in B has nothing to do with whether it has the highest number. It could have been in A, it could have been in C, and that wouldn't change a darn thing with respect to its number.

Now replace the subsets A-C with epochs, replace the elements of the sets with composers, and replace "highest number" with objective aesthetic value.

(obviously, I'm not claiming that a-i or A, B, and C correspond to actual composers or epochs or levels of aesthetic value, that was just a pure hypothetical sufficient to illustrate my point that your point about epochs has nothing to do with anything, just as a matter of logic, unless you accept some form of aesthetic relativism.)

 

[LightSpectra]

No such thing is implied! I mean, forget about music, just on purely logical grounds that doesn't follow, unless you are a relativist (hence my point):

Suppose each element a, b, ... , i in some set of objects S is assigned some number, 1-100, according to some consistent criteria, and then each of those elements is organized into subsets A, B, or C as follows:

A: a, b, c
B: d, e, f
C: g, h, i

Now suppose the number assignments are as follows:

a: 50
b: 50
c: 50
d: 100
e: 1
f: 1
g: 50
h: 50
i: 50

As you can see, d has the highest number, but it doesn't follow that B thereby contains the highest sum of the numbers of its elements. Furthermore, whether or not d is in B has nothing to do with whether it has the highest number. It could have been in A, it could have been in C, and that wouldn't change a darn thing with respect to its number.

Now replace the subsets A-C with epochs, replace the elements of the sets with composers, and replace "highest number" with objective aesthetic value.

(obviously, I'm not claiming that a-i or A, B, and C correspond to actual composers or epochs or levels of aesthetic value, that was just a pure hypothetical sufficient to illustrate my point that your point about epochs has nothing to do with anything, just as a matter of logic, unless you accept some form of aesthetic relativism.)

The fact that you've attempted to avoid logical fallacy by using numbers in this example precisely proves my point. You haven't provided any numbers at all in your original inquiry. You merely assumed that it is generally understood that Germans have dominated the classical genre to such a degree that their non-dominance in various epochs is irrelevant, and the only thing that matters is the actual number, which you didn't provide in your post. You listed names. That's all you did.

Thus, when I pointed out that it's only a narrow timeframe where the presumption in your inquiry is true, you responded that it's only relevant to an aesthetic relativist. Do you see the problem now? If you were only speaking of a single epoch, then your presumption may be true; I asked you about this, and you said that you were referring to the entire genre. Now the only thing you can fall back upon is that the unstated fact lost between our posts is that the number of Germans in the classical epoch is so overwhelming that the other epochs are numerically irrelevant to the question, which you still haven't proven.

Where are you producing these numbers anyway? If there is an objective aesthetic meter (I'll accept this as a given for this point even though you are entirely incapable of providing it), I'd like to see where you applied the aforementioned meter to each artist, and discarded or accepted them one-by-one to come to the hypothetical number that you have, by which you felt logically secure in dismissing the renaissance, medieval and modern epochs. May I see your empirical data?

 

[Fifty]

The fact that you've attempted to avoid logical fallacy by using numbers in this example precisely proves my point.

Unless your point was "Look how awesomely fifty can show that my reply to him was wrong as a matter of logic before we even get into music", I disagree.

You haven't provided any numbers at all in your original inquiry.

I don't need to. If you seriously question the aesthetic splendor of the folks I listed, I have absolutely nothing to say to you.

It is not required, when posting on the basis of generally accepted facts, to substantiate those facts. Furthermore, the failure to substantiate those facts does not imply that the only grounding for those facts is popularity, it merely implies that the person putting forth those facts does not need to waste his time regurgitating wisdom that his intended audience already understands. There is such a thing as a reasonable assumption of background knowledge. Discussing anything would be quite impossible without such assumptions.

So I'm just assuming that people accept that, for example, Bach is at the top of classical music (or at the bare minimum that he's top 3 or so, though even that is sacrilege!). If you can't handle that assumption, well, nobody is making you post here.

