Oh dear, oh dear!

Tones, for once mate carry on
Only had one decent guy in the band Bonzo, and the silly bugger died I think 4 songs they'll be remembered for.
Prehaps if you put them in this category, LED ZEP 20th century Mahlar
I don't think Classical has the total stuff shirt image it once had, schools/Mark Lawson bringing more of it to the masses, other musical 'Up your arse' genres' have over taken Bach & co' in the intellictual hippo campus jossling states.
Just like fine wines, musical focus shifts with the passing tides of opinions.

 

Bonzo was a drummer, was to stupid to keep living

 

Goody, I can hardly wait...

 

Was that meant to be 20th. century Malaise, Tone?

 

Steady on lads, before you all go on a Viking rampage through the classical section crying "Valhalla, I am coming!!" - it isn't a hanging offence to dislike Led Zep (or should I say not appreciate the niceties) you know

:duck:

 

And now, here is the 6 o'clock noose - AAAAARRRRRRRYAAAACH!!!

 

How does it??

Discounting the obviously inane and simplistic chart music, in what way is classical a far more intellectual genre of music ? It's complexity stems predominantly from the fact that there are more instruments (read voices) involved not from any inherent intellectual superiority of the scales, harmonies etc used. But even that is immensly variable, being entirely dependant on the exact genre of classic music that one chooses. Or does this intellectual depth come from the composers desicion to essentially depict fairytales with his music? In which case I don't think you can gain intellectualism through association. ie the story, tale, myth etc may be intellectual but that doesn't make the music created to depict it inherently intellectual. In any case if it did then any other genre of music which did the same thing could lay claim to the label of being intellectual.


Rock/pop music is just a form or rebellion?

If so, then so was classical music. At least in the sense than many composers sought to challenge the established and accepted tastes with their compositions, and may well have gained a following for that reason alone.


The way I see it, music is music. Like art it only boils down to whether an individual likes it or not. A painting may be technically brilliant but that does't make it art. Just like a technically virtuoso peice of music doesn't make it good music.

I feel that a lot of the time it is the fact that something is old that makes some people think that it must be inherently superior, (just like there are people that believe the same because something is new). Much like Shakespeare is held up as a literary genius today, when in fact in his day he was nothing more than a writer of plays that were created for the masses. The historical equivilent of Neighbours, full of murder, revenge, adultory, blood and love. What separates Shakespeare from the writers of Neighbours? well apart from a couple of hundred years, nothing but the change of the english language. Lending modern day critics to place his writings on a pedestal because his use of language is apparently more complex than our own. It isn't. It's just different and therefore more difficult to comprehend. The fact that something is more difficult to grasp, may make it more satisfying when it is finally understood, but it doesn't make it inherently superior to something that is easy.


GTM

 

GTM,

You're being a bit unfair on Shakespeare I think. The number of common turns of phrase now used as part of every day English which come to us from his plays is probably only equalled by those from the King James Bible and the Book of Common Prayer. Neighbours it is not (even if you don't like the plays).

You shouldn't say things like that unless you want to look like an ignoramous.

 

Uncle Ants,

Rather harsh IMHO

I would agree with most of what GTM says but both Shakespeare and the Book of common prayer and whatever have had rather a head start on Neighbors dont you think ?

Must confess I can't see Neighbors scripts being studied in schools in 700 years time - or any soap scripts for that matter but maybe many of Shakespears phrases were in current usage, who knows ?? I'm sure some sopa phrases have entered the English Language.

 

What separates Will from "Neighbours"? Marvellous depth of characterisation, meaningful plots and glorious use of language for a start. And AFAIK he was regarded as something exceptional, even in Elizabethan times. His art has transcended time and language. The great German dramatists adored Shakespeare and adapted his works for the German stage. Shakespeare is eternal; his works, although set in his times, are ever valid descriptions of the human condition; it is never old, ever young and relevant, ready for new generations to explore. Ditto great music. It's ageless, and crosses all barriers of time and culture. Just the way Led Zed doesn't.

OK I'm outta here for a couple of days for a whole stack of boring business meetings. Behave yourselves until I get back

P.S. Apologies for the double bold print above - I never have mastered this Quotes business. The lines are my feeble attempt to differentiate GTM's comments and mine. OK REALLY gone this time!

 

Maybe just a little testy, but I was rather enjoying GTM's argument until he blew it with the Shakespeare/Neighbours analogy - No ... they are nothing like one another. Soap scripts won't be studied in future years because they have nothing to say - that's why they are so easy to watch.

Soap Phrases that will pass into the English language? Hmm. Lemme see:

Riccckkkkyyyy!!!

 

I agree totally. None will..


But do you know that Shakespeare wasn't just using normal language for the times?

My basic point however was that shakespeare wrote plays that appealed (sp) to the common man. At the core of most of his plays are very basic human drives. Just like there is in Neighbours. Love it or hate it, it can not be denied that most modern soaps are pretty accurate representations of the society we live in today. Shakespeares work is just "flowered" up. It's a case of listening to what is being said.. not how it's being said.

