Today's musical interlude

[Renauda]

@doctor-phibes said in Today's musical interlude:

I wouldn't really have described that second piece as 'classical', more classical-influenced.

Does it really matter? We stick labels on things to try and help categorize them. Then the label becomes more important than the music......

Just listen to the Beatles from Rubber Soul right up to the break up of the band. George Martin’s classical music training and influence is more than obvious.

Then there are other bands like Deep Purple,Yes and Emerson, Lake & Palmer just to name a few. Classical music formed the very foundation of their style of rock music. Deep Purple’s Jon Lord plays a descending keyboard break in Highway Star that is a variation of a passage from Bach Partita.

So it doesn’t matter - great musicianship is great musicianship regardless of style or genre or, whether or not you went to music school. People forget that Liszt was, for the most part, self taught in both piano technique and composition. Sure he took a couple of private lessons but he, unlike Chopin, never attended a Conservatory.

[Larry]

Just go back through this thread and you'll see what I'm talking about.

I made it clear that it wasn't the music but the snobbery that I didn't like. To prove my point, I posted a link to a modern classical piece that I like. Right out of the gate I was informed that it wasn't "ckassical", didn't even qualify as classical, and sounded like pop music using "classical orchestra instruments. Let me translate that for you:

"Your music is inferior folk music faking it with instruments YOUR music isn't supposed to use.

IE.... you like redneck music.

Next I'm informed that no modern music can be classical, which was quickly shown to be a silly claim.

Now I'm being ragged over shit I didn't even say, all because I dared to say anything about the fucking snobbery associated with what by and large consists of (as it related to piano) exercises designed to teach harpichordists how to adjust to sustain both from let off as well as a sustain pedal, à and church music.

[George K]

@larry said in Today's musical interlude:

I made it clear that it wasn't the music but the snobbery that I didn't like.

Well, there's this, in the very first sentence of your post.

As some of you know, I don't care much for "classical" music. There are numerous reasons for that. First, my college professors refused to allow me to play anything else,

And in the second part you said this:

Second, Nothing pisses me off more than to have some nose in the air snob tell me that the music I like is worthless crap, "folk music", and imply that I'm somehow beneath them in musical taste because I won't agree with their view and turn into a snob with them and nod when they make stupid statements like "the classical composers will still be popular centuries from now, and you 'folk music' is forgotten in a few months".

Finally, you say this:

Anyway..... that's why I don't like classical music. It's not the music itself, it's the stuffy snobbery that goes along with it.

Let me distill that for you.

"I hate the people that made me listen to it."

"The people who listen to it are elite snobs."

"Oh, the music's OK (I guess), but I still hate the BS associated with it.

Now, let's put the boot on the other foot.

"I hate country music because I was forced to listen to it."

"Country music is played by a bunch of redneck hicks who wear cowboy boots and get drunk while doing line-dancing."

"Oh, I don't really hate country music.I appreciate it. I just hate all the people and culture associated with it.

That's what you said, in a nutshell.

You're not going to find a bunch of people with more varied tastes in music than our bunch here. It's a matter of taste.

Phibles loves jazz, and bless him for that. He's introduced me to so much stuff I would have never have looked at.

Your introduction to the remarkable musicianship and skill of so many of today's artists is another example.

It's a matter of taste, and de gustibum...

But to try to justify your taste is a fool's errand. It's what you like, or not - and nothing more profound than that.

[Larry]

@renauda said in Today's musical interlude:

@doctor-phibes said in Today's musical interlude:

I wouldn't really have described that second piece as 'classical', more classical-influenced.

Does it really matter? We stick labels on things to try and help categorize them. Then the label becomes more important than the music......

Just listen to the Beatles from Rubber Soul right up to the break up of the band. George Martin’s classical music training and influence is more than obvious.

Then there are other bands like Deep Purple,Yes and Emerson, Lake & Palmer just to name a few. Jon Lord plays a descending keybiard break in Highway Star that is a variation of a passage from Bach Partita.

