Free Classical Music Discussion

[Natural Melody]

Share your thoughts, folks!

I would like to start off the thread by mentioning that although it's most likely more techno remix than true classical, Beethoven Virus by BanYa is a fantastic song. smile

Also, who else feels that Classical Music has been underappreciated? It's not a matter of class, in my opinion. You don't have to have class to enjoy classical, you just have to recognize the fact that it is, for lack of more accurate terms, absolutely gorgeous music. People just don't care anymore. They're too obsessed with blasting all this R&B and Rap nonsense to hear their own thoughts, let alone any real music. That's not to say that rap or R&B aren't real music, but I honestly think it needs to be cut WAAAAAAAAY back. No one will ever deviate from the same things if we don't diversify.  

[Saga Shadow]

I agree that classical has been put on a shelf to make room for "popular" music. However, some bands are at least incorporating classical into their genre, which makes it more entertaining for me.  

[Sir Sebastian Codswallop]

I don't feel like it is under-appreciated. In fact, the classical periods (Baroque, Classical, Romantic, then by association, Opera, Modernist, Neo-Classical et alli) are some of the most appreciated musics in the history of music. In and of itself it is one of the most "popular" set of genres ever invented.

And as a segue, I will say that there are two types of "Popular Music." In the beginning, the term was created to label music in the late 20s that had reached a wide audience and were hence popular. As time passed music started to evolve and certain stylistic conventions were standardized. Thus Pop music was created. What one has to remember now is that not all Pop music is popular and not all popular music is Pop. The difference is whether the music was made to be Pop or became popular. The classical genres are popular music, because they became popular. Although, one can argue that there were certain stylistic conventions in the classical musics, but what I am more talking about to that is the patronage system (ex, Haydn couldn't write Operas but his patron wanted him to write Operas, thus he wrote Operas. Shitty Operas, and he knew it). But enough of that, I think you get the point.

I have to mention, even though you try to save your a** by saying "...not to say Rap or R&B aren't real music..." you still kind of make an a** of yourself. That kind of opinion can be easily left out of this discussion and you would be wise to do so.

And despite you saying that we need to "diversify" as music listeners, those that want to diversify will diversify. Getting the masses to stray away from something made for the masses is about as easy as getting a cow to stop chewing their cud because you think the cow needs to diversify what it chews on.  

[Irako of the Desert]

Sebastian, I would like to ask you to be careful about how you post. Your last few comments were pretty insulting.

I personally think it's a matter of taste. I like classical music because I enjoy picking apart the different parts and hearing how they work together to make this big picture. Rap, R&B, and all that other stuff has a little bit of that, but it's nowhere near as complex as classical can be.

In terms of production, it seems logical to me that a small band of 3-5 people doing rock or a solo rapper costs less money to produce than an orchestra of 10+ 'professional' musicians. (The professional is in quotes because the musicians aren't always professionals in terms of training and all that. I know, I'm one of them.) It's easier to hand out one paycheck or 3-5 paychecks than it is to hand out 10+ paychecks. Also, the smaller the band, the less you need to move around. With orchestras, you need chairs and stands for every musician. You also need a conductor. Then there's also an issue of space.

I don't know this for a fact. I'm just thinking about it as if I was interested in producing an orchestra. This is just off the top of my head.  

[Ethereal Cereal]

Irako of the Desert

Sebastian, I would like to ask you to be careful about how you post. Your last few comments were pretty insulting.

Is this not a free Classical music discussion? Therefore, wouldn't telling him to be careful how he posts be contradictory to the topic? As far as I'm concerned this is a public forum so he should be able to express any opinion that he has.

Irako of the Desert

I personally think it's a matter of taste. I like classical music because I enjoy picking apart the different parts and hearing how they work together to make this big picture.

Preferring Classical over Rap, Rock and R&B would be considered a matter of personal taste.

Saying such genres aren't music when compared to Classical, or even suggesting that they wouldn't be considered music when compared to Classical, is entirely asinine.

So Sebastian is right in his statements.

Irako of the Desert

Rap, R&B, and all that other stuff has a little bit of that, but it's nowhere near as complex as classical can be.

Tell that to pretty much every Progressive Rock band out there. Hell, tell that to Miles Davis.  

[Sir Sebastian Codswallop]

Irako of the Desert

Sebastian, I would like to ask you to be careful about how you post. Your last few comments were pretty insulting.

