Today's musical interlude
-
@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 courseLOL...
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
escargotpossum, by the way.Banjo players
-
@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.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@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
-
@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."
-
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......
-
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...
-
Meant to post this here ...
My "today's musical interlude" :
Link to videoAnyway, when I read this thread (which then spilled over to the 'What is "Classical" Music' thread), instead if adding more words to argue over definitions, I just went to play (and record) something instead.
Classification/labeling is useful for marketing and promotion, useful for cataloging and organization, useful to facilitate searching, but not strictly needed to listen to or to create music. Unless commercial interests are involved, just listen to whatever you like, play whatever you like, labels be darned.
-
@axtremus said in Today's musical interlude:
Link to videoMeant to post this here ...
My "today's musical interlude" :
Link to videoAnyway, when I read this thread (which then spilled over to the 'What is "Classical" Music' thread), instead if adding more words to argue over definitions, I just went to play (and record) something instead.
Classification/labeling is useful for marketing and promotion, useful for cataloging and organization, useful to facilitate searching, but not strictly needed to listen to or to create music. Unless commercial interests are involved, just listen to whatever you like, play whatever you like, labels be darned.
-
@larry said in Today's musical interlude:
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...
So "classical music" to you is the body of music that was or is popular at some point?
-
@klaus said in Today's musical interlude:
@larry said in Today's musical interlude:
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...
So "classical music" to you is the body of music that was or is popular at some point?
Of course. All music is popular at some point. Liszt wasn't writing "classical music" he was creating new music.
-
@larry said in Today's musical interlude:
Of course. All music is popular at some point. Liszt wasn't writing "classical music" he was creating new music.
Well, but then being "classical music" is no longer a property of the music itself. This is a free world, so you can use the words as you like, but I think that definition does neither agree with how most other people use the term nor is it very useful in that it doesn't say anything about the music itself but only about how popular it is or was.
-
I have some very broad tastes in music, maybe broader than most folks here.
I have about 12,000 CDs and have everything from chants and grunts to screams and howls which is to say from pre-renaissance chants to contemporary you name it. I don't like everything - but I have some classic blues music that I think is as great as any music ever composed by Franz Schubert.
I love a lot of jazz from the early stuff from New Orleans, New York and Chicago to Davis, Jarrett, Corea, etc.
I can enjoy classic C&W and some contemporary country is fun. Growing up in the rock era, I loved people like Little Richard - and later the Stones, Beatles, Zeppelin, etc. Current stuff - sometimes there's something good - but there are some holes in my taste as I can't name a single thing by Kanye West that I've heard - let alone like. I've liked some rap music - again not huge swaths but individual things that caught my ear.
And I enjoy a lot of folk music - earthy stuff to Simon & Gar - there's a lot of territory there. I used to attend the University of Chicago Folks Festival but now listen to it on the radio. I heard a Canadian group called the Barde there - and still listen to their albums from time-to-time.
I enjoyed some disco - YMCA isn't great music but it is great to fun to listen to - same with Bee Gees.
Big band music - I'm there - some great stuff Griff Williams, Glenn Miller, Sinatra, Dean Martin, - yup - some good stuff there if you look - or should I say listen.
Playing classical piano music - it is interesting to see the reaction when you toss in a Liberace transcription - people love it (well, most do).
And yet, I don't like everything - some cherry picking of things that I do. In classical music - not particularly fond of Charles Ives. Some jazz can be overwhelming. I have to be in the mood for certain things.
Larry - you're right there are snobs - and you got PTSD from the classical music snobs - but even within that group there are snobs. I went to a friend's house to listen to a string quartet they had playing. The quartet did a performance of Puccini's Crisantemi, a lovely work not often performed. I heard one guy tell me that nothing written after Bach's Mass in B minor is worth listening to - and another who said anything post Mozart is trash. I'm thinking GFYS.
But I know some rock snobs, people who disdain anything not part of the classic rock era. I've met people who feel that no C&W post about 1965 is worth listening to. "Hey, I thought Shania Twain has done some nice things..." - get a "your dead to me glance" in return.
It's a shame when people put down other people's joys. While I'm a big classical music junkie - I love other types of music. And classical generally doesn't have some of the fun stuff - i.e. improvisational - that blues and jazz can have. I listened to a jazz musician saying that when he was a young man playing with some experienced musicians, he played a "wrong note" - but the musicians around him worked it as if it were the best thing he could have done. That doesn't happen in classical music.
Is a tree more beautiful than a flower? Who cares? Find the joy in what you're listening to. My brother Jerry is 14 years old than I - and a lot like Larry. The great thing he taught me was "Who gives a f what so and so thinks about you." He worked a bar. Every once in a while someone got in his face with sharing their opinion of him. Occasionally, they did that forcefully - but usually reconsidered after their face met asphalt. One needn't apologize for what brings you joy - enjoy it. Someone tells you that you shouldn't enjoy it - tell them to go...
-
@klaus said in Today's musical interlude:
@larry said in Today's musical interlude:
Of course. All music is popular at some point. Liszt wasn't writing "classical music" he was creating new music.
Well, but then being "classical music" is no longer a property of the music itself. This is a free world, so you can use the words as you like, but I think that definition does neither agree with how most other people use the term nor is it very useful in that it doesn't say anything about the music itself but only about how popular it is or was.
