Purcell is 'one of England's best composers'? Who is better? Robert Simpson? (comparatively unknown, but well worth the acquaintance). Malcolm Arnold? Vaughan-Williams? Tippett? Holst? Elgar? Parry?

You're talking to someone who loves Baroque.

Elger is nice, I enjoyed his suite from Peter Pan, but I have trouble relating to romanticism. Vaughn Williams is much more known for his variations of traditional folk songs rather than his own work. Kind of a shame because a lot of it is very enjoyable in its own right. Tippett is modern and I'm always torn as to whether or not to consider this "classical," same thing with Malcolm Arnold and Robert Simpson. And Holst is wonderful but I find a lot of his work very much influenced by German romantic composers. Listen to a composer named Hans Rott and you'll hear a great deal of Holst in his work. He quoted a lot of Brahms and Wagner.

I really enjoy Cyril Scott, I think he's a forgotten composer and very refreshing to listen to.

Not Handel?

Handel was never English, although he did live and compose in England. The reason I choose Purcell is because I think he was the first classical composer to try and create a unique identity for English music. Most other composers tended to be incredibly influenced by German, Austrian, and French composers.

Handel was the greatest British composer; except that he was not British by birth of course.

He was never British and his music doesn't sound British or represent anything British. But other than that, his music is transcendent.

Originally Posted by Felix5

You're talking to someone who loves Baroque.

Elger is nice, I enjoyed his suite from Peter Pan, but I have trouble relating to romanticism. Vaughn Williams is much more known for his variations of traditional folk songs rather than his own work. Kind of a shame because a lot of it is very enjoyable in its own right. Tippett is modern and I'm always torn as to whether or not to consider this "classical," same thing with Malcolm Arnold and Robert Simpson. And Holst is wonderful but I find a lot of his work very much influenced by German romantic composers. Listen to a composer named Hans Rott and you'll hear a great deal of Holst in his work. He quoted a lot of Brahms and Wagner.

I really enjoy Cyril Scott, I think he's a forgotten composer and very refreshing to listen to.

Right. Greatest except perhaps for Thomas Tallis, who is obscure enough that his name fails my spell-check...



Maybe he shouldn't be so obscure.

Originally Posted by Odin

I'm a Baroque Era fan, so this has always been one of my favorites.



When I first heard this in 7th Grade Music class it was like a religious revelation.

I think simulating or stimulating a religious revelation was the whole idea.

I don't usually bookmark T4T forum entires. Nor do I usually power up the mixer and external speakers. This is a good exception. For me, though, the piece raises a silly question. Is Captain Nemo's organ on board the Nautilus nuclear powered?

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Purcell is 'one of England's best composers'? Who is better? Robert Simpson? (comparatively unknown, but well worth the acquaintance). Malcolm Arnold? Vaughan-Williams? Tippett? Holst? Elgar? Parry?

You'd have to go to Thomas Tallis, perhaps...

If you're a Clockwork Orange junkie you probably do think that Purcell was one of England's best composers (along with Elgar).

Originally Posted by Felix5

He was never British and his music doesn't sound British or represent anything British. But other than that, his music is transcendent.

True, however not only was the King of England a big fan, but it's said that after Handel music in Britain looked to Handel as the model and inspiration for many decades.

This is another thread which has drifted way away from the topic it was intended to uncover.

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

This is another thread which has drifted way away from the topic it was intended to uncover.

How does the principle work? When one is discussing how a modern political figure compares to Hitler, the first person to mention classical music is said to lose the debate?

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

This is another thread which has drifted way away from the topic it was intended to uncover.

Well yes, but in another sense, we were talking about Trump, who is a guy who will say or advocate anything, at any time, for whatever reason; so, it kinda fits that the topic would be trumped

Or put it another way. How many conversations have been ended or transformed by attempts to compare a modern politician to Hitler? Turnabout seems absolutely required!

