|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 13, 2018 14:50:20 GMT
Since I diverged into wasted time. I'll restate the same answer so many other have provide just for clarification:
It's initially a political term for me.
It can also explain how one lives their life regardless of political position.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jun 13, 2018 15:27:23 GMT
I think the term is less relative than some have suggested, and a precise definition can be recognised by looking at how "conservative" is applied to art, music and science, where the description can be seen to be quite unrelated to politics. A musical conservative is one who holds onto the practices of the past, as opposed by one who embraces new musical forms and aesthetics. Bach and Brahms were conservative, Beethoven and Wagner were not. Some composers became regarded as more conservative as they got older, like Strauss or Saint-Saens.
In science a conservative is distrustful of new theories and tries to hold onto the past. Einstein was not a conservative when he was young (in 1905, when he kicked off relativity and quantum mechanics), but was considered to be so later in life (with his resistance to Heisenberg's mathematical physics).
If you try to come up with a definition by averaging the political stances of various "conservative" parties in several countries though, you'll end up with a muddy average that means nothing, since political parties are so often in denial (either consciously or unconsciously) even when it comes to self labelling. "Democratic People's Republic of Korea", anyone?
It may be that musical conservatives tend to be politically conservative (Beethoven was not either for example), so there may be an underlying temperament or personality trait that determines whether one leans conservative (in general) or not.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jun 13, 2018 20:12:36 GMT
phludowin That's not really a bad thing in a basic sense as like I always say the general morals of the country have really taken a solid hit over the last 50 years or so. hell, even the last 20 years things have taken a solid hit to. where does it end? that's why I think conservatives and liberals are so far apart nowadays as the liberals have pretty much went off-the-rails where as us conservatives stayed mostly the same especially on major moral issues like abortion as like I always say, someone who can't even get that issue right, which is a basic life issue, not a choice, will pretty much get many other moral issues backwards to. hence, with euthanasia/gay agenda etc. liberals are on the wrong side with these in regard to God who sets the standard by which us humans should live by as it's for our own good whether we agree with it or not. go too far over the line and as the saying goes, 'you reap what you sow'. many have rejected God and His ways nowadays and it shows in society with general moral decline etc. God set standards by which humans live? God's existence isn't even proven. And the Bible was written by men, and rewritten, edited and translated multiple times. If you want to make a case for morals coming from god, prove it. With facts, not with quotes from medieval misogynists. Women choosing what to do with their bodies? That's an improvement. People being allowed to marry persons they love, not just because they are of a different gender? That's an improvement as well. Here is evidence: www.forbes.com/sites/duncanmadden/2018/03/27/ranked-the-10-happiest-countries-in-the-world-in-2018/#6cbbda973e91All countries listed in the top 10 of the happiest countries, with the exception of Switzerland, perform same-sex marriages. Most of these countries also allow women to choose abortions. Compare this to the most unhappy countries, listed in this article: www.theweek.co.uk/70667/the-ten-happiest-countries-in-the-world-and-the-ten-unhappiestAlmost none of these unhappy countries is pro-choice, and in most of these countries, homosexuality is illegal. I rest my case. Allowing same-sex relationships and women controlling their own bodies is an improvement.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jun 13, 2018 20:27:17 GMT
I think the term is less relative than some have suggested, and a precise definition can be recognised by looking at how "conservative" is applied to art, music and science, where the description can be seen to be quite unrelated to politics. A musical conservative is one who holds onto the practices of the past, as opposed by one who embraces new musical forms and aesthetics. Bach and Brahms were conservative, Beethoven and Wagner were not. Some composers became regarded as more conservative as they got older, like Strauss or Saint-Saens. It's not that simple. Bach and Brahms were in fact progressive. Bach pushed for the tempered tuning, which is still used today. Before, modulating through all the keys was a pain in the ear. Brahms may have used old techniques, but his combination of old forms with romantic harmonies was pretty innovative. Arnold Schönberg, whom most musicians wouldn't call "conservative", even wrote an essay: "Brahms the progressive". I didn't read it, but it's available on the Internet. The thing is: All great musicians built their music on foundations built by others. Beethoven and Wagner wouldn't have made their music the way they did without Haydn or Weber. Even very avantgardistic musicians like John Cage or Pierre Boulez used aesthetics developed by people before them. To paraphrase someone: You need to master the traditional forms in order to transcend them. Bottom line: Good composers have always been both conservative and progressive. Using traditional forms, and creating something new. Therefore I don't believe that you could derive political or religious "conservativeness" from the music. One word: Stravinsky.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jun 13, 2018 22:22:15 GMT
Who the hell gives a damn? Obviously the poster does hence the question. If you don’t, then perhaps you shouldn’t be wasting board space and everyone’s time (including your own) by commenting fucktard!