So it doesn’t matter - great musicianship is great musicianship regardless of style or genre or, whether or not you went to music school. People forget that Liszt was for the most, part self taught in both piano technique and composition. Sure he took a couple of private lessons but he, unlike Chopin, never attended a Conservatory.

Yes.

Liszt was a rock star of his day. If he had need born in this age he would have trashed hotel rooms. And beethoven screwed so many whores he went deaf from VD, and I think if he read this thread he would say "well, you finally found a way to get people to respond in a "musical interlude" thread...... hahahaha

[Larry]

@george-k said in Today's musical interlude:

@larry said in Today's musical interlude:

I made it clear that it wasn't the music but the snobbery that I didn't like.

Well, there's this, in the very first sentence of your post.

As some of you know, I don't care much for "classical" music. There are numerous reasons for that. First, my college professors refused to allow me to play anything else,

And in the second part you said this:

Second, Nothing pisses me off more than to have some nose in the air snob tell me that the music I like is worthless crap, "folk music", and imply that I'm somehow beneath them in musical taste because I won't agree with their view and turn into a snob with them and nod when they make stupid statements like "the classical composers will still be popular centuries from now, and you 'folk music' is forgotten in a few months".

Finally, you say this:

Anyway..... that's why I don't like classical music. It's not the music itself, it's the stuffy snobbery that goes along with it.

Let me distill that for you.

"I hate the people that made me listen to it."

"The people who listen to it are elite snobs."

"Oh, the music's OK (I guess), but I still hate the BS associated with it.

Now, let's put the boot on the other foot.

"I hate country music because I was forced to listen to it."

"Country music is played by a bunch of redneck hicks who wear cowboy boots and get drunk while doing line-dancing."

"Oh, I don't really hate country music.I appreciate it. I just hate all the people and culture associated with it.

That's what you said, in a nutshell.

You're not going to find a bunch of people with more varied tastes in music than our bunch here. It's a matter of taste.

Phibles loves jazz, and bless him for that. He's introduced me to so much stuff I would have never have looked at.

Your introduction to the remarkable musicianship and skill of so many of today's artists is another example.

It's a matter of taste, and de gustibum...

But to try to justify your taste is a fool's errand. It's what you like, or not - and nothing more profound than that.

George if someone forced you to listen to country music to the point you hated it, I'd agree with you 100%. But I would understand that the MUSIC didn't make you hate it, the people who forced you to listen to it did. And if they did that while looking down their noses at other people with different tastes, I'd be right there beside you calling them out for it. Again, it's not a matter of musical tastes, and I've made that clear repeatedly. But your analogy isn't working for me, because you've got people who call country music something played by a bunch of redneck hicks in cowboy boots forcing you to listen to country music.

Let me say it again - I don't hate the MUSIC - I hate the snobbery associated with it that tells me Gino Vanellis "canto" is not really classical music", but is trying to "fake it by using orchestra instruments" if you can't see my point I don't know what to tell you. But I'm NOT saying anything about classical music.

[Klaus]

@larry said in Today's musical interlude:

I made it clear that it wasn't the music but the snobbery that I didn't like. To prove my point, I posted a link to a modern classical piece that I like. Right out of the gate I was informed that it wasn't "ckassical", didn't even qualify as classical, and sounded like pop music using "classical orchestra instruments. Let me translate that for you:
"Your music is inferior folk music faking it with instruments YOUR music isn't supposed to use.

Why are you doing this? This is not at all what I said.

The only one who continually suggests that classical music is "superior", or that some people believe that to be the case, is you. You.

I never made any claim that style one of music is superior to any other style. That would be just silly. I merely maintained that there is such a thing as a musical style and offered my explanation why I think that piece isn't in the classical music style.

Your behaviour here suggests some kind of inferiority complex about the music you like. But there is no need to. There's nothing wrong with the music you like. It isn't inferior to any other style of music, including classical music. People who like other styles of music will not look down on you for the music you like, including most people who like classical music. There is no need to become aggressive whenever anyone talks about it. Just relax about it. Live and let live.