You merely assumed that it is generally understood that Germans have dominated the classical genre to such a degree that their non-dominance in various epochs is irrelevant,

Again, refer to my logical discussion for why all epoch-talk is totally immaterial to the thread, unless you are a relativist.

 

[LightSpectra]

Unless your point was "Look how awesomely fifty can show that my reply to him was wrong as a matter of logic before we even get into music", I disagree.

Your only escape from logical fallacy was to attempt to substantize a presumption you've made with an assumption that's utterly vapid.

I don't need to. If you seriously question the aesthetic splendor of the folks I listed, I have absolutely nothing to say to you.

That's not what I'm questioning. You're asking why there are more Germans than any other nationality in X. I'm asking what the number itself is. It's pretty important, because your question can neither be answered nor does it have any substance at all unless you can provide such a number. HOW you came to the number, I don't care for this point.

It is not required, when posting on the basis of generally accepted facts, to substantiate those facts.

But as my previous post showed, your presumption that it's a "generally accepted fact" is what's leading to such profound confusion.

Furthermore, the failure to substantiate those facts does not imply that the only grounding for those facts is popularity, it merely implies that the person putting forth those facts does not need to waste his time regurgitating wisdom that his intended audience already understands.

You're crossing two separate exchanges. The popularity quip was in regards to how you can make aesthetic judgments. The exchange of the last three posts is in how you can dismiss the non-German dominated epochs, which you replied with, because the numbers are overwhelmingly so for the German-dominated epochs.

There is such a thing as a reasonable assumption of background knowledge. Discussing anything would be quite impossible without such assumptions.

So I'm just assuming that people accept that, for example, Bach is at the top of classical music (or at the bare minimum that he's top 3 or so, though even that is sacrilege!). If you can't handle that assumption, well, nobody is making you post here.

I'll get to this in a moment.

Again, refer to my logical discussion for why all epoch-talk is totally immaterial to the thread, unless you are a relativist.

It is not totally immaterial. It's rather critical.

(a) Germans have dominated classical music.
(b) Germans have not dominated the renaissance, medieval and modern epochs.
(c) Germans have dominated the baroque, classical and romantic epochs.

Your only escape from (a) and (b) not contradicting is if the numbers in (c) are larger than (b). I'm asking what the number in (c) is, and I'm also asking for you to show your work. And before you fall back upon your rebuttal: I am not denying that there is an objective aesthetic standard. That is entirely irrelevant to this point. I'm asking for you to show your work because the question "why have Germans dominated classical music?" only has meaning if Germans have dominated classical music (because certainly there's no answer to "why is X true?" if X is false), and I want to see by what margins it is in fact true.

 

[LightSpectra]

NOTE: The following two paragraphs are entirely irrelevant to the last six posts we've exchanged, and it is a return to post #23.

You know, I really don't think I'm being unreasonable when I ask what your objective aesthetic standard is. I'm not denying that there is one, for the fifteenth time. But when you condescendingly dismiss my request to see what it is as being "freshman philosophy club material," you're really doing yourself a disfavor. World-renowned aestheticists like R. G. Collingwood and Umberto Eco haven't agreed upon an objective aesthetic standard. That doesn't mean that there isn't one, just that it's not universally accepted yet. So I'm not being an uneducated dolt when I ask you what you're using, no more than a physicist is being an uneducated dolt if he asks if you're using kilograms or pounds.

Yes, I can understand that you don't want to turn this into an aesthetics debate, but given that you're just presuming we can all agree that Bach is the greatest composer as opposed to Lully or Palestrina, it's kind of important, since your entire inquiry is based on why Germans are the best and not the French or Italians. It's like asking why somebody would make a building of X height, but then refusing to clarify what X is.

 

[Frank Drebin]

i dotn know why, but most probably it was undeserved and due to excessive luck and/or diving.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

You obviously have a slightly broader definition of Germans than I do, since I would consider almost half of those Austrians.

