Did Classical music get it right as opposed to rock/pop?

[amigo30]

I just spent a couple of hours doing some serious music listening* with some great Bach recordings. A wonderful experience.

Besides being reminded of what a genius Bach was, I had another interesting thought.

Classical music was really all about the songwriter (composer). The writer was what mattered..somebody who was a genius..an expert..slaving away to create a perfect musical experience. The composer was truly an artist, creating a work of epic proportions, or something that really spoke to the soul. Once the work was done, various conductors would find the best musicians around to breathe life and soul into the music.

Let's compare that creative process to rock and pop of today. Today it is the musicians who write the songs for the most part. There are many great musicians who simply aren't great songwriters. I'm sure you can think of a zillion examples.

How did the role of the composer diminish so much over the years? Has music suffered as a result of this?

Let's take someone like Steve Vai for example. I couldn't hum one of his tunes to save my life. There is no question that he's a world-class musician however.

What if there were a "composer" for rock music, Let's say somebody like Keith Emerson, and then musicians like Vai "interpreted" that work. Would we have better music today?


*serious listening: Defined as undisturbed time sitting between a pair of speakers in a great audio system well set-up, doing nothing but soaking in the music and a bit of wine.

[DC1]

What if there were a "composer" for rock music, Let's say somebody like Keith Emerson, and then musicians like Vai "interpreted" that work. Would we have better music today?

No, because pop music does not function as high art, but as folk art. In the context of folk art, people want to believe that you are telling a story you have some connection to.

I don't know if you know this, but Emerson does not sight read! I don't know how he did all those Ginestera piano pieces, and stuff like "Pictures at an Exhibition" without sight reading, but it supports the idea that a more visceral attachment to the music is part of rock.

dc

[swimrunner]

Let's take someone like Steve Vai for example. I couldn't hum one of his tunes to save my life. There is no question that he's a world-class musician however.I just attempted to hum "For the Love of God." Now, I wasn't in tune, because my pitch really, really sucks, but that's a recognizable/memorable melody all right (for me, anyways).

[Bryan T]

Are you calling for a world full of talented cover bands?

Or maybe you want to go back to the Motown way of writing music?

[amigo30]

Are you calling for a world full of talented cover bands?


Are you calling people like the London Symphony a "cover band'? :D

No, because pop music does not function as high art, but as folk art.



That's an interesting theory. While the mastery of songwriting might be somewhat limited compared to the real "geniuses" so to speak, it has more "street cred" and thus more validity. Thanks for an insightful response.


I guess what I'm trying to say is that many bands have great musicians, but they don't have proficient songwriters. As a result, there's a lot of drivel coming from talented individuals.

Another side of it is that many musicians are more prone to to serve the techniques that they are proficient at, rather than using the techniques to serve the musics emotive response by an audience.

Perhaps more attention to creating a work the audience will respond to as opposed to creating a work that the artist uses to showcase his talents would result in more interesting bodies of work.

By the way, this is just a fun hypothetical conversation. I don't mean to rag on Vai... he's just an easy target to illustrate what I mean by great musicianship serving (largely) mediocre compositions.


Or maybe you want to go back to the Motown way of writing music?

Maybe. The Motown era sure did produce some amazing music.

[Polynitro]

sounds like qualitative utilitarianism to me, let me break out my hedonistic calculator and see which is better Bach or Rock? Hmm the numbers say...it's a tie!

[Frater B]

Zappa

__

[amigo30]

Zappa

__

Master of both worlds.

[sinner]

Many classical composers still had constraints to deal with, the Church, a commission, or even the public taste. In a way, it's like rock and pop of today dealing with the business of music.

Artists, whether living in the past or today, find ways to put the art, or at least a little of themselves into their work.

I like the expression "for the bottom drawer" as a phrase to describe work composed not for the general public (or a commission from royalty). This was often work literally hidden away in a bottom drawer and represented the truest expression of art from the composer (i. e. Shostokovic hiding his work from the repressive State).

Composers find a way to "sneak" some novel ideas past the square ears.

[Polynitro]

Many classical composers still had constraints to deal with, the Church, a commission, or even the public taste. In a way, it's like rock and pop of today dealing with the business of music.

Artists, whether living in the past or today, find ways to put the art, or at least a little of themselves into their work.

I like the expression "for the bottom drawer" as a phrase to describe work composed not for the general public (or a commission from royalty). This was often work literally hidden away in a bottom drawer and represented the truest expression of art from the composer (i. e. Shostokovic hiding his work from the repressive State).

Composers find a way to "sneak" some novel ideas past the square ears.

A lot of what Bach did was write filler music in between sermons in Church, kind of the music played whilst they pass the money around...Just happened to be kick ass JS Bach...Also, the Brandenburgs were never played until after the count or whomever (Prince?) that had Bach write them for him kept them in a safe where they stayed until after he died.

