Oh dear, oh dear!

Tones,

Whilst I admire the technical and intellectual superiority of SOME classical music, I connect on an emotional level equally with many other genres, and surely listening to music is at heart an emotional experience?

Any way ROCK ON

RaT: RaT: RaT:

 

Interesting how this has turned into a is "classical" better than "other" music thread - not my initial point at all. However...

GTM's tosh seems to have been rebutted fairly thoroughly by others, so I probably don't need to go there any further. I think it's undeniable that "classical" IS more intellectual than most other genres. In the later romantic era that intellectualism was concentrated more in the emotional and harmonic developments, in the renaissance, classical and serialist eras more in structural areas. That's saying nothing however about whether it's better music. In my case I find the groove element of pop/rock and increasingly "world" (which unfortunately mostly means "african-pop") music very infectious - but only for a short time until the initial high wears off, when I'm then left with....very little. This is where the better classical does score big time - it has layers that just keep on revealing themselves the more you listen to it, so the intellectual content reinforces the initial emotional attachment - and I would say that the majority of classical has depths that only the very best pop/rock even starts to approach. As for classical being all intellectualism and no excitement or groove - Mozart's far from my favourite composer but the opening movement of Symphony 40 has as much of those as just about any rock/pop about (and it's got underlying structural and harmonic interest too). Even I would still get more enjoyment out of good pop/rock though over average baroque, or almost any serialist piece - but there we're into personal preference.

One other characteristic, which comes with the increased working out, is the generally better handling of large structures. A prime example of this is Macca. Certainly a writer of some excellent (and on occasions even touching) pop songs, and "Hey Jude" or "Sea Moon" even have similarities to Ravel's Bolero (basically one long crescendo - although even Ravel bragged "I have written only one masterpiece. That is the Bolero. Unfortunately, it contains no music."), but his "Liverpool Oratorio" is the most flabby, formless, cliche-ridden tosh I've heard in many years - he hasn't a clue about handling a large structure.

I heard an interesting interview yesterday along the same lines of what this thread was actually about - selling classical music through its own merits rather than through some hybrid bastard offspring. This flautist was describing the concerts she does for kiddies (IIRC she's doing one at the RFH on Sunday). When she started 20 or 30 years ago she used to play various pop arrangements. Now she only plays things straight (although quite possibly in arrangements for smaller groups, but sticking in genre) - and sticks to 2mins 30 seconds per piece, which is the about the longest the kiddies will pay attention. She gets immediate and excited connection with the kids - and they come out with comments like "wow...this is just like our music...only better" .

 

Agreed on 1), however with 2) I'd say that at least a vague grasp of the technical aspects of a piece of music often allows it to be appreciated on another level as well as getting from it all that a casual listener does - you may end up realising that the piece of music is "clever" or satisfying in ways you wouldn't have otherwise. In my personal experience though the major effect of listening a little more analytically is that you can gain an insight into why you like or dislike a given work (with the advantage that it's then easier to find other stuff you're likely to enjoy too). Against this, if you've got a highly analytical ear then you may find that you suck a lot of pop albums dry after little more than a single listen as there just isn't enough music to hold your attention - hence the chances are you're doomed to listen mainly to classical music.

And on 3), well, that goes completely at odds with my own experience, or that of any of the people I've ever come into contact with through amateur music-making. The best way to really get inside a piece of music (short of a full-blown analysis of the score) is by playing it - you might get there by listening but it takes a hell of a lot longer and you may get bored of the music first. By the time you're ready to perform it you're living every note of the music in a way that casual listening IME just doesn't bring about.

And as to this "emotional stimulation" business, why should 'complex' necessarily mean 'dry and uninvolving'? The complexity of the music has developed in order to express emotion to a level of power (and/or subtlety by turns) which would simply be impossible if the compositional language were insufficiently sophisticated - it's just that, because what the music is expressing is complicated and/or extreme, it may sometimes take a little effort on the part of the listener to be able to relate fully to what the composer is saying.

Edit: argh, Graham got in there while I was writing that, so I'm repeating him a bit. Ah well, I'll type faster next time

 

I haven't followed this thread all the way but I'll just echo something of what Graham (who's post I completely agree with btw) said. Classical music has more staying power and is far less transient. I was brought up on classical music only (and playing classical piano) and, allthough I've never "gone off" classical music in any way I probably listen to a lot more non-classical music than classical music these days. I certainly have far more pop/rock CDs than classical ones (partly because I started collecting classical much earlier when it was tapes rather than CDs).

However, I've found so many of my pop/rock CDs that I simply have no desire to listen to anymore. Their appeal has just gone and I could quite happily never listen to many of them ever again. It's only the collector in me that makes me keep them.

The same could not be said of any of my classical CDs. Every time I hear a piece of classical music I hear it in a new way. It just has so much more depth than any pop/rock music. That's not to say that non-classical music isn't hugely enjoyable, it certainly is (I wouldn't listen to it otherwise!) but at the end of the day it's mostly just superficial and disposable.

Michael.

 

Oh, and just to add to what PeteH said about bottleneck's "point 3" above, I find that being able to play a piece of music HUGELY increases it's enjoyment in just so many ways. You understand the music more and you can appreciate the technique (or lack of ) of the performer or how they do things differently to the way you would have done them.

There's an analogy with sports. If you play a sport then watching it on TV is suddenly much more fun because you really understand what's going on and can appreciate the subtleties of what the people are doing.

Michael.

 

I don't disagree, but maybe it depends on which er ... emotions you are talking about - not many classical pieces that'd Squeeze your Lemon like a certain bunch mentioned in this thread

PS. Got the new Live Zep DVD the other week (a pressy for my brother in law - but it needed testing). Seriously guys - a couple of glasses of vodka and a Led Zep video and Auntie Ants was up for squeezing mine anways :MILD: (sorry too much detail ... probably). They just have that effect on her.

 

Ah come on, any good love scene should clearly sound like Tchaikovsky (I'm thinking probably Romeo and Juliet here, although I suppose some might like it more like the 1812 Overture ) or Rachmaninov - or if that's too tasteful and romantic, there's always the notoriously explicit "love" scene from Shostakovich's opera Lady Macbeth, complete with 'drooping' afterwards

 

she performs quite well with the volume switched off however. I predict we'll see her pole dancing to Eine Kleine Nachtmusik before long. And that's fine by me :JPS:

 

Yes, they merit admiration for the same reason as Dilbert admired the consultant in the famous cartoon; "I admire your ability to get paid for this". Ditto Britney Spears.

 

Tones, do you like ANY modern music at all?

Im just curious to find out what modern pop/rock/indie recordings you do like, and (although I shouldnt admit it) have a little giggle that you prefer them to Led Zepplin!

 

Occasionally I hear a catchy tune that I like on the car radio when my daughter leaves the radio on one of the more popular FM stations, but generallly it's all so atrocious that I turn it off. I do have a few odd (very) pop/rock things, usually bought for one track when the CD was on sale. I wouldn't know indie if I fell over it or into it. Sorry, but it just doesn't satisfy me at all and it all sounds pretty much variations on the same basic theme. Britney and Led Zed really aren't that far apart, with Britney substantially in the lead on looks alone (oops! I did it again...). (No, I don't have any Britney either).