Yet Another Cycling Forum
Off Topic => The Pub => Arts and Entertainment => Topic started by: Rig of Jarkness on 07 January, 2010, 07:43:24 pm
-
Here's a paradox that struck me as I trudged into work this morning. I think we're all agreed that X Factor is trashy stuff. And one of the justifications most voiced for this is that it's all derivative, there's no creative artistry involved, they're all being told to perform in a certain narrow way. Sounds very reasonable so far. But isn't classical music the same ? Few classical musicians/singers write their own material, and don't they all get instructed in a very definite way on how to perform too ? So there it is, opposite ends of the classy to trashy spectrum unified by the same criticism. Or have I missed something ?
-
I don't think you've missed anything.
Classical music is basically set in stone, there are a million musicians and opera singers and a finite number of "classics". Therefore the only differentiators are:
1) Good looks - (when was the last time you saw a rough looking women on a cello? My god, they all look like a Robert Palmer backing band now). I can assure you, they were all like Susan Boyle 30 years ago
Classical albums by Babes always sell better than usual.
There are better singers than Catherine Jenkins and better Violinists than Vanessa Mae
2) Terrible looks (the dancing dog syndrome)- It may occasionally help if someone very ugly comes onto the scene. The fact that they are even above average stuns the world into mass record sales. ("It's not that the dog is a good dancer, merley that the dog can dance at all")
Being blind also fits into this category (So as not to offend any blind people, please do not read this out aloud)
3) Extreme talent - Pavarotti is obviously exceptional, he needs to be exceptional, looking like he does (not quite terrible enough to fit into category 2 and definitely not into category 1)
So yes, it does seem like an endless loop of people re-hashing the same old material, thinking that, in some way, they can do it better than the last person. They are just doing cover versions, doing the same thing that pop artists get slated for.
Mind you, it's getting harder and harder to get tickets for Beethoven gigs.
-
The first thing that you have missed is that Classical music is just that: it's called "classical" because it's how it ought to be done. It has stood the test of time. You can hardly place the throwaway world of popular music in the same category.
Classical music is not set in stone. There are many ways of interpreting the dots on a page of manuscript and there are as many ways of performing a work as their are conductors. On another thread a month or two ago, PColbeck mentioned that he had numerous different versions of a particular work on CD. Why? Because each one's different, and each one has its own validity. There's a whole world of artistic interpretation in the performance of good music.
That's not to say that commercialism can't exploit classical music: of course it can. It has always been possible to exploit pretty people by putting them in front of an instrument even if they haven't got talent - remember Richard Clayderman? He could play a little but scarcely merited third-rate and has, quite justifiably, been forgotten. Truly talented musicians carry on well past the stage of being attractive to look at: Alfred Brendel carried on into his 70s, André Previn is still working at 80, the list goes on.
I'd say that if you can't tell the difference, keep listening until you can.
-
Not sure I agree on this one. Classical music is about interpretation. If you listen to one singer or conductors interpretation of a piece it will be very different from an others. Some orchestras even have a house sound, the Berlin Philharmonic all through the 60,70 and 80s being famous for smooth playing and the sheen that their music had.
Expecting a performer to write their own music is a relatively recent phenomena, only really took off in the 60s. Even after that some of the greatest artists have been interpreters rather than writer/performers. Aretha Franklin, Elvis, Dione Warwick amongst a host of others spring to mind.
WoW beat me to it.
-
Some orchestras even have a house sound
Now I'd like to hear that
(But then again I grew up in Manchester in the 1980s)
-
...... it's called "classical" because it's how it ought to be done.
It's how it was traditionally done rather than ought to be done. If all music was "classical" the world would be a very dull and irritating place. We could do without twat factor though.....
-
You can stick some Bach onto a disc and send it to the very depths of space ala Voyager in the hope
that some other intelligent form of life will find it, and then realise there is other intelligent life
out there, besides their own.
Try doing that with a cover version of 'I Will Always Love You.'
-
You can stick some Bach onto a disc and send it to the very depths of space ala Voyager in the hope
that some other intelligent form of life will find it, and then realise there is other intelligent life
out there, besides their own.
