Extremely interesting discussion on the various merits of Rock, classical and Jazz, and that's just

An interesting thread that actually is interesting.

You're talking about Krautrock, right?

The other Ur-music is the human voice and western art music (to the late 19th century) grew out of unaccompanied singing in church in the same way as western painting was originally an entirely religious art.

'Classical' music ranges from the arcane and academic (Webern?) to the visceral and emotional (Verdi?) and perhaps spiritual. If the composer and performer have the intention and are up to the job, it can combine all to wonderful effect. Add to this a frequently high level of craft on behalf of the performer and it can make an immensely satisfying experience. People who deny themselves this through inverted snobbery are missing out on so much richness and joy. I'm not bothered by the kind of my team's better than your team arguments, there are different satisfactions to be gained from different kinds of music. It takes time to learn the language of 'classical' music but, like beer, sex or playing an instrument, it's worth practicing! A point I've made elsewhere (this thread come around every year or so) is that in Italy, opera is a classless art. Pavarotti can't even read music, so where that leaves him in relation to "western upper class academia" I don't know. I think several 40ish blokes here are still remembering their happy days in the class wars of the 80's and are comforted that they can continue to play out the games of their youth in the world of music!

 

tones, have you heard "Since I've been loving you", from III?

 

I am approaching this with way more than a pinch of the devil's advocate – Webern is actually one of my favourite composers!

I still feel western classical in the context in which it survives today is a somewhat academic and disconnected music. This is inevitable as those who wrote and originally performed it are long since dead and no sonic record survives, therefore all that is available is a rough paper blueprint. It as if there was no surviving Mona Lisa, just a paint it by numbers kit. I'm sure many historical experts would attempt to recreate the work, but they could never know the exact brush-work, feel and intent of the original artist. This to me makes it disconnected almost by design, i.e. the best possible available scenario is what someone else thinks Bach, Beethoven or whoever meant. Much as I love the music this distance does get in the way for me. The jazz or rock fan has a direct physical link to the artist(s) that no non-twentieth century composer has. The thought of listening to say Coltrane or Mingus via a similar third party interpretation is utterly cringeworthy!

Tony

 

TonyL - by your argument Shakespeare (or indeed the plays of any playwright who died more than about 50 years ago) would also be academic and disconnected just because all we have to go on is a "rough paper blueprint" of is works. The fact that you can refer to a classical music score as a "rough paper blueprint" only demonstrates how fundamentally you misunderstand the genre.

Michael.

 

Quite apart from the historical aspect (which others have touched on) it's not difficult to argue that the basic physicality you're talking about is rarely far from the surface. It's difficult to find music comparable in sheer earthily rhythmic vitality and motoric drive to much of Bach's output, for example.

Whether you're playing devil's advocate or not, this "classical music is only for the intellect" business really gets my goat. Probably the main reason why I listen to classical music is for the thrills, the visceral impact it presents far beyond anything in the "pop" domain - it's precisely for sensual gratification that I listen to Mahler, Shostakovich, R Strauss, Berlioz, Szymanowski, etc etc etc. This (oft-perpetuated) notion - that classical music is for people who find rock too noisy, too ill-mannered, too rowdy, too exciting or whatever and who prefer more cerebral pleasures - needs to be laid to rest for once and for all. For most "classical" people I know, the converse is closer to the truth.

This is a desperately old-fashioned and rather over-literal point of view. I mentioned earlier the philosophical problem with "period" performance practice; perhaps it would help if I were to expand on that a little.

Because music is a very abstract artform, it depends on the listener's interpretation to have any meaning at all. joel has already alluded to the fact that our response to music is "learned" to a large extent - any given listener will attach meaning to a piece of music based on his or her own experiences, intellect, and so forth. Therefore, the listener's social and cultural environment is critically important to his or her reception of a piece of music, because it moulds his or her artistic preconceptions.