Well, at the time, I see no reason why Austrian was any less or more German than say Prussian or Bavarian. Austria and Germany may be a term for different nationalities with a different heritage nowadays, but historically speaking, they both undoubtedly belong to the German culture.

Anyway, I have no insight on the actual topic, but a in favor of German culture biased reflection of the accomplishments of classical music seems to me as an reasonable assumption.

 

[Traitorfish]

Well, at the time, I see no reason why Austrian was any less or more German than say Prussian or Bavarian. Austria and Germany may be a term for different nationalities with a different heritage nowadays, but historically speaking, they both undoubtedly belong to the German culture.

Not forgetting that, until 1871, there was no formal distinction between "Germany" and "Austria", because there was no German nation-state. To treat "German" and "Austrian" as mutually exclusive categories is anachronistic.

 

[Fifty]

Your only escape from logical fallacy was to attempt to substantize a presumption you've made with an assumption that's utterly vapid.

Nope. I illustrated that your point was logically incoherent, you replied with hand-wavey garbage about "resorting to numbers", I humorously replied that that reply is a silly reply.

That's not what I'm questioning. You're asking why there are more Germans than any other nationality in X. I'm asking what the number itself is. It's pretty important, because your question can neither be answered nor does it have any substance at all unless you can provide such a number. HOW you came to the number, I don't care for this point.

I'm asking why Germans dominate classical music. By dominate I mean "achieve aesthetic splendor". I take it as common background knowledge that the Germans I listed to in fact exist at the heights of the music I'm discussing. If you choose to question that background knowledge, take it to another thread, or better yet, go find some teenagers to discuss it with over cappuccinos and indie music.

But as my previous post showed, your presumption that it's a "generally accepted fact" is what's leading to such profound confusion.

It is a generally accepted fact, and no amount of scare quotes or kiddy-relativism will alter that fact. If you want to question it, go ahead, but do it elsewhere.

You're crossing two separate exchanges. The popularity quip was in regards to how you can make aesthetic judgments. The exchange of the last three posts is in how you can dismiss the non-German dominated epochs, which you replied with, because the numbers are overwhelmingly so for the German-dominated epochs.

Again, I'm not dismissing the non-German epochs, as my logic point that flew over your head illustrated. All of your epoch-talk is literally logically incoherent. Whether you are capable of understanding that fact, I am increasingly unsure of.

It is not totally immaterial. It's rather critical.

(a) Germans have dominated classical music.
(b) Germans have not dominated the renaissance, medieval and modern epochs.
(c) Germans have dominated the baroque, classical and romantic epochs.

Your only escape from (a) and (b) not contradicting is if the numbers in (c) are larger than (b). I'm asking what the number in (c) is, and I'm also asking for you to show your work. And before you fall back upon your rebuttal: I am not denying that there is an objective aesthetic standard. That is entirely irrelevant to this point. I'm asking for you to show your work because the question "why have Germans dominated classical music?" only has meaning if Germans have dominated classical music (because certainly there's no answer to "why is X true?" if X is false), and I want to see by what margins it is in fact true.

Nope, this is just more logical confusion. I tried explaining how in the context of the thread, I tried going to pure abstraction to show you how logically incoherent your point is, how about I'll try with an analogous case that may deal with stuff you're more familiar with than serious music or logic-talk:

Lil Boosie is test driving 500 cars, then rating them from fastest to slowest. It just so happens that 12 of the top 20 fastest cars are Kias. It also just so happens that the car salesman who you test drove those 12 with wore a green hat, whereas the other car dealers didn't. Here is how this thread would follow:

Boosie: Yo! Why do Kias dominate car speed rankings?

LightSpectra: WHY ARE YOU SO DISMISSIVE OF CARS THAT DON'T HAVE GREEN-HATTED DEALERS?

Boosie: Yo! Dat aint got nothin to do with it dawg

LightSpectra: YES IT DOES OMG YOU'RE SAYING THAT GREEN-HATTED DEALER-DEALT CARS ARE UNILATERALLY BETTER THAN CARS DEALT BY NON-GREEN-HATTED DEALERS.