[Bryan T]

Are you calling people like the London Symphony a "cover band'? :D


They sort of are, aren't they? I guess they occasionally commission new works, but I suspect that the vast majority of what they perform is popular orchestral music.

[daddyo]

I often wonder about this. On one hand we have guys like Bach and Mozart. Geniuses no doubt. But the conventions of classical music dectate that the musicians who play it must stick to the music with only slight interprative variations as dictated by the conductor - human jukeboxes. That's got to be a drag for some musicians. Didn't Miles call it "that robot shit"?

On the other hand we have jazz which requires all the technical skill of the classical musician plus being able to think, improvise, and play simultaneously. That's great for some but the less skilled/creative may like the fact that Mozart figured it out for them first. In between falls all the other music (Indian/Eastern music excepted as I don't have a thorough knowledge of this music).

It's also interesting that as classical music became more sophisticated/complex harmoically and melodically, it became simpler rhythmically.

[Gigbag]

Another factor in rock and pop music, like the folk connection pointed out above, is that much of modern rock and pop seems to emphasize sounds and rhythm -- and looks. Those get the cas faster than perfectly crafted unique songs. I am not going to start bashing on rap, but llok at the popularity of rap. Limited melodies, rhythm, some sound effects, and street cred lyrics.

Beside drawing on the cliches and common sounds, rock can be pushed to be different, while much of classical was pushed to perfect songs withing strict rules.

It should also be noted that there was a lot of less-than-perfect music written during Bach's time, by less than genius writers.

[DC1]

Master of both worlds.


Sorry folks. The classical people never ever believed this. He did take a good shot at it though.

dc

[KRosser]

Sorry folks. The classical people never ever believed this. He did take a good shot at it though.

dc

You'd have an easier time programming Zappa today than you would have when he was alive, and his music does get played, though mostly not his orchestral music. It's usually chamber groups doing adaptions of his 'band' pieces - Echidna's Arf, Sofa, The Black Page #2, RDNZL, etc. being some you hear every so often.

As avant-garde 20th century chamber music, Zappa's music has been increasing in popularity and is considered very 'legit' in those circles.

[KRosser]

The difference is between art and folk music. There was plenty of folk music in Bach's time that was only played by the musicians. Hell, classical music in Bach's time was mostly only played or conducted by (or overseen by) by the musicians who wrote it. The idea of the virtuouso performer and the non-performing composer was a Late Classical/Romantic era development, mostly.

There is art music being made today, and there is folk music being made today and plenty that blurs the distinctions. I have no problem at all with Steve Vai or anyone writing music for a niche audience. It just adds to the rich tapestry of contemporary music - sometimes you need Lobster Thermador from a 5-star restaurant, sometimes you need a Filet-O-Fish...

...it's all good.


I just spent a couple of hours doing some serious music listening* with some great Bach recordings. A wonderful experience.

Besides being reminded of what a genius Bach was, I had another interesting thought.

Classical music was really all about the songwriter (composer). The writer was what mattered..somebody who was a genius..an expert..slaving away to create a perfect musical experience. The composer was truly an artist, creating a work of epic proportions, or something that really spoke to the soul. Once the work was done, various conductors would find the best musicians around to breathe life and soul into the music.

Let's compare that creative process to rock and pop of today. Today it is the musicians who write the songs for the most part. There are many great musicians who simply aren't great songwriters. I'm sure you can think of a zillion examples.

How did the role of the composer diminish so much over the years? Has music suffered as a result of this?

Let's take someone like Steve Vai for example. I couldn't hum one of his tunes to save my life. There is no question that he's a world-class musician however.

What if there were a "composer" for rock music, Let's say somebody like Keith Emerson, and then musicians like Vai "interpreted" that work. Would we have better music today?


*serious listening: Defined as undisturbed time sitting between a pair of speakers in a great audio system well set-up, doing nothing but soaking in the music and a bit of wine.

[DC1]

The difference is between art and folk music. There was plenty of folk music in Bach's time that was only played by the musicians. Hell, classical music in Bach's time was mostly only played or conducted by (or overseen by) by the musicians who wrote it. The idea of the virtuouso performer and the non-performing composer was a Late Classical/Romantic era development, mostly.

There is art music being made today, and there is folk music being made today and plenty that blurs the distinctions. I have no problem at all with Steve Vai or anyone writing music for a niche audience. It just adds to the rich tapestry of contemporary music - sometimes you need Lobster Thermador from a 5-star restaurant, sometimes you need a Filet-O-Fish...

...it's all good.

Good stuff.

:agree


dc

[lhallam]

Sorry folks. The classical people never ever believed this. He did take a good shot at it though.

dc


Not sure I get your point. Just because the US status quo didn't accept FZ doesn't diminish his efforts in the least. For one thing, Frank didn't have a lot of nice things to say about the modern composers or the business. I'm sure he burnt a few bridges.

Besides he was embraced by the Eastern Block countries.

As for the OP, not exactly the case. Back in the day, composers required commissions, were court appointed or worked for the clergy.