How so? Please do tell how they are insulting, because they are not insulting to me. Plus, it's Sir Sebastian to you. talk2hand

Irako of the Desert

I personally think it's a matter of taste. I like classical music because I enjoy picking apart the different parts and hearing how they work together to make this big picture. Rap, R&B, and all that other stuff has a little bit of that, but it's nowhere near as complex as classical can be.

It's a matter of taste whether one likes, say, apples over oranges. It's not a matter of taste whether or not one genre of music is more musical than any other genre of music. Complexity is subjective, not objective. Jazz can be complex (cite: Big Band Jazz) Blues can be somewhat complex depending on what one is doing with the music (Cite: John Lee Hooker), but Jazz/Blues is without a doubt a complex genre of music (Cite: "You're A Mean One, Mr. Grinch" [Try playing it on guitar, it's complex], and Steffen Schackinger). Plus, have you ever listened to Busdriver? Point, counterpoint, actually Rapping, yes Rapping, the melody. I was listening to Bedřich Smetana's Má vlast symphonic cycle, and I found that the most famous part of the cycle, "Moldau" isn't a complex piece of music, even the theme isn't his (sampling, anyone?). It's really strait forward Romantic music, hardly seriously complex. Just because there's over 100 people playing the music doesn't mean there's more than five to fifteen parts.

Irako of the Desert

In terms of production, it seems logical to me that a small band of 3-5 people doing rock or a solo rapper costs less money to produce than an orchestra of 10+ 'professional' musicians. (The professional is in quotes because the musicians aren't always professionals in terms of training and all that. I know, I'm one of them.) It's easier to hand out one paycheck or 3-5 paychecks than it is to hand out 10+ paychecks. Also, the smaller the band, the less you need to move around. With orchestras, you need chairs and stands for every musician. You also need a conductor. Then there's also an issue of space.

This is kind of irrelevant. This is an "of course it does" (Or what I would like to call a "******** duh") statement. Though one probably wouldn't be surprised to know that it cost more to produce the mock newspaper from Jethro Tull's Thick as a Brick than it did the music (which you cannot deny is a very complex piece of music). Production cost has nothing to do with the music in this case. Just because it costs less to produce a Rock or Rap album doesn't mean anything here. There are lots of classical recordings out there, probably more than most "popular," as it was put, genres of music. There are Symphony Orchestras, people go see them, else there would no longer be any of them, and one has to remember how long the classical genres have been around. They've no doubt been heard by more people than are even alive today. Why bring in production cost to the popularity of the music. Of course it is easier and more cost-effective than producing a full-fledged symphonic orchestra. neutral

Irako of the Desert

I don't know this for a fact. I'm just thinking about it as if I was interested in producing an orchestra. This is just off the top of my head.

If you ever read The Real Frank Zappa Book you would know that producing an orchestra is moronic at best (at least in Frank Zappa's experience). His experience turned me off to ever hiring one for my music.  

[Irako of the Desert]

It is a free discussion. It's a discussion about classical music, not about how RegalFolf320 may or may not be an a**. It may be a public forum, but there is such a thing as common courtesy. It's not necessary to be insulting.

I never said that rap, rock, or r&b aren't considered music. I think they are, because they contain, at minimum, elements of rhythm and melody. Heck, it's music to me if has a rhythm, but I'm prejudiced in that aspect because I'm a percussionist. However, some people out there would disagree with me because what they consider to be music is different. That's partly what I meant by "It's a matter of taste."

Since I haven't listened to much Progressive Rock lately (or Miles Davis) and haven't seen sheet music/scores for their music, I couldn't give an opinion on whether that particular subgenre matches most classical music in terms of complexity among its different parts. Besides, anything composed before the 1900s is epic in my eyes. When I listen to things like Antonio Vivaldi's Double Violin Concerto or Four Seasons, I'm amazed at how they could create such beautiful pieces of work just using a few instruments. My sister and I compose things on Cakewalk and still haven't hit upon any masterpieces yet. We get automatic feedback, and make changes upon that, but some of the greatest classical composers never had that advantage before the first performance of their music. They were true masters of their art.

Edit: Looks like you added a section. Since it's cheaper to produce a rock band or a rapper, the record labels and producers are going to promote them more in order to get more money. The whole point of producing them in the first place is to make money. It's like a 'more for less' kind of deal. You get more profit because you have to pay less musicians.  

[Ethereal Cereal]

Irako of the Desert

I never said that rap, rock, or r&b aren't considered music. I think they are, because they contain, at minimum, elements of rhythm and melody. Heck, it's music to me if has a rhythm, but I'm prejudiced in that aspect because I'm a percussionist. However, some people out there would disagree with me because what they consider to be music is different. That's partly what I meant by "It's a matter of taste."