Boosie: No I aint homie! Their status as green-hatted-dealer-dealt aint got a dang thing to do with their spot on the rankings.

Fifty: FREE BOOSIE

Now you might reply that the cases are disanalogous because aesthetic splendor is not like car speed, but that is only material if the way in which they are not alike is that car speed is objective whereas aesthetic splendor isn't. Hence my point, your view collapses into standard hip relativism.

You know, I really don't think I'm being unreasonable when I ask what your objective aesthetic standard is. I'm not denying that there is one, for the fifteenth time.

Well it is, pace what you think.

Conversations have to take place within certain parameters of background knowledge in order to be interesting. One such parameter for this thread is that Bach is better than a 2 year old playing a toy xylophone. Discussing what the objective measures of aesthetic worth are is a big topic and not one for this thread. I've already told you the there basic sub-areas: 1) cognitive power, 2) creativity, 3) pure aesthetic splendor

World-renowned aestheticists like R. G. Collingwood and Umberto Eco haven't agreed upon an objective aesthetic standard. That doesn't mean that there isn't one, just that it's not universally accepted yet.

Totally immaterial

Yes, I can understand that you don't want to turn this into an aesthetics debate, but given that you're just presuming we can all agree that Bach is the greatest composer as opposed to Lully or Palestrina, it's kind of important, since your entire inquiry is based on why Germans are the best and not the French or Italians. It's like asking why somebody would make a building of X height, but then refusing to clarify what X is.

Nope, thats a terrible analogy.

 

[LightSpectra]

I'm asking why Germans dominate classical music. By dominate I mean "achieve aesthetic splendor". I take it as common background knowledge that the Germans I listed to in fact exist at the heights of the music I'm discussing. If you choose to question that background knowledge, take it to another thread, or better yet, go find some teenagers to discuss it with over cappuccinos and indie music.

Nobody is disputing that Germans "[existed] at the heights of the music [you're] discussing," we're disputing if they dominated the genre. This isn't common background knowledge. It's an unproven contention. The fact that you're continually unable to substantiate your posts with anything beyond "really educated people know I'm right" tells me you know you're wrong.

It is a generally accepted fact, and no amount of scare quotes or kiddy-relativism will alter that fact. If you want to question it, go ahead, but do it elsewhere.

I don't know why you ask a question and then want it answered elsewhere. Seems rather byzantine to me, but what do I know?

Again, I'm not dismissing the non-German epochs, as my logic point that flew over your head illustrated. All of your epoch-talk is literally logically incoherent. Whether you are capable of understanding that fact, I am increasingly unsure of.

I agree that it's increasing logically incoherent, but all I'm doing is observing the points you're making to defend your presumptions, so whether or not this is my fault is yet to be seen.

Lil Boosie is test driving 500 cars, then rating them from fastest to slowest. It just so happens that 12 of the top 20 fastest cars are Kias. It also just so happens that the car salesman who you test drove those 12 with wore a green hat, whereas the other car dealers didn't. Here is how this thread would follow:

Boosie: Yo! Why do Kias dominate car speed rankings?

LightSpectra: WHY ARE YOU SO DISMISSIVE OF CARS THAT DON'T HAVE GREEN-HATTED DEALERS?

Cute.

Now you might reply that the cases are disanalogous because aesthetic splendor is not like car speed, but that is only material if the way in which they are not alike is that car speed is objective whereas aesthetic splendor isn't. Hence my point, your view collapses into standard hip relativism.

I agree, but it's not me that's getting into "hip relativism" by suggesting the above. I asked you if you were suggesting that classical-epoch and romantic-epoch composers were superior to renaissance-epoch and medieval-epoch composers (which is what you're using in this example as car speed), and you said that it has nothing to do with your point.