They were required to do whatever was asked of them. Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Liszt were all performers as well as composers. Bach had to write a mass every week, lead the choir and play the organ. Plus he gave private lessons.

Liszt and Pagannini could easily be slotted in the same class as Vai. They were virtuoso performers who were practically forced into writing.

Also, I don't buy a dichotomy between "serious" and "folk and/or popular" music.

It's all a matter of how history will interpret writers such as The Beatles, Frank Zappa, Steve Morse, Gentle Giant, National Health and Steve Morse.

For example, already serious musicologists have had seminars on The Beatles which is chronicled in Russel Reisings "Every Sound There Is".

[DC1]

Not sure I get your point. Just because the US status quo didn't accept FZ doesn't diminish his efforts in the least. For one thing, Frank didn't have a lot of nice things to say about the modern composers or the business. I'm sure he burnt a few bridges.

Besides he was embraced by the Eastern Block countries.

Well I feel better now!

He was considered derivative and trite. Man, it is hard to work in that world. I'm a fan, but his followers made way too much of his classical aspirations


Also, I don't buy a dichotomy between "serious" and "folk and/or popular" music.

The dichotomy is a straw man, since they are not in opposition. Folk art functions in a society in an accessible and expressive way that many non-schooled musicians successfully participate in. This is one of the most charming and attractive parts of it, and one reason why folk melodies influenced so many classical composers. It is also why the virtues of certain classical musics will appear forced and a bit pretentious when applied to rock and pop.



dc

[rwe333]

The difference is between art and folk music. There was plenty of folk music in Bach's time that was only played by the musicians. Hell, classical music in Bach's time was mostly only played or conducted by (or overseen by) by the musicians who wrote it. The idea of the virtuouso performer and the non-performing composer was a Late Classical/Romantic era development, mostly.

There is art music being made today, and there is folk music being made today and plenty that blurs the distinctions. I have no problem at all with Steve Vai or anyone writing music for a niche audience. It just adds to the rich tapestry of contemporary music - sometimes you need Lobster Thermador from a 5-star restaurant, sometimes you need a Filet-O-Fish...

...it's all good.
Late here, so my quick/colloquial reaction: F'n A!!!

[Brett Valentine]

I often wonder about this. On one hand we have guys like Bach and Mozart. Geniuses no doubt. But the conventions of classical music dectate that the musicians who play it must stick to the music with only slight interprative variations as dictated by the conductor - human jukeboxes. That's got to be a drag for some musicians. Didn't Miles call it "that robot shit"?

On the other hand we have jazz which requires all the technical skill of the classical musician plus being able to think, improvise, and play simultaneously. That's great for some but the less skilled/creative may like the fact that Mozart figured it out for them first. In between falls all the other music (Indian/Eastern music excepted as I don't have a thorough knowledge of this music).

It's also interesting that as classical music became more sophisticated/complex harmoically and melodically, it became simpler rhythmically.

Not necessarily. The improv continuum moved back and forth. In Bach's time (Baroque period), the musicians understood how to swing the music (just like jazz). The continuo parts consisted of a bass line with figures above them to signify the chords meant (basically a lead sheet), and the ability to improvise was expected.

In his time, Bach was more known as a keyboard player than a composer, and basically could "cut heads" any other player who challenged him. I can't remember the one who basically "called him out" and didn't show at the last minute, and Bach basically gave an impromptu concert.

In the Classical period, soloists who played concertos were expected to be able to improvise a cadenza at the end of the piece (it wasn't until later that these "improvised cadenzas" were written out).

By the Romantic period, the composer was "king" and players "were to play what was written."

I bet Bach could hang with a lot of jazz players today, but definitely with the neo-classical players of the 50's(?)I think.

[norumba]

Not necessarily. The improv continuum moved back and forth. In Bach's time (Baroque period), the musicians understood how to swing the music (just like jazz). The continuo parts consisted of a bass line with figures above them to signify the chords meant (basically a lead sheet), and the ability to improvise was expected.

In his time, Bach was more known as a keyboard player than a composer, and basically could "cut heads" any other player who challenged him. I can't remember the one who basically "called him out" and didn't show at the last minute, and Bach basically gave an impromptu concert.

In the Classical period, soloists who played concertos were expected to be able to improvise a cadenza at the end of the piece (it wasn't until later that these "improvised cadenzas" were written out).

By the Romantic period, the composer was "king" and players "were to play what was written."

I bet Bach could hang with a lot of jazz players today, but definitely with the neo-classical players of the 50's(?)I think.

+1, and all true.

i tend to think of improvisation as spontaneous composition, anyway.

i also dont see a folk/art rock split in the sense of the composer's importance; folk and rock songs are also composed.

whats interesting to me is that outside of some jazz subgenres , the 'jam band' ( to some extent) and free improv genres, and certain musics from other cultures, even folk and rock music get pretty locked in -- theres not a lot of musical risk taking going on live at a lot of pop/rock shows that iv e seen (White Stripes excepted), so in essence evryone becomes a repertory ensemble or cover band, even if theyre covering themselves.