[Larry]

@klaus said in Today's musical interlude:

@larry said in Today's musical interlude:

I made it clear that it wasn't the music but the snobbery that I didn't like. To prove my point, I posted a link to a modern classical piece that I like. Right out of the gate I was informed that it wasn't "ckassical", didn't even qualify as classical, and sounded like pop music using "classical orchestra instruments. Let me translate that for you:
"Your music is inferior folk music faking it with instruments YOUR music isn't supposed to use.

Why are you doing this? This is not at all what I said.

The only one who continually suggests that classical music is "superior", or that some people believe that to be the case, is you. You.

I never made any claim that style one of music is superior to any other style. That would be just silly. I merely maintained that there is such a thing as a musical style and offered my explanation why I think that piece isn't in the classical music style.

Your behaviour here suggests some kind of inferiority complex about the music you like. But there is no need to. There's nothing wrong with the music you like. It isn't inferior to any other style of music, including classical music. People who like other styles of music will not look down on you for the music you like, including most people who like classical music. There is no need to become aggressive whenever anyone talks about it. Just relax about it. Live and let live.

Klaus, you don't have to SAY it, you make it quite clear. And I have no inferiority complex about anything, much less about my tastes in music. You're attempting to project.

[Klaus]

@larry said in Today's musical interlude:

Klaus, you don't have to SAY it, you make it quite clear.

I doubt you can point to anything I ever said that would support that.

It only exists in your mind. When somebody likes classical music, you automatically think that this person must be a snob who looks down on you.

[George K]

@klaus said in Today's musical interlude:

When somebody likes classical music, you automatically think that this person must be a snob who looks down on you.

You've distilled my argument.

When somebody likes country music, you automatically think it's someone who likes possum.

[Larry]

@klaus said in Today's musical interlude:

@larry said in Today's musical interlude:

Klaus, you don't have to SAY it, you make it quite clear.

I doubt you can point to anything I ever said that would support that.

It only exists in your mind. When somebody likes classical music, you automatically think that this person must be a snob who looks down on you.

I've never said anyone looks down on me. Whether you see this or not, I've been talking about groups in general, not specific individuals.

[Larry]

@george-k said in Today's musical interlude:

@klaus said in Today's musical interlude:

When somebody likes classical music, you automatically think that this person must be a snob who looks down on you.

You've distilled my argument.

When somebody likes country music, you automatically think it's someone who likes possum.

Give the man a star.

[Doctor Phibes]

Country and Western folk like possum.

Banjo players luuuurve possum.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course.

[Larry]

No one does country and western music nowadays..

[George K]

@doctor-phibes said in Today's musical interlude:

Country and Western folk like possum.
Banjo players luuuurve possum.
Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course

LOL...

I just find it amazing that people (yeah, @Larry ) will denigrate (insert Bob Newhart comment here) an entire genre of music because of the type of people who like it.

I've never eaten escargot possum, by the way.

Banjo players

[George K]

@larry said in Today's musical interlude:

No one does country and western music nowadays..

Interesting comment. What, in your opinion, defines "country" music. Or, for that matter "country and western?"

Or even "western?"

To my snobbish ears, it sounds like soft rock these days.

[Larry]

@george-k said in Today's musical interlude:

@larry said in Today's musical interlude:

No one does country and western music nowadays..

Interesting comment. What, in your opinion, defines "country" music. Or, for that matter "country and western?"

Or even "western?"

To my snobbish ears, it sounds like soft rock these days.

Western music:

Link to video

Traditional country music

Link to video

New country

Link to video

[George K]

@larry that's pretty much my impression.

What you labeled today's "Country," is really what we heard in the late 70s - compare it to (gasp) the Rick Astley "Never..."

It has a bit of accentuated beat, some hip-hop vocal styles, embellished with a (probably) fake Southern accent.

It's not bad, and I'd probably listen to it a few times.