This is what you've said so far: speaking of epochs is irrelevant. I ask you how you can say that German composers dominated classical music if it's in only a certain time period that this is true, and your only reply is that your objective aesthetic meter tells you that this is so. When I ask how you can say that the classical and romantic epochs are objectively better as so, you either accuse me of being a relativist, or say it's irrelevant. How you can't see the disparation between your analogy and your responses is baffling.

Conversations have to take place within certain parameters of background knowledge in order to be interesting. One such parameter for this thread is that Bach is better than a 2 year old playing a toy xylophone. Discussing what the objective measures of aesthetic worth are is a big topic and not one for this thread. I've already told you the there basic sub-areas: 1) cognitive power, 2) creativity, 3) pure aesthetic splendor

Nobody's denied that Bach is a superior musician to a two-year-old. Quit with the strawmen. I do in fact believe in an objective aesthetic meter, but we obviously aren't using the standard, so I would like to know what your standard is in order that we may see which of us is in error.

You keep citing "background knowledge" as an excuse to ignore my queries. What background knowledge is this? The world's most credible scholars in the field of aesthetics haven't provided an objective meter. This doesn't mean that there isn't one, but it does mean that what it is isn't self-evident, meaning I would like you to provide for me what the meter is. How are you measuring that Bach has superior cognitive power, creativity and splendor to Mozart? What is the empirical equation? And where has this canon been spelled out that I may check for reference?

Totally immaterial

It's immaterial that the position you claim is "background knowledge" is most certainly not self-evident, thus eliminating your convenient excuse to dodge a reasonable question?

Nope, thats a terrible analogy.

Oh, well if you say so, it must be true. I guess that's what your objective meter is.

 

[Fifty]

This isn't common background knowledge. It's an unproven contention. The fact that you're continually unable to substantiate your posts with anything beyond "really educated people know I'm right" tells me you know you're wrong.

Nope, it just means that this thread isn't about elementary music education, its predicated on certain background knowledge. If you want to create a thread about elementary music education, feel free to do so.

Also, its not just really educated people who have this background knowledge, its anybody with more than a passing interest in music.

I don't know why you ask a question and then want it answered elsewhere. Seems rather byzantine to me, but what do I know?

You're confusing why and whether. Two different things, kid.

I agree that it's increasing logically incoherent,

I'm glad you acknowledge that your point is logically incoherent, FINALLY.

Cute.

I agree, but it's not me that's getting into "hip relativism" by suggesting the above. I asked you if you were suggesting that classical-epoch and romantic-epoch composers were superior to renaissance-epoch and medieval-epoch composers (which is what you're using in this example as car speed), and you said that it has nothing to do with your point.

Its amazing how I can explain the same thing over and over and you just don't get it. I thought maybe it was me, so I've asked literally 15 different people in fiftychat, and they all agree that your point has nothing to do with what i'm saying, that we can discern at least.

You haven't asked me wehther I think that classical and romantic composers are superior to rennaissance and medieval ones, you've asserted that my view entails that it does, which it doesn't, unless you are a hip teenage relativist.

Epochs have absolutely nothing to do with anything, as both my logic example and my green-hatted-kia-dealer examples illustrate. I've discussed it abstractly and I've given you a nice easy example, but you just don't seem to get it. I'm apparently incapable of simplifying it to a level you can comprehend.

This is what you've said so far: speaking of epochs is irrelevant. I ask you how you can say that German composers dominated classical music if it's in only a certain time period that this is true, and your only reply is that your objective aesthetic meter tells you that this is so. When I ask how you can say that the classical and romantic epochs are objectively better as so, you either accuse me of being a relativist, or say it's irrelevant. How you can't see the disparation between your analogy and your responses is baffling.

For the 5001th time, epoch talk has nothing to do with anything for the reasons I illustrated.

Just because p has some property x and q has some property y, and q is better than p along some criteria, it does not follow that things that instantiate property y are are generally better than things that instantiate property x. You're making basic logic errors of the sort that we try testing in intro logic exams.

Nobody's denied that Bach is a superior musician to a two-year-old. Quit with the strawmen.