[DC1]

i also dont see a folk/art rock split in the sense of the composer's importance; folk and rock songs are also composed.


I'm sorry, I'm having a hard time getting this concept across. The folk aspects of pop are it's words, story-telling, and topical cultural context. Where classical aspires to be timeless, folk art deliberately tries to address our contemporaries both musically and lyrically.

There is no split, and no dichotomy, but they are different in important ways; the fact that they are both composed, not being one of them.

dc

[stevieboy]

All music is art.

Are you calling people like the London Symphony a "cover band'? :D





Not only are they a cover band, but they don't even have any of their original members!

[teleman55]

Classical got it right but kind of went off the deep end in the middle of the last century when they got all academic, 12 tone scale, etc., forgot about beauty. There is art and there is entertainment. Entertainment is generally fun and disposable but some of it bubbles to the top and becomes enshrined as art... because it is. And then there is movie music.

[DC1]

In fact it is not a dichotomy but a triad (proposed by Theodor Adorno). Serious music, Popular Music and Traditional Music. Serious music tradition is not called Classical anymore because of the meaning that word has in the History of Music. Traditional music is not called Folk music anymore because Folk music today is a genre of the Popular music tradition, which refers to the protest song format.

Adorno!

Man, I haven't heard him quoted in quite some time. Thanks for the memories!

He provided the intellectual basis for a lot of formalized rubbish about good and bad music that we all had to deal with who went to college in the 60's and 70's. He hated jazz, you know. I'm quite certain he would have run screaming from the room at any of Zappa's shows, serious or otherwise.

He hurt the dissemination of this wonderful art we call classical music for generations.

dc

[lhallam]

Well I feel better now!He was considered derivative and trite. Man, it is hard to work in that world. I'm a fan, but his followers made way too much of his classical aspirationsdc

I totally agree that some of Frank's attempts fall flat (Herb 'N Mo's Vaction for example) but not all (Girl In The Magnesium Dress, Civilzation Phase III release).

I don't recall exactly what he said when invited to speak at some composer's symposium but it wasn't kind and certainly did not promote his foray into the classical world.

As I said, he is embraced in certain classical circles.


The dichotomy is a straw man, since they are not in opposition. Folk art functions in a society in an accessible and expressive way that many non-schooled musicians successfully participate in. This is one of the most charming and attractive parts of it, and one reason why folk melodies influenced so many classical composers.

Once again, I think we're in agreement here, maybe I didn't state it right.

It is also why the virtues of certain classical musics will appear forced and a bit pretentious when applied to rock and pop. dc

There's that pretentious word I hate. This is where I disagree. Like I said, time will tell. The lines are getting blurry.

They purportedly threw vegetibles at "The Rite Of Spring" now it's totally acceptible.

"Tommy" has been performed on Broadway.

It don't find it absurd that a trap set and/or electric gtr finding it's way into accepted orchestral arrangements. Then again, they seem to have kept out the saxophone all these years.

I don't think it's impossible to have Steve Morse's work performed in a formal concert setting.

Only time will tell.


Bach was lutheran. He didn't have to write a mass every week as this is a setting of the Catholic Church.

Doh thanks, it's been over 30 yrs since I read a Bach biography.

On second thought I've got a pretty weak argument. The term "serious" music has ticked me off since the first time I heard it. My reaction is to get on my little tiny soapbox and scream into the hurricane.

[Jon Silberman]

The modern-day composer refuses to die! ;)

[KRosser]

As a classically trained musician, who's done more than his share of rock & jazz, there's just about none of this that jives with my own experience -


I often wonder about this. On one hand we have guys like Bach and Mozart. Geniuses no doubt. But the conventions of classical music dectate that the musicians who play it must stick to the music with only slight interprative variations as dictated by the conductor - human jukeboxes.

Completely false. There is a lot of interpretive leeway that must be assumed by the performer, and lots of performers who choose to vary the composer's original instructions. This can be every bit an aspect of, creativity, personality and 'style' as improvising. Not to mention everyone's sound and approach to their various instruments.

It's why Pablo Casal's Bach Cello suites are immediately recognizable from Yo Yo Ma's. It's why Bernstein's Beethoven Symphonies are immediately recognizable from Karanjan's. Etc....

On the other hand we have jazz which requires all the technical skill of the classical musician plus being able to think, improvise, and play simultaneously.

Many jazz musicians would defer to a classical musician's facility, but that's neither here nor there. Classical musicians require a much more expansive knowledge of history, form and theory than jazz musicians do.

Plus, the backbone of 20th century 'patronage' has been commisions, often in tandem with an ensemble or soloist that the composer works with in a collaborative fashion, so performers have very much shaped the compositional landscape after the 19th century in a very active, innovative and creative way.

It's also interesting that as classical music became more sophisticated/complex harmoically and melodically, it became simpler rhythmically.