It's interesting, klaus- most people fit into one of 3 groups. The vast majority of people don't care what you call it, and call something "classical music" because they're just following the crowd, some people see music as an evolving thing where something becomes "classical" when it goes out of fashion and stops evolving, music having evolved passed it, and some hold to a strict time frame and list of musicians. Those in the third category are where you are, I'm in the second group. It is my view, based on years of college and a career in the music business, that while you are totally convinced that your view is the correct one, i submit to you that that definition was foisted on us by people who would drown in the rain. I dont believe everyone who thinks your view is the correct one is a snob, just that it was the snobs who decided on that definition. If classical music is that limited, it means the music from that period ceased to advance, has no creative range left in it, is not connected in any way to any form of music that came after it, and must be respeated note for note, expression by expression, exactly as the original composer wrote it down.
I say "exactly like he wrote it down" because if you were to go back in time and attend a concert by any of those composers, you'd find that their performances varied a bit each time they played it, and if you were to go up to one after the concert and say "you are my favorite classical pianist" to a man they'd look at you like you're nuts.
I mentioned how music evolved "into" "classical music" (by your definition of it), and I showed how it changed and progressed during its heyday, and how music evolved beyond it. Others talked about how it took from earlier , other forms of "folk music", and so on. In my opinion, Gino Vanellis "brother to Brother composition and performance of it is equal to anything from the "classical" era, and deserves the same respect one would give to a piece by any "classical" composer.
-
Larry - sounds like a douche of teacher who was so dismissive of your goals. There's been issues at Juilliard and other music schools where the school is not preparing the students for the world in which the student hopes to make a living.
An author I just read encouraged students to skip getting an MFA - told them to get an interesting job - and just write - and get together with like minded people to share ideas. In some ways, that's the way a lot of musicians who have had great careers found their way. McCartney and a sizable number of successful musicians have found their way without such.
That teacher should have encouraged you - told you, you're wasting your time here. "If I were you, I'd work with ...... or if you really want school that's suitable, here's a better choice." A classical background is great for those who want that - but not for everyone.
One of my favorite stories was listening to Little Richard talking about working in a diner washing dishes - while working on his music. He said he felt he was a successful musician a long while before anyone else might have described him as such. When he was a dishwasher, he was singing and banging on the pots and pans and enjoying his life. Getting paid for doing what he loved - was amazing to him.
I'm a lousy musician by most anyone's estimation - recognized early on that I didn't have what it takes - and so I made a career elsewhere but play for my own enjoyment. I love it. I suck at it - but I still enjoy myself.
-
@kluurs said in Today's musical interlude:
Larry - sounds like a douche of teacher who was so dismissive of your goals. There's been issues at Juilliard and other music schools where the school is not preparing the students for the world in which the student hopes to make a living.
An author I just read encouraged students to skip getting an MFA - told them to get an interesting job - and just write - and get together with like minded people to share ideas. In some ways, that's the way a lot of musicians who have had great careers found their way. McCartney and a sizable number of successful musicians have found their way without such.
That teacher should have encouraged you - told you, you're wasting your time here. "If I were you, I'd work with ...... or if you really want school that's suitable, here's a better choice." A classical background is great for those who want that - but not for everyone.
One of my favorite stories was listening to Little Richard talking about working in a diner washing dishes - while working on his music. He said he felt he was a successful musician a long while before anyone else might have described him as such. When he was a dishwasher, he was singing and banging on the pots and pans and enjoying his life. Getting paid for doing what he loved - was amazing to him.
I'm a lousy musician by most anyone's estimation - recognized early on that I didn't have what it takes - and so I made a career elsewhere but play for my own enjoyment. I love it. I suck at it - but I still enjoy myself.
Thanks Kluurs, and you are correct.. I had some real douche bags for teachers.
This thread didn't really go the way I had planned... I never expected it to become a referendum on "what is classical". I was hoping for a discussion about Gino Vanelli's work, and his range. Apparently his "classical music" work offended the sensibilities of the purists...
The Brother to Brother composition and performance is sheer genius. Obviously it's not "classical music" (yet) but the complexity of the arrangement, the work by the drummer, Joe Vanelli's keyboard work, the chord structures, Gino's vocals... all combine to create a musical masterpiece on par with anything or anyone from the "classical era". It had been my hope that that would have been what got discussed, not a defensive argument about why I dislike the snobbery and elitism that comes with "classical music". But it wasn't to be, and I come away from the thread more convinced than ever of my lifelong opinion...
-
-
Oh hell..... yes, Brother to Brother IS "future classical". Ne thing that I found particularly revealing was when Klaus referred to the second Vanelli piece as "pop rock with some classical orchestra instruments used" or some such. I don't want to start another argument, but damn.... that is about as uninformed as it gets. There's not a damned thing "pop rock" about that piece, and if you heard "pop rock" in it you're displaying a kind of musical narrow mindedness. I'll shock your sensibilities some more - not only is there nothing - NOTHING - N.O.T.H.I.N.G - "pop rock" about that work, there's nothing "pop rock" about the first piece either!! Brother to Brother IS a serious work, intended to be a serious work, it has movements, themes, and - just as Liszt used modern instrumentation (the piano) to move music forward, modern instrumentation is used in Brother to Brother.
THAT is at the very crux of things - to some, if it isn't frumpy old farts from 300 years ago it's not "serious", and some look down their noses at it long enough to dismiss it as "pop rock"..... what I would love to see is for the truly serious musical work of today to be given its due, and not dismissed as mere "pop rock" that is somehow unworthy of being considered on par with the snoot music.
If you think it's just fluff..... let's see YOU do it.....
-
@klaus said in Today's musical interlude:
@larry said in Today's musical interlude:
I come away from the thread more convinced than ever of my lifelong opinion...
I guess that is the result of basically every thread you participate in?
No offense Klaus, but you personify the very asshole musical snob I've been talking about. If you only knew just how ignorant you are..