Also, there is a lot of bias due to knowlege of the composer/author/artist. A good friend of mine studied English at university. During a summer school she attended, they were given two pieces of anonymous text to critique, contrast and compare. The group essentially came to the conclusion that the two works were of equal value and content. Imagine how shocked they were to find they had just been comparing an unknown Mills and Boone author with Bronte.

GTM

 

I don't know such phrases weren't common for sure, but there are (so far as I am aware) no other extant texts from the period which use any of them, they all appear first there (and there are quite a lot of contemporanious texts, as we aren't talking about classical times - the printing press had been around for over 100 years).

Some soaps may be an accurate representation of every day life (though if you lived somewhere like Emmerdale the chances of getting blown up seem a bit too high for comfort) - so?? Shakespeare's plays weren't, they were about grand univesral themes writ large. If they were flowered up tudorbethan soaps they'd all be called "A tale of Jethro the Peasant and His Pig" or some such.

Anyway your wrong - its definitely a case of how it is beings said as much as what - going back to music that'd be like saying "oh such and such is my favourite tune - I could hear it played on a rubber band ... with the wrong notes ... and it'd be just as enjoyable".

 

in what way?Can you elaborate what "intellectual" means in this context?


ps Zeppelin have outsold every artist in history except Presley.I know populairty doesn't mean greatness,but they do deserve some respect for being the phenomenen they were and still are.

 

That's largely beside the point - for example the Bach sonatas for violin solo are considered by many to be amongst his finest works, and are indisputably works of great complexity, yet you can't really get fewer voices than a violin solo (notwithstanding the extremely difficult fugal / chordal passages).

If we're talking about compositional complexity, then your typical classical work compared with by far the majority of pop - and not just the "obviously inane and simplistic chart music" - is in an entirely different league right across the board. To take harmony as just a single technical aspect by way of example: the concept of a "chord sequence", by which you can define the harmony for a given song, only really applies to pop music and not to classical. Pop songs are generally constructed harmonically as a set of block chords, ie. notes arranged vertically, in a short-to-very-short repeating sequence, with a melody sung over them; generally in classical music no such sequence can be specified as relatively speaking there is very little repetition and particular effects are very often derived from ambiguity as to exactly what harmony is being implied; also it's generally impossible to separate out the musical material into "melody" and "harmony".

Even when you do get a chorale-type passage with simple block chords, the range of progressions and modulations is far wider and less proscriptive than the endless 1, 1B, 4, 5, 6 with typical pop music - and of course, you don't then afterwards hear the same chord sequence another 16 times.

This is just thinking in very broad terms about harmony - you could just as well compare rhythmic, structural or any other aspects.

Where on earth did you get this from? On a relatively facile level, one of the "difficult" aspects of instrumental classical music is that - except for works for the stage such as ballet or opera - it's seldom explicitly 'about' anything. This is what we call "absolute" music, which is to say music which stands entirely on its own without reference to anything external - you don't get a head start by knowing what it's supposed to be "about" because it's not "about" anything. "Programme" music, which is what we call music which is depicting something (it has a "programme") was a pretty rare beast up until halfway through the nineteenth century, and even after that - with occasional prominent exceptions - it never really became as 'significant' or widespread as absolute music.

 

I have no doubt those that are intellectually superior to me can derive intellecual stimulation from Classical music far in excess of what i can from Zep,but i dont listen to the band for my intellectual stimulation,i get that elsewhere.

I listen to LZ for emotional stimulation,as I am sure most LZ fans do. (or just a big head bang,whatever)

 

Well, y'know, I listen to Mahler for emotional stimulation and a big head bang. I'm too tired to be verbose just now though

 

and I listen to Turkish Sufi music for emotional stimulation and a big... spin

 

My bones of contention: !

1) You dont need to understand a piece of music to enjoy it.
2) Understanding a piece of music (IMHO) neither necessarily adds nor subtracts from the enjoyment of it.
3) For me, having the ability to play a piece of music actually detracts from my enjoyment of it - because it has lost its magic, its mystique.

In my view we need to seperate the great ability needed to compose good classical music with the complete lack of ability and skill needed to just enjoy it.


NB
In my own view following shakespeare is often an intellectual persuit... simply because it takes ages to get your head round the language used, the historical plots etc.. and until you understand it a little its hard to enjoy it at all (again IMHO, speaking from my own experience).

Chris

 

Hmm - that sounds like massed orchestral strings to me, Tones - bring it on

Seriously though, I listen to music for emotional stimulation and escapism; books are for the intellectual side. That said, I'm not averse to trying to figure out odd music - I even tried "Trout mask replica" a year or so ago (and hated it!) - but you never know, I'm up for giving that a go again.

BTW - I agree with Bottleneck re Shakespeare; I don't understand some (well, a lot!) of it, despite doing A Level English Lit, but once you suss out what's going on, the plays are amazing. I have to admit though, I'm glad ours was the first year that did not HAVE to do Chaucer - if I want to translate, I'd learn French