How did 20th century music become simpler, rhythmically? There are people today that still struggle with playing Stravinsky's rhythms correctly, let alone Boulez' or Varese's, etc. Much minimalism from the late 20th century did exactly the opposite of your claim, it got simpler harmonically but exponentially more complex rhythmically. There's composers right now, such as NYC's David Lang, writing things only a few people know how to do (such as 'split triplets', where three 1/8 note triplets that would normally take up one beat are scattered throughout the bar amongst straight 8th's discontiguously - that's hard, man!)

[DC1]

There's that pretentious word I hate. This is where I disagree. Like I said, time will tell. The lines are getting blurry.

They purportedly threw vegetibles at "The Rite Of Spring" now it's totally acceptible.

"Tommy" has been performed on Broadway.

It don't find it absurd that a trap set and/or electric gtr finding it's way into accepted orchestral arrangements. Then again, they seem to have kept out the saxophone all these years.

I don't think it's impossible to have Steve Morse's work performed in a formal concert setting.

Only time will tell.


Pretentious happens when the classical influence is not organic to the writing, but sort of taped on and carried by bombast and showbiz. Sting has all sorts of 20th century classical influence in his writing as does Townshend, but it grows from inside the writing rather than sounding like it was all added in the arrangement or worse, simply apes certain classical cliches.

dc

[KRosser]

They purportedly threw vegetibles at "The Rite Of Spring" now it's totally acceptible.
.


The "riots" surrounding the premiere of The Rite Of Spring have been blown out of proportion by mythology. It ran for a week, there were many walkouts on the first couple nights but by the end of the week was receiving pretty good reception from a full house, and it got more or less warm reviews.

Stravinsky always asserted up to the day he died that any controversy surrounding the Rite premiere was more due to Nijinsky's near-pornographic choreography than his dissonant music.

[Bryan T]

Classical got it right but kind of went off the deep end in the middle of the last century when they got all academic, 12 tone scale, etc., forgot about beauty.

Some of that 'academic, 12 tone' music is some of my favorite. I guess I didn't realize it isn't beautiful.

[KRosser]

Some of that 'academic, 12 tone' music is some of my favorite. I guess I didn't realize it isn't beautiful.

Apperently Schoenberg, Webern and Berg didn't either, since they wrote about 'beauty' and its application to their music constantly.

[Jim85IROC]

One thing that we may need to take into perspective when thinking about this, is that classical music has already had a few hundred years for the crap to become filtered out of society, leaving the superior works that we're most familiar with, whereas with pop music, we're more or less experiencing it as it happens, so we've got an awful lot of junk to filter through in order to find the really good stuff.

I know too little about the history of classical music to even guess at what percentage of the music that was composed and performed back then has survived to present day, and of that body of work, how much of it is good/popular enough to be played and recorded now, but something tells me that it's an awfully small percentage, and if we take the same percentage of "pop" music from the last 50 years and then do a comparison, that "pop" music may have a fighting chance.

Brilliant is brilliant. It's just that with classical music, we've had hundreds of years to forget the rest, where with pop music, we're subjected to all of it.

[funkycam]

Let's take someone like Steve Vai for example. I couldn't hum one of his tunes to save my life.

you couldn't hum this track?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvDUQYIJBYM&feature=related

[lhallam]

Pretentious happens when the classical influence is not organic to the writing, but sort of taped on and carried by bombast and showbiz. Sting has all sorts of 20th century classical influence in his writing as does Townshend, but it grows from inside the writing rather than sounding like it was all added in the arrangement or worse, simply apes certain classical cliches.

dc

Pretentious happens when some lame brain rock critic decides what the formula for music played with traditional rock instruments is.

IMO they've got it totally backward. Punk is bombast and showbiz, Fripp is from the depths of his soul.

Once again, all relative.

[DC1]

Pretentious happens when some lame brain rock critic decides what the formula for music played with traditional rock instruments is.

IMO they've got it totally backward. Punk is bombast and showbiz, Fripp is from the depths of his soul.

Once again, all relative.

All is relative? Then how can what you said above be right?

I agree with you btw, about punk and Fripp. However, there was a bunch of ELP and Yes that was pretty damn pretentious, and some that was wonderful.

BTW, I find Yngwie's use of classical to be extremely pretentious. Someone here on TGP let his GF listen to Yngwie and she said something like "You're impressed by this? He's just playing scales quickly"...

You have to be musical, not just technical, to summon the spirit of this great music. It's harder than I can say....


dc

[DC1]

The musical aspect usually grows from the technical aspect. But, as Clapton once said, you have to "let it blossom, let it grow". Balance is the key. If you focus too much on the technical aspect you lose the bus of musicality. An even and balanced diet of technique, transcription, reading, analysis, regular public performance and joy seems to be fertile ground for musicality. And I don't mean technical as theory knowledge.