The problem is the current national political culture, those of you who remember discussions years ago about MBTI personality types should understand the argument i'm about to make. America is generally considered to have an ESTJ culture; in my opinion this was true from roughly the civil war up to the boomer awakening. Today's US seem more like an ESFJ culture, I now going to discuss my proposed restorationism. The goal of restorationism I'm terms of how it would effect American culture would be to attempt to transform America into a largely ENTJ/ENTP/INTJ culture.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Well yes, but in another sense, we were talking about Trump, who is a guy who will say or advocate anything, at any time, for whatever reason; so, it kinda fits that the topic would be trumped

Trump would have run as an ultra-liberal had he seen such as the only means in which to sate his overwhelming ego.

The danger of a demagogue is the offering of contradictory promises that can only result in failure to achieve promises -- or the abandonment of people drawn into the scam. Demagogues never see a problem in their promises of the impossible but in the People who fail to achieve what is promised. Soon after the failures become evident the demagogue starts finding scapegoats.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

The problem is the current national political culture, those of you who remember discussions years ago about MBTI personality types should understand the argument i'm about to make. America is generally considered to have an ESTJ culture; in my opinion this was true from roughly the civil war up to the boomer awakening. Today's US seem more like an ESFJ culture, I now going to discuss my proposed restorationism. The goal of restorationism I'm terms of how it would effect American culture would be to attempt to transform America into a largely ENTJ/ENTP/INTJ culture.

What relevance to wanton murder and unleashed cruel militarism and racism is N-intuition = understanding larger truths and imaginative possibilities that don't exist yet?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

What relevance to wanton murder and unleashed cruel militarism and racism is N-intuition = understanding larger truths and imaginative possibilities that don't exist yet?

I'm not sure, but as far as I've been able to figure it out he iNtuitively feels that war, genocide, racism and slavery would be good things, or at least necessary for his master group of merit driven imaginary friends to achieve dominance. Not all big pictures are pretty ones, especially when the creator and viewer of the big picture have vastly different values.

If you're a Clockwork Orange junkie you probably do think that Purcell was one of England's best composers (along with Elgar).

Funny, I never actually saw this film until a couple of years ago. I was surprised that I liked it, although I found it to be extremely dark.

I would say Purcell is England's best composer, but he's certainly not my favorite. If I had to pick an overall favorite composer, I supposed it would have to be Beethoven.

Originally Posted by Felix5

He was never British and his music doesn't sound British or represent anything British. But other than that, his music is transcendent.

Handel moved to Britain in his twenties and became a British subject in his forties. And he wrote the Coronation anthems for King George II, which have been performed at every British coronation since then.

http://www.britannica.com/biography/...rideric-Handel

Or put it another way. How many conversations have been ended or transformed by attempts to compare a modern politician to Hitler? Turnabout seems absolutely required!

This is what happens when nerd hijack your thread.

Trump may be a narcissistic blow hard, but he's no Hitler.

The problem is the current national political culture, those of you who remember discussions years ago about MBTI personality types should understand the argument i'm about to make. America is generally considered to have an ESTJ culture; in my opinion this was true from roughly the civil war up to the boomer awakening. Today's US seem more like an ESFJ culture, I now going to discuss my proposed restorationism. The goal of restorationism I'm terms of how it would effect American culture would be to attempt to transform America into a largely ENTJ/ENTP/INTJ culture.

Interesting point, I never really thought of applying MBTI to Generation Theory before. As an INTJ, I certainly hope this will eventually happen, although I kind of doubt it. ST and SF tend to be the most common personality types and I doubt they'd go through such a transition without kicking and screaming first.

John Dowland was not too shabby either.

Maybe he shouldn't be so obscure.

I definitely agree. Very pretty, a lot of renaissance music is very haunting. He kind of reminds me of Jacopo Peri's work a little, although I suppose he would be more along the lines of baroque.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

What relevance to wanton murder and unleashed cruel militarism and racism is N-intuition = understanding larger truths and imaginative possibilities that don't exist yet?