But...as I think you're saying, it's not "country," nor "Western."

[Larry]

Pretty much... boil it down this way...

1. I love my horse.

2. I love my woman but she died,

3. I love my woman, she loves me, we are just fine

[Larry]

Ok... i just read this thread from beginning to end, and i have some observations

I was quite clear from the very beginning to the very end that it wasn't "classical music" that I hated, but the elitism and snobbery that went along with it. At no point did I claim that everyone who likes classical music was an elitist snob, I was very careful to NOT make it personal. But a few decided to internalize my impersonal comments about the snobbery and elitism and take it personal, and then proceed to display the very elitism that I was referring to. I wanted to see if anything I had said was a personal attack on someone, and apologize if I had done so. But I didn't, and do not owe an apology to anyone. I can't help it if what I say gets taken personally if it wasn't meant that way.

But look at the direction things went .... "I would like to like 'classical music but I can't tolerate the snobbery attached to it'" led to "your example of classical music isn't classical music", I was informed that certain musical instruments weren't supposed to be used by "folk musicisns", I was informed that I had an inferiority complex because I objected to those two points ( a personal attack), and in essence was told that it was ok to say "my" kind of music wasn't allowed to use "classical orchestra instruments" a(!!whatever that means) and "my" kind of music evoked thoughts of rednecks eating possum... but I must have a personal problem of feeling inferior by saying I don't like snobbery or elitism... just keep my possum eating hands off the "classical orchestra instruments"...,

"There's no snobbery or elitism attached to classical music, you redneck possum eater with an inferiority complex!!"

Then I was asked to define what "classical music" was, and essentially told that if I didn't accept a certain definition of the term I was wrong... a definition by the way, that actually proved my point by acknowledging that classical music evolves... then told why it's not allowed to evolve....

Ok.... on to more productive things.. several people made some very insightful and excellent points. LD, Renauda, some others, made some excellent points.

But the MUSIC got left behind right out of the gate, smothered by commentary about what is allowed to be "classical" and what musical instruments possum eating rednecks are allowed to play.....

In my initial post I gave 2 links to music, the second one which I referred to as "classical". I wish to further explode some heads by pointing out that a bicycle is called a bicycle because the majority of people have come to know a device with 2 wheels that you ride and that is powered by pedalling with your feet is referred to as a bicycle. If the word "shitcan" had been associated with a pedal powered 2 wheel transportation device instead, people would go shitcan riding. A similar point was made by Phibes. Now to explode a few heads...

The actual classical music if one uses MY definition of the term, is the first video......

[Larry]

My definition of "classical music":

Music evolves. It makes advances. Gregorian chants were at one point "pop(ular) music. As music evolved and advanced, new styles of music that were unique, or different, or more complex, became "pop(ular)" and Gregorian chants were relegated to "classical" music. Gregorian chants were still just as beautiful as before, but the style no longer was evolving or advancing. There was a new game in town. Some people I imagine viewed this new style of music as inferior to their beloved Gregorian chants, and felt personally offended by anyone who dared refer to this new style of music as being more advanced, or equal to in any way, those beloved Gregorian chants. Vivaldi????? Music?????? BAH!!!

But the audiences for this new music grew larger, and since sound systems hadn't been invented yet, music needed to evolve and advance so that it could project further out in the room. The pianoforte was invented, and music evolved. Not only could music project further into the auditorium thanks to advances in room design, this new instrument had more sustain... the music before that stopped evolving, a new music was taking it's place... more dynamic, more flexible....... the soft, gentle harpsichord sounds were giving way to new rock stars like Franz Liszt who was beating 2 and 3 instruments flat in a single performsnce... pianos improved.. advancemts in design were made to enable the instrument to withstand the physical beating of the rock stars like Liszt,etc....

And now, Vivaldi and his ilk gave way, and became "classics"....stopped evolving... a new game was in town..

Speed up to the re entpadt... boom!! The Beatlez!!! And so on...