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jun 13, 2018 22:24:01 GMT
What do you think of when you hear the term liberal? I mean what does a liberal represent to you? To me it means people on a guilt trip because life has been good to them, and they have a genuine desire to share their good fortune with those who are less fortunate than them...….but not enough to reach into their own pockets and share the loot. They are people who think the world's problems can be solved with their good intentions and other people's money. And when it fails, they insist they are on the right track but just not taxing people enough. That's what liberal means to me. Who the hell cares? Yeah, see how that dumbassary works fuckstick?
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jun 13, 2018 22:26:29 GMT
It generally implies ignorant, old fashioned, uneducated, not worldly or well traveled, close minded, fear monger, tribal, religious, racist, classist, sexist, homophobic, and fearful of change. Not that a conservative necessarily be all of those things.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 13, 2018 22:44:17 GMT
It generally implies ignorant, old fashioned, uneducated, not worldly or well traveled, close minded, fear monger, tribal, religious, racist, classist, sexist, homophobic, and fearful of change. Not that a conservative necessarily be all of those things. You really shouldn't describe Erjenious that way, I am sure he has many other wonderful qualities!
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 14, 2018 8:57:56 GMT
To me it means people on a guilt trip because life has been good to them, and they have a genuine desire to share their good fortune with those who are less fortunate than them...….but not enough to reach into their own pockets and share the loot. They are people who think the world's problems can be solved with their good intentions and other people's money. And when it fails, they insist they are on the right track but just not taxing people enough. That's what liberal means to me. Who the hell cares? Yeah, see how that dumbassary works fuckstick? You're an angry little man, aren't you?
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jun 14, 2018 13:58:02 GMT
Who the hell cares? Yeah, see how that dumbassary works fuckstick? You're an angry little man, aren't you? Not particularly. Anger would necessitate someone committing a strong offense against me personally, and I don’t associate with such people so I am not often angered. I’d say I’m a rather content person generally speaking. Try not to mistake me calling you out for being a dick to everyone else a matter of anger. Attacking you is more of a morally justified defense of other people here who you attack. So the question becomes, why are you so angry?
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jun 14, 2018 14:47:20 GMT
I think the term is less relative than some have suggested, and a precise definition can be recognised by looking at how "conservative" is applied to art, music and science, where the description can be seen to be quite unrelated to politics. A musical conservative is one who holds onto the practices of the past, as opposed by one who embraces new musical forms and aesthetics. Bach and Brahms were conservative, Beethoven and Wagner were not. Some composers became regarded as more conservative as they got older, like Strauss or Saint-Saens. It's not that simple. Bach and Brahms were in fact progressive. Bach pushed for the tempered tuning, which is still used today. Before, modulating through all the keys was a pain in the ear. Brahms may have used old techniques, but his combination of old forms with romantic harmonies was pretty innovative. Arnold Schönberg, whom most musicians wouldn't call "conservative", even wrote an essay: "Brahms the progressive". I didn't read it, but it's available on the Internet. The thing is: All great musicians built their music on foundations built by others. Beethoven and Wagner wouldn't have made their music the way they did without Haydn or Weber. Even very avantgardistic musicians like John Cage or Pierre Boulez used aesthetics developed by people before them. To paraphrase someone: You need to master the traditional forms in order to transcend them. Bottom line: Good composers have always been both conservative and progressive. Using traditional forms, and creating something new. Therefore I don't believe that you could derive political or religious "conservativeness" from the music. One word: Stravinsky. Yes, good points. In my terse argument I may have made things too black and white. I especially agree with your final paragraph. I think we can agree though that Brahms was and is regarded to have been more musically conservative than Wagner, for the reasons that fit the commonly understood definition of "conservative". Brahms' music, on the whole, looks to the past; Wagner's to the future. My other point about a possible alignment between music and politics is probably a lost cause. Wagner makes a good example here: he was pretty nostalgic which affected his political views and choice of subject material for his operas, in contrast to his strictly musical ideas. But even though I see Brahms as relatively conservative musically, I still love his music. In the case of Bach his music is so full of genius that in the end talking about whether he was conservative or not is missing the point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2018 1:10:44 GMT
I think of fear, primitivism, selfishness, greed and reactionary attitudes. That's what it means to me in the political context.
|
|