Good points, but I was thinking more of the writing process. During the prog era, for instance, bombast and little musical noodles and filagrees everywhere was supposed to elicit a pavlovian "oh look classical music" response. It sucked.

In reality, I hear classical influences much more strongly and organically in Knopflers "Don't Worry Now" or Stings "Fortress Around Your Heart" than I do in most of the prog stuff.

dc

[DC1]

I bet you already know there is some misconception among non-classical music lovers as to what Classical is. What they believe is the Classical tradition (or "genre" as they sometimes call it) is in fact the bombastic side of the Romantic serious music style, i.e. the virtuosity, the dolente and fragile (there goes a Yes's LP title) sensibility, the flamboyant shirt cuffs and long hair (and of course, the use of long forms and multi-episodic works). IOW, Liberace.

That is the showbiz part of the serious Romantic music, the one that was hype in the decades the recording industry was born and thus was called Classical by it. Serious music musicians are none of this. They are usually as poor as jazz musicians and therefore unable to adhere to such extravagancies, self-indulgencies and eccentricities. Serious music musicians outside the Romantic style are usually none of this: early and ancient music performers or avant-garde performers (e.g. Kronos Quartet, Fred Frith, John Zorn, the Canterbury scene around Henry Cow group).

Yes, but "classical" us what it is all called, from Palestrina to today. "Serious Music" is such a stupid and prejudicial term that serious musicians refuse to use it..

:crazy :crazy

:mob:mob

:Spank:Spank


;)

dc

[seiko]

Where classical aspires to be timeless, folk art deliberately tries to address our contemporaries both musically and lyrically.

I'm not sure you can say "classical aspires to be timeless" in such a broad fashion. A lot of compositions dealt with contempory events and themes. I mean Tchaikovsky's 1812 overture celebrated a Russian victory over Napolean and was often performed with Beethoven's "Battle Symphony" (also called "Wellington's Victory"). Just because the passage of time has effectively removed the original context for us doesn't mean they weren't pieces that were strongly rooted in comtemporary events.

[DC1]

I'm not sure you can say "classical aspires to be timeless" in such a broad fashion. A lot of compositions dealt with contempory events and themes. I mean Tchaikovsky's 1812 overture celebrated a Russian victory over Napolean and was often performed with Beethoven's "Battle Symphony" (also called "Wellington's Victory"). Just because the passage of time has effectively removed the original context for us doesn't mean they weren't pieces that were strongly rooted in comtemporary events.

No one can say anything in a broad fashion that someone cannot find exceptions to. We still make broad distinctions and successfully so.

You do realize that Tchaikovsky & Beethoven, despite the pieces you mention (and perhaps others) were engaged, and purposefully so, in writing timeless music. correct? So, given the topical nature of these pieces, they exist outside of their topicality I would say in a way that "Boil the Cabbage Down Boys" or "Sweet Home Alabama" do not.

This does not make Folk art merely topical, nor does it preclude it from being timeless. It has to do with the context of its origin and the part of the culture that created it and the direct communication through lyrics that often does not exist in classical music.

dc

[Rock Johnson]

Different music, written for different purposes. Both achieve their desired results.

[seiko]

:crazyYou do realize that Tchaikovsky & Beethoven, despite the pieces you mention (and perhaps others) were engaged, and purposefully so, in writing timeless music. correct? So, given the topical nature of these pieces, they exist outside of their topicality I would say in a way that "Boil the Cabbage Down Boys" or "Sweet Home Alabama" do not.

I'm pretty certain that Beethoven had at least some sense of writing music that would both match and surpass composers like Handel and Bach, yes. So that is "timeless" in a sense, yes.

Tchaikovsky was by all accounts a deeply unhappy person and I don't get a sense that he had any particular notion of composing for the ages, the limited quotes I've seen from him tend to focus on how to convey emotion in music.

At this juncture, it doesn't even particularly matter, since history has judged them timeless anyway. I'm just not particularly sure I would want to say that all classical -- or even all of Beethoven's music -- is devoid of contemporary impulses and therefore exists in a vaccum. The "Eroica" is oft cited as a direct reaction to the French Revolution for example.

Also, I can't think of many modern pieces of music that exist outside of their original topicality as "folk art" more than "Sweet Home Alabama", people will sing along to that song in bars all over the world. There's Japanese tribute bands that sing the song, its been utterly stripped of whatever meaning it originally had.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sryqJoI6hRE

:crazy

[DC1]

Tchaikovsky was by all accounts a deeply unhappy person and I don't get a sense that he had any particular notion of composing for the ages, the limited quotes I've seen from him tend to focus on how to convey emotion in music.

I know several composers and not a one "composes for the ages" as you put it. That appears to be your strawman.

They do their best, and hope it is good enough to last. No one knows.


At this juncture, it doesn't even particularly matter, since history has judged them timeless anyway. I'm just not particularly sure I would want to say that all classical -- or even all of Beethoven's music -- is devoid of contemporary impulses and therefore exists in a vaccum. The "Eroica" is oft cited as a direct reaction to the French Revolution for example.