I thought they didn't send Bach in the end coz Carl Sagan said it would be showing off ;D
-
IIRC they sent three recordings. And yes, it is indeed showing off. ;D
-
IIRC they sent three recordings. And yes, it is indeed showing off. ;D
Let's just hope ET doesn't like dancing or a good sing-a-long then.
-
IIRC they sent three recordings. And yes, it is indeed showing off. ;D
Let's just hope ET doesn't like dancing or a good sing-a-long then.
Bach wrote lots of great dances (gavottes, gigues, sarabandes, minuets) and some superb songs (St. Matthew Passion, all his chorales). In fact, probably more than any other composer.
-
IIRC they sent three recordings. And yes, it is indeed showing off. ;D
Let's just hope ET doesn't like dancing or a good sing-a-long then.
I'm hoping they're a lot more advanced than that.
-
IIRC they sent three recordings. And yes, it is indeed showing off. ;D
Let's just hope ET doesn't like dancing or a good sing-a-long then.
Bach wrote lots of great dances (gavottes, gigues, sarabandes, minuets) and some superb songs (St. Matthew Passion, all his chorales). In fact, probably more than any other composer.
Mozart, in his short life, actually wrote even more than J.S. Bach. :o
-
IIRC they sent three recordings. And yes, it is indeed showing off. ;D
(Googles)
You are this: correct. It seems to be something that Stephen Fry attributed to Sagan on "QI".
-
I trust Stephen, implicitly. :thumbsup:
-
What they are mainly showing off is their complete numptiness.
Alien, whoever they are, will not be Nick Hornby. They will not eulogise over record covers. They are unlikely to get as far as the diagrams demonstrating how to build a gramophone. If the record had been secured on a spindle, with even the crudest of needles attached to a simple horn, there is a chance that Mr E.T. will be delighted by aural stimulation.
As it is, it's a frisbee.
-
Have you seen the new Post Office 'Album Cover (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8444156.stm)' stamps? :thumbsup:
Dad, what's that black disc thing that's partially hidden?
-
As it is, it's a frisbee.
even that assumes there will be some air to create the pressure differential to keep it in the air.
-
Why 'Let It Bleed' and not 'Sticky Fingers'?
And what happened to 'Never Mind The Bollocks'?
Personally, I feel Trust's debut album, L'Elite (http://www.dbrock.net/artistes/albums/covers_1304.jpg) would be best, rendered down to stamp-size. But not quite so British.
Now, about Roxy Music's oeuvre...
-
As it is, it's a frisbee.
even that assumes there will be some air to create the pressure differential to keep it in the air.
They could always use it as a plate.
-
And what happened to 'Never Mind The Bollocks'?
Yes, you'd like to see "Bollocks" just millimetres from the Queen's face, wouldn't you? ;D
-
The Duke of Edinburgh's Challenge
-
;D
I'm now seeing the words "Earl" "Grey" and "T-bag".
-
IIRC they sent three recordings. And yes, it is indeed showing off. ;D
Let's just hope ET doesn't like dancing or a good sing-a-long then.
Bach wrote lots of great dances (gavottes, gigues, sarabandes, minuets) and some superb songs (St. Matthew Passion, all his chorales). In fact, probably more than any other composer.
Mozart, in his short life, actually wrote even more than J.S. Bach. :o
Highly unlikely, I fear. Many moons ago, I remember listening to some programme or other on Bach's output in which the so-called expert claimed that if a scribe were employed 5 days a week for 8 hours a day to copy Bach's output longhand, it would take him 50 years. Remember that, quite apart from his well-known output, he was churning out a new piece of church music every week for his employment in Leipzig. He also lived almost twice as long as Mozart.
Mozart seemed to produce stuff in bursts: what did his last 6 weeks of life yield?
-
Try doing that with a cover version of 'I Will Always Love You.'
Well, exactly. The original's much better.
There seems to be a lot of implied snobbery in this thread. Classical music isn't intrinsically better than pop music, it's just that most of it is very old, so only the good stuff has survived until now. I bet there was a lot of dross written at the same time by other composers which has fallen by the wayside. Pick any quality in classical music - melody, rhythm, emotion, ability to move or stir or cheer the listener, and you'll be able to find a pop song at least as good. Yes, some pop is drivel. But lots of it is very very good and it will survive because it says something to people about their lives that is meaningful to them.