First of all Restorationism is not racist. More importantly I mentioned MBTI because the current political culture leans strongly to ESFJ. Our government is obessed with "Human Rights", "globalism" and other feelings-based ideologies, the political culture is a J because it tries to shove their worldview down everyone's throats. This also shows in how are military is structure, it is structure more to be an international reaction-police force rather than force designed to subjugate the enemy. An ENTJ America would be more focused on national ambition, they would likely not care if a dictator is slaughtering his own people as long as American interests are not negatively effected. In fact we would likely maintain and strength trade relations if strong relations with a reliable partner are deemed of utmost importance to enhancing our own greatness. Our military would have been structure more as a force designed to kill and destroy the enemy, and securing their economic and manpower resources and incorporating them to enhance the industrial and economic capabilities of our own nation. One thing; our current elite of selfish boomers could never hope to attain power in such a system because the system would regard their obsession with being the "good guys" as first and foremost a pathetic weakness.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

First of all Restorationism is not racist. More importantly I mentioned MBTI because the current political culture leans strongly to ESFJ. Our government is obessed with "Human Rights", "globalism" and other feelings-based ideologies, the political culture is a J because it tries to shove their worldview down everyone's throats. This also shows in how are military is structure, it is structure more to be an international reaction-police force rather than force designed to subjugate the enemy. An ENTJ America would be more focused on national ambition, they would likely not care if a dictator is slaughtering his own people as long as American interests are not negatively effected. In fact we would likely maintain and strength trade relations if strong relations with a reliable partner are deemed of utmost importance to enhancing our own greatness. Our military would have been structure more as a force designed to kill and destroy the enemy, and securing their economic and manpower resources and incorporating them to enhance the industrial and economic capabilities of our own nation. One thing; our current elite of selfish boomers could never hope to attain power in such a system because the system would regard their obsession with being the "good guys" as first and foremost a pathetic weakness.

Hmm... I always thought of you as a feeler, concerned more with ego and dominance than the consequences of trying to implement your militaristic daydreams.

But you are fighting... well... not the last war but living in the realm of the first half of the 20th Century. Before nukes and before colonized countries could get access to modern weapons nations tried to play the games you describe above. Problem is, most modern countries have figured out such games are no longer cost effective. One does not invade a country with nukes. Bad juju. Thus big powers don't take big powers head on, middling powers don't take on powers allied to a big power, and during the Cold War every middling power was allied with a big power.

Also, Bush 43's Iraq invasion demonstrates what happens if one tries to echo the old colonial imperialism. A country powerful enough to invade and attempt occupation has enemies. These enemies arm local insurgents. It takes a whole lot of boots on the ground to defeat the insurgents. Until one gets a thorough victory against the insurgents, it is impossible to secure their economic and manpower resources to incorporate them into one's own economy.

In short, colonial imperialism isn't a cost effective game anymore. Bush 43 early on boasted he would pay for his wars by selling Iraqi oil. It just didn't work. Suppressing insurgency is not easy or cheap in the modern environment. Turning a profit by killing people and stealing their stuff on a large scale isn't easy these days.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Also, Bush 43's Iraq invasion demonstrates what happens if one tries to echo the old colonial imperialism. A country powerful enough to invade and attempt occupation has enemies. These enemies arm local insurgents. It takes a whole lot of boots on the ground to defeat the insurgents. Until one gets a thorough victory against the insurgents, it is impossible to secure their economic and manpower resources to incorporate them into one's own economy.

In short, colonial imperialism isn't a cost effective game anymore. Bush 43 early on boasted he would pay for his wars by selling Iraqi oil. It just didn't work. Suppressing insurgency is not easy or cheap in the modern environment. Turning a profit by killing people and stealing their stuff on a large scale isn't easy these days.

The policy the bush administration used in Iraq is a pretty poor example of the relative utility of counterinsurgency tactics. I say this because the adminstrations policy was basically stuck on stupid with their obsession with "building a democratic Iraq". Because of this our leaders refused to allow the troops to take the gloves off or even use standard counterinsurgency measures. Insurgencies like Iraq can be easily quelled by reprisals in combination with forced evacuation and/or putting the local population to work using forced labor requisitions.

WWII showed that colonies are more burdens than assets. The British may have gotten more out of their colonies as military assets than they spent in administrators and colonial forces of occupation, but that was the exception.

Any isolated colonial outpost is vulnerable to attack. See Singapore. But even with a large territory and population a colony (Philippines, Dutch East Indies) is vulnerable to a rival empire-builder. Need I remind anyone what a costly war zone Italian North Africa (Libya and for a short time Tunisia) were for the Axis powers?