|
Classical music, let's try again shall we (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| beats and beeps |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kaveh
To compare Mozart with Shpongle is just ridiculous. Sure, Shpongle have many great tunes but still mustn't be compared to someone like Mozart.
Plus, I guess you know that Shpongle uses LOTS of samples in their tunes? That means they haven't written the music themselves. Lots of the ethnic sounds are just sampled.
So do NOT compare them with Mozart ;) |
exactly, shpongle would do something like grab that guitar riff thats in "dorset perception" off of somewhere else, at best they might create it on a computer. (unless one of them is an extremely talented guitar player and i dont know it) as with mozart would have to write out on sheet, all of the parts of that guitar riff. Its simply insane to say that they are as talented as mozart. |
|
|
| yioryios |
| quote: | Originally posted by tabthe3
Composers of classical music are typically recognized for one of a couple of traits:
1) innovating the concept of what music is, how it is produced, or the status quo. Example, Stravinsky and Bartok advancing atonal music. Beethoven writing an opera not in Italian.
2) The size of a composers' work. Some had very few works (Schubert b/c he died at 28 of syphilis). Bach has thousands and thousands of pieces.
3) Unique uses of melody, harmony, or rhythm. You can recognize Bach from standard uses of harpsichord trills.
4) Epitomizing an era of music. Wagner had many very waxing and waning pieces which typified the post-romantic era. Handel was very Baroque.
So who today would be recognized in the same way?
Some of the first electronic peices. Even people in the 80s who first started to use synths. I do not know enough history to give producer names.
Some of the first producers of Drum and Bass would probably be recognized.
And I don't know enough about producers to give names, but anyone who could typify what I said above (minus the syphilis part).
The composers who are recognized now are not the people who were popular when they were alive. It will take a historian to analyze when trends started and who pioneered them to determine who was a great innovator of music today. |
1) stravinsky wasn't atonal. he hated the whole new vienna school of atonality and serialism of shoenberg, webern, and berg. also, mozart wrote non-italian operas before beethoven.
2) bach did not have thousands and thousands of pieces. BWV basically ends and 1080 (art of the fugue). he didnt have the necessary 920 more pieces to have "thousands and thousands."
3) melodic stylings also reveal a piece as being by bach (especially since he composed so much music that wasnt performed on harpsicord), such as his mastery of counterpoint that hasnt been achieved since him (and thus an answer to the original post's question as to whether anyone could be compared to the immortals of music).
4) following danto's analysis of art as being ended, i also think that music has come to an end. that is, there is no music that epitomizes this era, or, it seems, any era to come. (that is distinct from art or music being dead, which it is not, since there are still plenty of new art and music coming out; its just not the fact that there is an overriding school, or era-epitomizing style anymore; that is what is meant by the "end of art" or music.)
this is just a rant by a "classical music snob" that was alluded to in a previous post. perhaps with too much time on my hand, but i wanted to allow the few people that will to contemplate over it, especially 4. |
|
|
| yioryios |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Cinos
What I call complexity is having a lot of sounds/instruments and making them all match and or support each other.
Also, obviously, the non-repetiveness of what one creates with those instruments. |
i dont like that definition for "compexity" at all. bach wrote plenty of piano solos that, by definition as a piano solo, only had two lines. yet his counterpoint is so much more complicated than most (if not all other) music. |
|
|
| yioryios |
| quote: | Originally posted by Excite
you can't really compare today's artists with those from the distant past..they were in a totally different environment and time period.
i think a better question is "if Beethoven or Mozart were born today would they be producing electronic music?" |
i have heard heavy metal guys say that beethoven or mozart would prefer to make that style of music. personally, i think that they would still use classical instruments, but who knows. who cares. |
|
|
| yioryios |
| quote: | Originally posted by trak_one
Let me just add this:
Mozart and the others didn't achieve their genius status until after they died. Therefore we're probably going to have to wait until the next generation comes around and takes an objective look on what kind of music we produced. |
perhaps they werent considered geniuses, but they were well respected during their time, that's for sure. just like anyone, they had detractors, and they still do! |
|
|
| Bryaxis |
Well I will post for the first time on this forum and tell you my opinion on this highly controversial issue : for me they are, in this day and age, excellent composer who, in my opinion, may compete with some of those geniuses of the past. But unfortunatly they are to few of them.
I indeed think that music should create emotions. I want to be able to get into my bed into a blackened out room with nothing but the music in my ears, nothing but the music in my mind, and feel powerfull emotions, loosing consciousness of time and space and even loose consciousness of my body because I'm carried away by the music.
This is something I feel while listening to Bach's Toccata, or Wagner's Walkyries, or Tchaikovsky's 1812 overture. Something I feel with neo-classical composer like Zimmer or Poledouris. Something I feel with precursor of electronic music like Vangelis or Oldfield. Something some peoples/groups like Robert Miles or Chicane make me feel. The styles are different, but the effect is the same. Thus, in my eyes, ancient and moderns can be compared.
But what I see all too often is modern taking tunes created by the ancient and adding one or two electronical effects. Peoples with no innovation. Peoples making music sounding too much like a washing machine in the final step of its program. This is thus worth less than **** in my judgement, and this makes me understant those who say techno, trance, dance and the such are no real music but songs or sounds...
This is what I wanted to say on this topic. |
|
|
| töbias |
| quote: | Originally posted by flavdave
I hear the GU forums are pretty bad. :p |
I'm not sure whether thats a joke, but I'm not sure which forums you speak of.
I'm extremely scared to post in this thread however as I know nothing about this genre and any attempt at offering an opinion will make me appear unintelligent, so I'll just watch the cars go by. |
|
|
| Radagast |
| And Discogs would eat the GU board alive. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Cinos
Now this, here, is my point, and question: Do you not think that ANY modern producers have reached the same level in talent and/or genius as Mozart and his collagues did back then? |
Infected Mushroom does IMHO, albeit inconsistently, and I'm a classical fan myself (Bach more than Mozart, however). |
|
|
| trak_one |
| who the hell is Shpongle? |
|
|
| Radagast |
| quote: | Originally posted by trak_one
who the hell is Shpongle? |
Shpongle, composed of Raja Ram and Simon Postford, is a psychedelic-trance group. |
|
|
| torontotrance |
| I'd have loved to see what Mozart could have created with computers, had he been alive today. He was probably the greatest musical prodigy of all time, all the stories about him, indicate that. |
|
|
|
|