No, there is nothing subjective about what music is or isn't. Music is organized sound and that's all there is to it, there's not even need for melody or rhythm, just for the sound to be put together. If a person says something isn't music when it is, it's not something that can be passed off as 'personal preference' or 'opinion,' it's sheer ignorance and that's that.  

[The Scanner Sees Darkly]

This is very reminiscent of my days in the MF.

Bach and Mozart have some great s**t.  

[Sir Sebastian Codswallop]

Anyone know who she is responding to in that last message? neutral  

[Irako of the Desert]

The Other Half of the Sky

Irako of the Desert

I never said that rap, rock, or r&b aren't considered music. I think they are, because they contain, at minimum, elements of rhythm and melody. Heck, it's music to me if has a rhythm, but I'm prejudiced in that aspect because I'm a percussionist. However, some people out there would disagree with me because what they consider to be music is different. That's partly what I meant by "It's a matter of taste."

No, there is nothing subjective about what music is or isn't. Music is organized sound and that's all there is to it, there's not even need for melody or rhythm, just for the sound to be put together. If a person says something isn't music when it is, it's not something that can be passed off as 'personal preference' or 'opinion,' it's sheer ignorance and that's that.

That's your definition of music. It's like defining what is art. Some people say art is something beautiful. Well, beauty is always in the eye of the beholder and what I think is beautiful is most likely going to be different from what you find beautiful. I think music is one thing, you think it's another. It's not a matter of ignorance, but how we interpret it.  

[Irako of the Desert]

Sir Sebastian Codswallop

Anyone know who she is responding to in that last message? neutral

Apologies for not being clear, I was responding to you. I forgot to add how you were being insulting, even though you asked. It's not necessary to attack a person based on their arguments. Focus on what's wrong with their argument, not them as a person. Rather than tearing down somebody, be constructively critical. I'm not saying to build someone up and lie if their idea is bad, just point out the flaws and how to fix it.  

[Sir Sebastian Codswallop]

Irako of the Desert

Sir Sebastian Codswallop

Anyone know who she is responding to in that last message? neutral

Apologies for not being clear, I was responding to you. I forgot to add how you were being insulting, even though you asked. It's not necessary to attack a person based on their arguments. Focus on what's wrong with their argument, not them as a person. Rather than tearing down somebody, be constructively critical. I'm not saying to build someone up and lie if their idea is bad, just point out the flaws and how to fix it.

To me it looks like you tried to respond to both me and Zakk in one wall of text. I'll pick that apart in a minute since I now know that it is directed towards me.

I did focus on what was wrong with this argument as a whole, bringing in Rap & R&B is asinine as they are contradicting genres of music to all of the classical genres. They have no business in a discussion about said classical genres, yet, they always come up. Those who always bring them up in these discussions always make an a** out of themselves. The comparison is akin to comparing Hydrogen to Thulium and trying to find similarities. It just doesn't work very well. Other than that comment, I focused very well on the discussion at hand. I also still fail to see how the latter of those two comments are insulting.

And telling someone to keep said genres out of this discussion in the way I did is constructive criticism, believe it or not. You just don't want to see it that way because I used the word "a**" in describing those who bring such genres into this particular discussion about classical musics.

And I told you guys how to fix it, KEEP RAP AND OTHER GENRES OUT OF DISCUSSIONS ABOUT CLASSICAL MUSICS. THEY DO NOT BELONG HERE. It wasn't even a roundabout way to tell them, I said that they would be wise to leave them out. It's true, I don't like seeing people making an a** out of themselves.  

[Sir Sebastian Codswallop]

Irako of the Desert

It is a free discussion. It's a discussion about classical music, not about how RegalFolf320 may or may not be an a**. It may be a public forum, but there is such a thing as common courtesy. It's not necessary to be insulting.

Insulting because I used the word "a**," right? As I mentioned, I don't like seeing people make an a** out of themselves. Plus, you italicize "classical music" yet you still went into what you thought about Rap and Rock, completely unnecessary in this discussion about classical musics

Irako of the Desert

I never said that rap, rock, or r&b aren't considered music. I think they are, because they contain, at minimum, elements of rhythm and melody. Heck, it's music to me if has a rhythm, but I'm prejudiced in that aspect because I'm a percussionist. However, some people out there would disagree with me because what they consider to be music is different. That's partly what I meant by "It's a matter of taste."