I described above how art music is a means of communicating an emotional, intellectual or spiritual state from a composer to an audience via a performer. The movement towards "authentic" performance practice was intended to recreate the composer's original intentions as far as possible, and thus attempt to get a clearer idea what exactly it was that the composer was trying to say. The philosophical problem, however, is this: even if we were able to conjure up a magical window to allow us to listen to Beethoven conducting the premiere of his 5th Symphony, we still wouldn't be any closer to realising his original intentions, because we the listeners are different. It is simply not possible for us to respond to the same sounds in exactly the same way as the original audience would have, therefore attempting literal recreation of the composer's performing intentions is (in this sense) futile.

This is of course where the performer can come in, if he chooses - he can form his own interpretation of the message the composer intended to convey and perform the music in such a way as to convey that same message to a contemporary audience. Alternatively, of course, he can perform the music in any other manner he chooses. The primary function of musicology is no longer constant fretting over what the composer "meant" - most people just don't worry about it that much any more. Different artists and different generations can (and, arguably, must, for the reasons outlined above) cast a different light on great musical works - in fact you could use this malleability and robustness as a measure of the greatness of a work, in one aspect at least (how many recordings do you feel compelled to buy before you feel you've exhausted it?)

 

Absolutely!

Michael.

 

Bits of all of the above.

 

Yes, but it's fun, isn't it? Much better than arguing about silly old cables, and as nobody's mind will be changed, no harm done. And it's always fascinating to see people get their knickers in a knot when the musicality of their stuff is questioned. We classical listeners are used to it, of course, as we're a minority, and we're dismissed by everyone else as old-fashioned fuddy-duddies, but challenge the status quo (or the Status Quo if you like) of schlock and all hell breaks loose. I love it! :JOEL:

 

III? As in "3"? Or as in 1.5 nautical responses? I presume it's a record of some sort, and given the context, I presume it's It-Which-Cannot-be-Named-Without-Stereo-Mic-Getting-His-Knickers-In-A-Knot.

The short answer is, no. Should I? And why?

 

tones, you've picked the wrong target. Coldplay is without question crass rubbish, Led Zep, not.

Have you heard "Since I've been loving you"? IMO, their best.

EDIT : I think you'd concede it's good. From Led Zeppelin III

 

Wasn't that just the funniest thing on the Mercury music prize?

Can I just remind the classical 'mob' that whilst composing a symphony is admirable, merely liking classical music is neither big nor clever. I have a sneaking suspicion that some people think it is.

tones is a big fan of Saxon. He has just never gotten over the fact that Led Zep' were more popular than Barnsley's finest. He thinks "Biff" Byford was better than Robert Plant etc. etc. That's why he trashes Led Zep'.

 

Perhaps, I've heard much about Clodplay, but have never actually heard anything of theirs. And I'm afraid I'd much rather buy the next volume of Gardiner Bach cantatas than LedZep III. But thanks for the tip - should I ever come across anyone who owns it, I'll try it out and resist the temptation to use it as a coaster or a frisbee.

 

It was absolutely fantastic. The Fast Show lampooned jazz with deadly accuracy some years ago, then an act shows up on the MMP straight out of "Jazz Club". Gave me a good laugh.

 

But then, some people are twits.

I am??? Do tell! You clearly have a different Angle on this. (Or, since it's Sax, should that be Jute?).

Ah, yes, good ol' Biff! Great guy, Biff! Really trashes that cowboy Plant. Er, really plants that trashy cowboy. Really cows that trashyboy Plant? Let's hear it for Biff!














































Er....who's Biff?

 

Biff was Johann Sebastian's younger brother.

 

Of course, Johann Sebastian Biff, how could I have forgotten!

 

No, Biff Bach.

 

Who is Biff Byford? Are you serious?









Basically, if you ever need somebody to point at the camera when you take a photo', Biff is your man.

He also sings about crusaders and denim and stuff.

 

As in NickNack (paddywhack, give the dog a bone)?

 

Not usually, but in this particular instance, I have to confess....yes.

Didn't think anyone outside Belfast had even heard of them, never mind sing about them, but there you go.