-
Tutti frutti all rooty
Tutti frutti all rooty
Tutti frutti all rooty
A wap bop a loo bop a lop bam boom! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFq5O2kabQo)
That's stood the test of time. :thumbsup:
-
Try doing that with a cover version of 'I Will Always Love You.'
Well, exactly. The original's much better.
There seems to be a lot of implied snobbery in this thread. Classical music isn't intrinsically better than pop music, it's just that most of it is very old, so only the good stuff has survived until now. I bet there was a lot of dross written at the same time by other composers which has fallen by the wayside. Pick any quality in classical music - melody, rhythm, emotion, ability to move or stir or cheer the listener, and you'll be able to find a pop song at least as good. Yes, some pop is drivel. But lots of it is very very good and it will survive because it says something to people about their lives that is meaningful to them.
I agree entirely. Nice one Kirst. :thumbsup:
-
Try doing that with a cover version of 'I Will Always Love You.'
Well, exactly. The original's much better.
There seems to be a lot of implied snobbery in this thread. Classical music isn't intrinsically better than pop music, it's just that most of it is very old, so only the good stuff has survived until now. I bet there was a lot of dross written at the same time by other composers which has fallen by the wayside. Pick any quality in classical music - melody, rhythm, emotion, ability to move or stir or cheer the listener, and you'll be able to find a pop song at least as good. Yes, some pop is drivel. But lots of it is very very good and it will survive because it says something to people about their lives that is meaningful to them.
Yes.
The Beatles (See Motown, Rolling Stones) records are now nearly 50 years old and still played more than any other (Western) music. My prediction is that this will remain the case for another 100 years and beyond.
With reference to Kirst's point that dross gets forgotten, the 1960's were terrible for music in general, but happened to produce some amazing, timeless, highs along the way. (Lest we forget Max Bygraves and Des O'Connor)
At some point the age difference between the two (Classic Pop and Classical Music) will become insignificant as will the difference in their longevity. At such time it won't be credible to attribute any extra kudos to Classical Music (just because it is still played after a hundred years or so)
What it all boils down to is that Bach was good with a Cello and Lennon was equally as good with an electric guitar.
And yes, Tutti Frutti, by Little Richard still stirs the soul and will continue to do so.
Pavarotti may be brilliant but his version of "Lucille" would be laughable (As would Prodigy's Madam Butterfly)
-
There seems to be a lot of implied snobbery in this thread.
I agree, quite typical on this forum though.
-
There seems to be a lot of implied snobbery in this thread.
I agree, quite typical on this forum though.
Double agree. Being carted off to piano lessons, choir practice and endless concerts my parents were involved in as a child has put me off classical music for life.
I think I shall now listen to Appetite for destruction :)
-
Try doing that with a cover version of 'I Will Always Love You.'
Well, exactly. The original's much better.
There seems to be a lot of implied snobbery in this thread. Classical music isn't intrinsically better than pop music, it's just that most of it is very old, so only the good stuff has survived until now. I bet there was a lot of dross written at the same time by other composers which has fallen by the wayside. Pick any quality in classical music - melody, rhythm, emotion, ability to move or stir or cheer the listener, and you'll be able to find a pop song at least as good. Yes, some pop is drivel. But lots of it is very very good and it will survive because it says something to people about their lives that is meaningful to them.
The problem is of course that it's impossible to provide anything like a fair comparison.
The fact that pop music is intrinsically linked to broadcasting & electronic reproduction means that as soon as someone famous does anything, it's round the planet the same day, no matter whether it's any good or not. Boy bands appear and disappear (mostly) simply because they are crap, much as Richard Clayderman did and (probably) Catherine Jenkins will. Loads of stuff Bach wrote has almost certainly completely disappeared simply because he died in 1750 and his music wasn't really revived until Mendelssohn came along 100 years later. Frankly, I'm amazed how much has survived.