Wow, you have quite a menagerie of strawmen here. "Composing for the Ages", "existing in a vaccum". I do not know who you are speaking to here, but it is not me. You may find someone who believes that people compose "in a vacuum" but I have yet to meet one.

Also, I can't think of many modern pieces of music that exist outside of their original topicality as "folk art" more than "Sweet Home Alabama", people will sing along to that song in bars all over the world. There's Japanese tribute bands that sing the song, its been utterly stripped of whatever meaning it originally had.

I disagree here. The themes of southern pride and identity resonate precisely because all these people (especially the Scots where SHA is still very popular) relate to the issues at hand. Meaning and topic is the point that makes the music attractive. They do know what it is about and why southern man don't need Neil Young around anyhow. American culture is familiar worldwide, for both good and bad.

No analogy is perfect, but I think the comparison of rock and pop to folk art is an apt one on most levels.

dc

[SyKrash]

Just remember that many classical composers were also world class musicians. Liszt, Paganini come to mind. Even Bach was rumored to be able to improvise fugues.

[lhallam]

All is relative? Then how can what you said above be right?

I guess I'm doing a poor job communicating.

My general theme in all of this discussion is that the acceptance of certain musical ideas by certain groups is dependent (relative to) time and place.

What is considered pretentious today may not be in the future.

It seems that as soon as someone borrows an idea from the masters using non-orchestral instruments they get the unflattering pretentious label.

Zappa had it right when talking about rock critics.

It seems to me that if someone is composing from the heart it is not pretentious no matter the medium used to convey.

[/Steps off the tiny soapbox.]

You have to be musical, not just technical, to summon the spirit of this great music. It's harder than I can say....
dc

Understand perfectly.

[DC1]

I guess I'm doing a poor job communicating.

Nah, you're doing fine. I'm just kidding you a bit...


My general theme in all of this discussion is that the acceptance of certain musical ideas by certain groups is dependent (relative to) time and place.

What is considered pretentious today may not be in the future.

It seems that as soon as someone borrows an idea from the masters using non-orchestral instruments they get the unflattering pretentious label.

I think it is the music itself that determines this. I never found ELP's treatment of Aaron Copland to be pretentious at all. I thought they did a great job. Yet other things they did were so damn pretentious that I can't even listen to them today w/o cringing.

And I must add that I think Rick Wakeman's "Journey to the Center of the Earth" will always be seen as pretentious.

:Spank


Zappa had it right when talking about rock critics.

You mean the "writing about music is like dancing about architecture"?

Pretty darn funny, and mostly true.


It seems to me that if someone is composing from the heart it is not pretentious no matter the medium used to convey.



I would tend to agree, but I'll bet there are exceptions...

dc

[jumpnblues]

Get what right? What's "it"?


Tom

[amigo30]

Get what right? What's "it"?


Tom

Methodology of composition.


(http://www.thegearpage.net/board/showthread.php?t=538239)

[KRosser]

Even Bach was rumored to be able to improvise fugues.

It wasn't rumor.

Bach was known in his time as THE organ virtuouso to beat; he was not considered a significant composer. In fact, in his lifetime he was thought of as kind of stuffy and behind the times as a composer. His entire composing output more of less lay dormant until it was unearthed by Mendelssohn a century later.

[lhallam]

I think it is the music itself that determines this. I never found ELP's treatment of Aaron Copland to be pretentious at all. I thought they did a great job. Yet other things they did were so damn pretentious that I can't even listen to them today w/o cringing.

And I must add that I think Rick Wakeman's "Journey to the Center of the Earth" will always be seen as pretentious.

:Spank


You mean the "writing about music is like dancing about architecture"?

dc

The Tarkus release is probably my fave ELP. Emerson was quoting the masters a lot before ELP while in The Nice. I recall reading that writing didn't come natural to him, so that would explain why he borrowed a lot. "Take A Pebble" is a piece of work.

"Pictures At An Exhibition" pales next to the original. I liked it mostly because it exposed kids to the work.

Agree, I did like their take on "Hoedown" - it rocked.

BTW - I met Copeland, a shining moment.

I don't like much of Wakeman's stuff. I'll give you bombastic on that account. :)

No, I meant; paraphrase "Music critics are people who can't write for people who can't read".

As for Fripp, I never liked his interpretation of Holtz's "Mars". Dreadful, but
other than that, he got too much undeserved condemnation.

[DC1]

BTW - I met Copeland, a shining moment.

Would you be willing to share this story?

I heard him conduct "Quiet City" years ago at the University of Redlands...


dc

[lhallam]

Would you be willing to share this story?

I heard him conduct "Quiet City" years ago at the University of Redlands...


dc

Not much to tell. I was a undergrad music major outside KCMO and went to a seminar where Mr Copeland was guest speaker at The Univ Of Kansas in Lawrence somewhere around '76 or '77.