Your view is either incoherent, or implies that its an open matter whether Bach is a superior composer to a 2 year old.

I do in fact believe in an objective aesthetic meter, but we obviously aren't using the standard, so I would like to know what your standard is in order that we may see which of us is in error.

I'm using the correct one. If you feel this is in error, feel free to create a thread discussing comparative criteria for aesthetic evaluation.

You keep citing "background knowledge" as an excuse to ignore my queries. What background knowledge is this?

That the composers I listed in the OP are within the top 20 in objective aesthetic value in the field of classical music.

The world's most credible scholars in the field of aesthetics haven't provided an objective meter. This doesn't mean that there isn't one, but it does mean that what it is isn't self-evident, meaning I would like you to provide for me what the meter is. How are you measuring that Bach has superior cognitive power, creativity and splendor to Mozart? What is the empirical equation? And where has this canon been spelled out that I may check for reference?

If you want to receive a basic education on aesthetics and music criticism, feel free to start a thread on the matter and I'll get to it if and when I deign to bestow upon you the gift of understanding.

It's immaterial that the position you claim is "background knowledge" is most certainly not self-evident, thus eliminating your convenient excuse to dodge a reasonable question?

It may not be self-evident to you, but who cares? Again, you can feel free to create a thread on aesthetic evaluation if you want.

Oh, well if you say so, it must be true. I guess that's what your objective meter is.

Nope, yet again you're confused.

 

[LightSpectra]

Oh, okay. So the world's leading scholars in aesthetics apparently don't have the "basic education on aesthetics and music criticism" that you and your target audience of nobody has, and your opinion is so self-evident that it's plainly obvious that all the zero people (sorry -- the 15 people in fiftychat) who agree with you can see how wrong I am. I'm glad your objective meter is so brilliantly obvious and true that it strikes out everybody that you can't be bothered to "deign to bestow the gift of understanding," and that the educated music bizarroworld can collectively agree that on the top 20 list of composers that you have mathematically determined.

I think I'm all clear now as to how this business works.

 

[Fifty]

Oh, okay. So the world's leading scholars in aesthetics apparently don't have the "basic education on aesthetics and music criticism" that you and your target audience of nobody has

Yes they do. You're confused again.

and your opinion is so self-evident that it's plainly obvious that all the zero people (sorry -- the 15 people in fiftychat) who agree with you can see how wrong I am.

The people in fiftychat agree that your point on epochs is immaterial. I have not posed them the question of whether they agree that the composers I listed are among the top 20 in classical music.

I'm glad your objective meter is so brilliantly obvious and true that it strikes out everybody that you can't be bothered to "deign to bestow the gift of understanding,"

The objective meter isn't necessarily brilliantly obvious, but that is immaterial to the thread.

and that the educated music bizarroworld can collectively agree that on the top 20 list of composers that you have mathematically determined.

I didn't give a top 20 list, I gave some examples of Germans that belong in the top 20 list.

I think I'm all clear now as to how this business works.

If you are, it isn't evident from your posts.

 

[Orange Seeds]

You don't need to be an aesthetic relativist to state that Bach, x, y, and z are not the best composers of an era. All you need to do is argue that some other person was objectively superior. LS' intuition that that whole argument was fallacious looks sound to me. It's a successful red herring.

I don't think the opinions of individuals in fiftychat, who have been counseled by an interested party, are relevant due to that fact.

 

[Fifty]

You don't need to be an aesthetic relativist to state that Bach, x, y, and z are not the best composers of an era. All you need to do is argue that some other person was objectively superior. LS' intuition that that whole argument was fallacious looks sound to me. It's a successful red herring.

Nope, you clearly haven't followed the thread.

I'm just saying that whether or not Bach is better than a 2 year old is immaterial to the thread. I think its manifestly obvious to everyone who knows music that the composers I listed are among the best. You may disagree, but the point is to put that disagreement in another thread, since it isn't appropriate for here. LS seems oddly averse to just making his own thread though, for reasons I cannot fathom.