Likewise, there were some bloody good composers whose music has simply gone out of fashion. Telemann was born the same year as Bach and had a big output, but you don't often hear his stuff played (or at least, nothing like so often as Bach) even though a lot of it is probably as good. Then again, loads of stuff disappeared: Mozart's contemporaries were on to a hiding to nothing because he was so incredibly talented and was writing stuff around the age of 10 which was better than people like Salieri could compose in a million years.
It amazes me that stuff produced by a few blokes hundreds of years ago in (mostly) a fairly restricted bit of Austria and Germany makes up such a large part of the current repertoire of classical music. And that enough people had listened to, and admired, Beethoven that when he died something like 10,000 lined the streets for his funeral. There aint 'arf been some clever bastards.
That's not to say that new stuff isn't any good. The same process applies to all music: the test of time. Hopefully, if it's crap it will disappear. But musical recording means that lots of stuff has lasted which doesn't deserve to. Quite apart from the Beatles, whose stuff was mostly pretty good, you also have The Monkees, who were not, but occasionally their stuff is still played, simply because it exists.
On the other hand you've got the so-called "serious" composers who are still writing what they presumably think is the continuation of what the Viennese Giants were doing 200+ years ago. The problem is that a great deal of it is totally tuneless and, in my view, undeserving of a place in posterity. I went to a prom a few years ago when the first item in the programme was some new work by Harrison Birtwistle, who was presented to the audience after it was played. Frankly, I don't know why he bothered. Fortunately, Beethoven's 9th was on after the interval so equilibrium was restored.
Then there's a lot of bands around writing their own stuff and playing to small audiences in pubs and some of it is quite good. Lots isn't but whether or not a band achieves success may well not be down to the quality of their music but whether or not a recording company judges that they can make money from them. You could argue that impresarios from yesteryear performed the function that recording companies do today, by selecting work that they thought was financially viable rather than of decent quality, but I'd argue that the recording industry has completely distorted the filtering process simply because everything that has ever been recorded is still available, irrespective of quality.
I never rated Michael Jackson as a musician. How much of his success was down to his video "Thriller"? A video, of course, has nothing whatever to do with musical talent.
-
Mozart, in his short life, actually wrote even more than J.S. Bach. :o
Highly unlikely, I fear. Many moons ago, I remember listening to some programme or other on Bach's output in which the so-called expert claimed that if a scribe were employed 5 days a week for 8 hours a day to copy Bach's output longhand, it would take him 50 years. Remember that, quite apart from his well-known output, he was churning out a new piece of church music every week for his employment in Leipzig. He also lived almost twice as long as Mozart.
Mozart seemed to produce stuff in bursts: what did his last 6 weeks of life yield?
True, Mr Wow, I'd forgotten all about Bach writing vast numbers of pieces for all the local churches.
Most of them being forever lost and forgotten.
(was it one of his very jottings that was found within the last few decades, tucked away in a church somewhere?)
It was what is available now that would have clouded my first judgement.
Mozart: Complete Works - 170 CDs.
Bach: Complete Works - 155 CDs.
Maybe if it were possible to record everything that Bach ever did actually write, maybe the CD collection
would at least double in size? Who knows?
-
He may have spent his entire life writing music, but did he ever own a pair of tight leather trousers and a cool hair cut?
No. No he didn't. He wasn't cool and is therefore shit.
-
OK this generalising but it seems to me the basic difference between 'classical' and 'popular' music is that in classical music you start off with a piece written notation, but the basis of popular music is the sound recording.
With a piece of classical music anyone can come along and perform it and be judged on their skill, interpretation etc, whether it's on a record or a live performance. But with popular music, a 'cover version' recording is redundant and pointless (especially by someone who is not already well known) because the original already exists.
More often than not, the actual music doesn't even matter, and anyway music is so subjective and abstract that the same piece of music could be utterly brilliant and life changing to one person and to another person it could be just horrible meaningless random noise.
-
I love the sound of a live orchestra, and appreciate the fact that everyone on stage has worked hard since childhood to aquire the necessary skill.
But I don't like the whole pompous performance thing: the accents, the dinner suits, some rule about not clapping in the gaps, those interminable choral pieces which repeat "God is great" seventy-two times, and the flowers at the end.