Zakk responded good and well to this part of this, so I will refer you to his post as I was talking with him when he made it. I should add, though, that what is and what isn't music is not up for debate, I could put a microphone to my throat and record me swallowing orange juice. It would be music because I called it music, thus putting the box of "composition" around it. These days it would fit within the Noise genre of music, sound that is organized in a seemingly disorderly manner. Thus, music.

From Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: mu·sic

Pronunciation: ˈmyü-zik

Function: noun

Usage: often attributive

Etymology: Middle English musik, from Anglo-French musike, from Latin musica, from Greek mousikē any art presided over by the Muses, especially music, from feminine of mousikos of the Muses, from Mousa Muse

Date: 13th century

1 a : the science or art of ordering tones or sounds in succession, in combination, and in temporal relationships to produce a composition having unity and continuity
b : vocal, instrumental, or mechanical sounds having rhythm, melody, or harmony

2 a : an agreeable sound : euphony b : musical quality

3 : a musical accompaniment

4 : the score of a musical composition set down on paper

5 : a distinctive type or category of music

That is not his definition of music, that is THE definition of music.

Irako of the Desert

Since I haven't listened to much Progressive Rock lately (or Miles Davis) and haven't seen sheet music/scores for their music, I couldn't give an opinion on whether that particular subgenre matches most classical music in terms of complexity among its different parts. Besides, anything composed before the 1900s is epic in my eyes. When I listen to things like Antonio Vivaldi's Double Violin Concerto or Four Seasons, I'm amazed at how they could create such beautiful pieces of work just using a few instruments. My sister and I compose things on Cakewalk and still haven't hit upon any masterpieces yet. We get automatic feedback, and make changes upon that, but some of the greatest classical composers never had that advantage before the first performance of their music. They were true masters of their art.

This makes me wonder if you listen to Progressive Rock at all. You bring a well-known composer into this as well, I would think someone saying that "anything written before 1900 is epic in my eyes" would match the snooty nature of that comment with something equally snooty that wasn't so easy as Vivaldi's Four Seasons. I assume you have dug deep into the well of the classical genres. I am also certain you know that Igor Stravinky's Rite of Spring is equally epic as "anything written before 1900" yet it was written after that keen date you decided to post. Way to neglect Modernist composers who blew out the water anything remotely epic written within the confines of the 18th and 19th centuries.

And I don't care what you do on Cakewalk because it's called "Cakewalk" for a reason.

A lot of them were masters of their art, some of the big named composers weren't really that at all. They have a plethora of works that are utterly s**t. Anyone interested in the classical musics would know this. Personally, from all that I have listened to, there is about an equal amount of shitty music from these genres as there is good music. And of course not all of the composers whose works survive were "masters of their art," that's just mental to overgeneralize like that and blanket them all into that category.

Irako of the Desert

Edit: Looks like you added a section. Since it's cheaper to produce a rock band or a rapper, the record labels and producers are going to promote them more in order to get more money. The whole point of producing them in the first place is to make money. It's like a 'more for less' kind of deal. You get more profit because you have to pay less musicians.

And no, I didn't add a section, I typed all that up in one go. I really hope you're paying attention to who you are responding to, because this post as a whole has been a hybrid response to me and Zakk. You have to realize, as well, that mass marketing is possible today in ways those advertising for the premiers of symphonic works couldn't even imagine. This has little correlation with that of the classical composer's marketing teams seeing as these days mass media can send a commercial about an album to every TV set that the ad is allowed on. Plus, economically, world tours are more feasible than they were in the days of these composers. Also, as Western civilization spread so did Westernized music, and look where it went: to the world. Western civilization is better at marketing than any marketing team. There is proof in Hip-Hop culture, no matter the place in the world, the attitude and demeanors of all the people Rapping in whatever language is the same. This is the spread of Westernized culture through economics and mass media such as the internet, no doubt.  

[Rosilien]

Wow. When it says "discussion", it means discussion and not "let's make personal attacks on everyone and their opinions and be jerks". Irako is trying her best to talk about the music in her honest opinion and not trying to downsize anyone else's. There is an appropriate way to say these things and there is also a completely rude way. Classical music is classical music, and r&b is r&b. So Irako likes many works before the 1900's. So what? That isn't a snooty comment in the least! It is a polite expression of opinion, and that's what music is all about. What we like and dislike is our personal taste, and you can't criticize anyone for having their opinion, especially when they let it be known politely. You can use all the dictionary entries you want, and I will still firmly believe that music is according to the ears of the person listening, and without us to hear it, it wouldn't even exist.

As for the Cakewalk thing, it's called Cakewalk because it makes it easy to point and click notes. It isn't easy to point and click so the notes sound beautiful.