He gave about an hour lecture mostly on music evolution then took questions from the floor.

Afterwards, I went up shook his hand, gushed my admiration and asked if he had anything in the works. He said that he was focusing on teaching and lecturing at the moment.

Don't mean to be too hippy dippy but I have to say he had an aura of gentle calm and a certain charisma at the same time.

I'm a lucky person.

[DC1]

That's just very cool.

Not many folks know that you have the original spelling of his name right either.


dc

[DC1]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_V52M1vF4E
Check at 8:54.

I love it.


dc

[DC1]

What do you meant? Wansn't it actually Kaplan?

Wow, you are right. I had read years ago that it was Copeland and he shortened it to Copland, but it was originally Kaplan. Both Wikipedia and "Aaron Copland By Howard Pollack" agree on this. Here's a site for the book if anyone is interested.

http://books.google.com/books?id=a3R-7_UWF4wC&dq=aaron+copland&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=VtcFhOBkcY&sig=eyJkyHOQZTzRy05MFojNlgPI1Ac&hl=en&ei=S1ztSbawCpywtAPp14XgAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3#PPA15,M1

Background info on p15.

Thanks for the comment. I'm glad to know this.

dc

[Brett Valentine]

. . .
You US-people getting late to every avant-garde music developement. :) Neo-classical music in the rest of the Western World happened in the 1920s when Strawinsky abandoned his Russian period for Bach's and Mozart's style. And when was it that the US discovered spectralism, when Tristan Murail was appointed professor at Columbia Univ. in 1997? No wonder Zappa's serious music is being appreciated in recent years after it's being there for some 40 years. :)

No, I was talking about the neo-classical movement as it applied only to the jazz idiom, and, if I remember correctly, the focus of the jazz players was Bach in particular.

[lhallam]

No, I was talking about the neo-classical movement as it applied only to the jazz idiom, and, if I remember correctly, the focus of the jazz players was Bach in particular.

I recall the Swingle Singers doing some cool stuff:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiWn0eCxLSQ

Jethro Tull did a fairly swinging version of Bouree.

[Brett Valentine]

The Tarkus release is probably my fave ELP. Emerson was quoting the masters a lot before ELP while in The Nice. I recall reading that writing didn't come natural to him, so that would explain why he borrowed a lot. "Take A Pebble" is a piece of work.

"Pictures At An Exhibition" pales next to the original. I liked it mostly because it exposed kids to the work.

Agree, I did like their take on "Hoedown" - it rocked.

BTW - I met Copeland, a shining moment.

I don't like much of Wakeman's stuff. I'll give you bombastic on that account. :)



No, I meant; paraphrase "Music critics are people who can't write for people who can't read".

As for Fripp, I never liked his interpretation of Holtz's "Mars". Dreadful, but
other than that, he got too much undeserved condemnation.

Agree on ELP, disagree on Wakeman for the most part ("Six Wives" never did it for me).

I though Gentle Giant was brilliant combining Renaissance with extended tonality and rock. Many didn't get them at all, but they were a logical extension (I was going to say "logical progression" but thought better of it).

Fripp always seems a bit misunderstood. Saw him a few years ago, just him and his loops. Seemed very stand-offish. Got a great reception, came back out and played more though he didn't haver anything else planned. Almost seemed as if he was expecting to get booed.

[Brett Valentine]

I recall the Swingle Singers doing some cool stuff:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiWn0eCxLSQ

Jethro Tull did a fairly swinging version of Bouree.

As a kid, I was fascinated by the Swingle Singers, and they portray that jazz style well.

Tull's Bouree was the first version of that I remember hearing.

On a different note (speaking of interpretation), compare Julian Bream's "Concerto de Aranujez" to Paco De Lucia's. Exact same notes, but one's "classical," the other's straight flamenco!

[KRosser]

On a different note (speaking of interpretation), compare Julian Bream's "Concerto de Aranujez"

My favorite version of the Aranjuez, hands down. Lots of people play it faster, cleaner, louder or maybe more 'authentically' Spanish, but no one did it deeper.

If you know what I mean...

Bream's retired now. One of the guitar's great poets and champions in history. IMHO.

[Phillip_H]

Bream's retired now. One of the guitar's great poets and champions in history. IMHO.

Agree 100%. Hands down my favorite classical guitarist ever.

[KRosser]

Agree 100%. Hands down my favorite classical guitarist ever.

If you dig Bream even half as much as I do you'll enjoy the shit out of this: http://www.amazon.com/My-Life-Music-Julian-Bream/dp/B000KC6SZY

If you haven't checked it out already....

[BobbyFudge]

Threads like this one are why I love TGP. Thanks guys. I always learn something which directs me to dig deeper.

[Phillip_H]

If you dig Bream even half as much as I do you'll enjoy the shit out of this: http://www.amazon.com/My-Life-Music-Julian-Bream/dp/B000KC6SZY

If you haven't checked it out already....

Cool, I just added it to my Netflix queue.