I tried hard. I've been to numerous operas, ballets, festivals, concerts... but with the notable exception of a handful of pieces and even fewer performers, classical is dulll, dull, dull. IMHO, of course. Sorry.
I should point out that we currently have ONE playable CD in the house (the Susan Boyle one, given to us as a Christmas present :-[) and no iPod, MP3 or similar. We just don't "get" music at all.
-
I never rated Michael Jackson as a musician. How much of his success was down to his video "Thriller"? A video, of course, has nothing whatever to do with musical talent.
I'm also not a fan of Michael Jackson (mainly because he peaked during the Punk/New Wave era and I got sidetracked) but there is simply no question about his talent. It wasn't down to one video, the child was exceptionally talented, the boy was exceptionally talented, the teen was exceptionally talented and the man was exceptionally talented.
The Mozart of his day perhaps.
PS The Monkees weren't all bad, "I'm a Believer" is a great, and (imho) timeless song.
(Yes, I know it was an "interpretation")
It raises an interesting question though, what defines "good" music?
It isn't entirely down to how difficult it is to play and it isn't down to mere record sales.
Is it about making the hairs on the back of one's neck stand up?
If that is the test then both Bach and The Sex Pistols passed my test.
1) Bach Toccata and Fugue in D minor - I first heard this when I was 13 (it was used in the opening scene of "Rollerball". Sorry but you can't help where you first hear something). I bought the "Rollerball" soundtrack. I may be the only person who did.
2) Pretty Vacant - It never stops sending shivers down my spine when I hear the opening bars.
Even I can play the opening bars to Pretty Vacant (and I don't really play the guitar) but the point is that nobody else thought to play those notes, in that amazing sequence, with that precise amount of crunch, distortion and reverb, before the Sex Pistols did. They got everything just pefect.
The Sex Pistols (if you believe anything Malcolm Mclaren lies says) were just manufactured and yet they wrote Pretty Vacant, God Save the Queen and Holiday in the Sun. Not exactly 150 CDs worth of material but timeless and "classical" in it's own way.
-
I'm with Lee on this. There's an awful lot of snobbery in all forms of music, even punk. (In terms of sheer volume of it, though, I think 'classical' wins hands down). I believe that good music is music that moves you. And not just you - anybody. So if you're moved by a piece of manufactured R & B then, to you, that is good music. I may think it's utter crap - but that's only my opinion.
What a lot of people mean by good music is really 'clever' music - music that fulfills some technical requirements, as defined by 'clever' people. Nice if the music is 'clever' and it moves you, but I don't think it has to be clever to be good. Of course, all the stuff I like is both, ;D ;) but it doesn't include Mozart, for instance. I'm sure it's clever but it's dull (for me, that is).
I'm frequently amused by people's choices for Desert Island Discs. Always includes a pile of classical music that presumably is supposed to indicate a degree of sophistication in the chooser. I'd bet half of them don't know their Schumanns from their Schuberts and wouldn't dream of actually listening to any of it.
-
I'd love to become famous one day, if only to fill my Desert Island Discs slot with a bunch of outrageously shouty obscure Kiwi metal :)
-
Out of interest, given that Sting has been one of those recently giving the X Factor a good slagging, what is the verdict on his Winter's Night album ?
-
Out of interest, given that Sting has been one of those recently giving the X Factor a good slagging, what is the verdict on his Winter's Night album ?
Sting is a gilt-edges tosser. I have the results of a scientific study to prove it.
I'm surprised anyone can actually hear what he's saying from that far up his own arse.
I wish he'd take his fekkin' Lute (or whatever he's decided to play this month) and feck the feck off back to his adoring US audience.
It wasn't until I lived in the US for a while that I realised where all the old British Rock stars have gone. They all live in the States and regurgitate their stuff to enraptured audiences, hanging on their every rock-philosophy word. Even Peter Noone (Hermans Hermits) is a bloody celeb over there.
To some extent I can empathise, over there they get "whooped" and "Awesomed" after anything they say:
Typical Interview with Jay Leno on the Tonight Show in US
Sting - "Yes Jay I've been married now for 3 weeks"
Audience "Wooooo....Yayyy...Awesome....woooo hooo "
Sting - "I've been to a Rain Forest and played my Lute for a Native Tribe"
Audience "Wooooo....Yayyy...Awesome....woooo hooo "
Sting - "I think my Lute playing helped Muhabawah, the Tree Spirit"
Audience "Wooooo....Yayyy...Awesome....woooo hooo "
Meanwhile back in the UK
Sting - "Yes Parky I've been married now for 3 weeks"
Audience - Silence (the sort of silence that only a UK audience collectively thinking "so f***ing what?" can generate)
Sting - "I've been to a Rain Forest and played my Lute for a Native Tribe"
Audience - Mumbling (as they start to realise what a twat he's become)
Sting - "I think my Lute playing helped Muhabawah, the Tree Spirit"
Audience "Play Roxanne immediately or f**k the f**k off back to the Tree Spirit gig "
Yeah, Sting, he's Ok I suppose.
-
I enjoyed it myself, but then, what do I know ? I don't remember a lute on it BTW, but it does feature Kathryn Tickell's wonderful Northumbrian pipes. :)
-
I love the sound of a live orchestra, and appreciate the fact that everyone on stage has worked hard since childhood to aquire the necessary skill.
But I don't like the whole pompous performance thing: the accents, the dinner suits, some rule about not clapping in the gaps, those interminable choral pieces which repeat "God is great" seventy-two times, and the flowers at the end.
I tried hard. I've been to numerous operas, ballets, festivals, concerts... but with the notable exception of a handful of pieces and even fewer performers, classical is dulll, dull, dull. IMHO, of course. Sorry.
Whereas I love the sort of choral music that repeats 'God is great' 72 times and when I go to concerts I wear jeans and ignore the accents and dinner suits.
But then I've tried really hard to like opera and I just can't. The world would be very dull if we all liked the same things.
-
He may have spent his entire life writing music, but did he ever own a pair of tight leather trousers and a cool hair cut?
He was a 17th century German; I'm sure he had a pair of tight leather trousers!
The hair cut's a bit more subjective, but there's a case to be made (http://www.last.fm/music/Johann+Sebastian+Bach/+images/3727500)...
-
I don't like opera either. I can't see the point of singing so exaggeratedly that nobody can make out what the words are. However, Freddie Mercury & Montserrat Caballe's Barcelona album is one of my favourites.
-
Later this month, Mrs. Wow and I are off to Covent Garden for the delights of Mozart's Cosi fan Tutte. This is a Christmas pressie from our daughter. We've never been to Covent Garden before although we did attend a performance of CfT some time in the 1980s. It's wonderful stuff.
I learned this evening that both my brothers & their wives have their first-ever trips to Covent Garden planned for this year: one is going to Cosi fan Tutte in Feb (Chrissie pres from one of their sons - no idea whether my daughter knew about this or vice versa) and the other is going to a Handel oratoria in March some time.
-
I persuaded Mrs C to give opera a try a couple of years ago. We saw Madame Butterfly. I loved it ! But I was most amused at the end to discover that people still shout 'Bravo' !
-
I don't like opera either. I can't see the point of singing so exaggeratedly that nobody can make out what the words are. However, Freddie Mercury & Montserrat Caballe's Barcelona album is one of my favourites.
You have missed the point. Opera is about the voice as an instrument not about clarity of diction. Though this example from Emma Kirkby has both:
Purcell - Dido and Aeneas - Dido's Lament (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAnQQ4_Jpd8&feature=related)
The same song but this time Lorraine Hunt Lieberson, not as clear diction but just as beautiful in a different way.
Purcell - Dido and Aeneas - Dido's Lament (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HM7sfMf5CIc&feature=related)
-
I've been to Covent Garden once about 35 years ago.
Saw Lulu.
Brilliant.
-
Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeell!
You know you make me wanna shout!
She is fab, isn't she? ;)
-
;D
Well, there was quite a lot of shouting.
-
I don't like opera either. I can't see the point of singing so exaggeratedly that nobody can make out what the words are.
That's not opera, that's Napalm Death!