three easy steps to unlocking the mysteries of classical music

quote:

Well I did at one point. I remember spending interminable hours at school in music lessons being taught to understand harmony, counterpoint, metre, etc. We were forced to listen to huge amounts of classical music...
Oh and another thing. Why would I want to waste my time counting beats?

But we all had great art killed for us in school. In my case it was Shakespeare. I didn't even have music at school - and maybe that's not irrelevant. But that was then and this is now. You cannot claim to have a soft spot for Tallis and Copland and maintain at the same time you can't appreciate "classical" music. (Of course Tallis was centuries before classical, and Copland centuries after, but that's another thread.)
All this "trying very hard" and all this "forcing": you were all making it as hard as possible. Stop trying. Start with Tallis and Copland. Listen to contemporaries of each; listen to other a capella choral music and other C20 symphonies. It's your voyage of discovery.
I believe you will find it more rewarding if you understand how it works, but if you have a had a bad experience of that in the past, let it go for a few years. If you don't want to count the beats don't. I don't.

quote:

Originally posted by Jeremy Marchant:

But we all had great art killed for us in school ... I believe you will find it more rewarding if you understand how it works

I do understand that that's the case for many, and not to gloat, but not for me ... in my case, school enriched art, opened up worlds of possibilities and ideas. I'm just saying this because the experience of school depends entirely on which school, who the teachers are, and how receptive and self reliant the student is.

I wholeheartedly agree that understanding how it works makes it much more rewarding ... I refer back to the quote from Richard Feynman I posted earlier in this thread.

Best,
Fred

quote:

Originally posted by Jeremy Marchant:

You cannot claim to have a soft spot for Tallis and Copland and maintain at the same time you can't appreciate "classical" music. (Of course Tallis was centuries before classical, and Copland centuries after, but that's another thread.)

I think I'll tackle that in this thread, thank you veddy much.

You're confusing the general term for the genre know as classical music with the more specific term for a certain period within the entire span of European classical music known as the Classical period, roughly between 1750 and 1825, preceded by the Baroque period and followed by the Romantic period.

My hunch is that you yourself are not confused about this, but I wanted to clarify it for those here who may be misled. Tallis composed nearly two centuries before the Classical period, and Copland composed roughly a century or more after it, but both Tallis and Copland were composers of classical music. Therefore, as you correctly said, someone who digs Tallis and Copland cannot claim to not appreciate classical music.

All best,
Fred

Off topic, but I expect I'm typical in that despite being somebody who loved school, it did kill art for me. Luckily, punk came along...imo the ultimate art form. Art based on people simply making art with a disregard to any rules, expressing themselves. For me, and millions like me (although possibly not as good looking) this was the birth of my true appreciation of art, a journey which has taken me through all genres, and enabled me to make a personal judgement on them all.

quote:

Originally posted by Mat Cork:

Luckily, punk came along...imo the ultimate art form. Art based on people simply making art with a disregard to any rules, expressing themselves.

All the best art is made by people expressing themselves with disregard for rules; punk has no exclusive claim on that. Beethoven followed no rules, nor Ravel, nor Miles Davis, Jimi Hendrix, Picasso, James Joyce, Joni Mitchell, The Beatles, John Coltrane etc.

In fact, I'd be hard pressed to even think of any decent art made by someone following rules ... the rules always come after the fact, and then are broken anew by the next artist.

Best,
Fred

yet much 12 tone music sounds and feels as if the rules came first.

I agree all your list are excellent and pioneering Fred.

But punk is unique in that it doesn't require competence to aid expression. Buzzcocks could hardly play their instruments in the early days, but made superb art with rudimentary skills...magic. Punk unique in this respect. The world has no shortage of technically awesome musicians with not a shred of artistic flair...you can't teach that.

well this is a lively discussion tho I"ve not read it all. Everything has it's place, depends on your interests. I jump around from old to contemporary, serious music to rock. Sure I have my preferences but it's like tasting everything at the buffet.

Same with museums. Just saw a show at the Getty of Italian masters, my friend and I had our noses 12 inches from them. No detail went un-noticed. But then I love Rauschenberg, Basquiate, Rodin, Gaugin, and contemplative things.

I heard an interview many years ago of someone in a group that was part of the British invasion in the 60s. On the plane everyone was learning new chords and passing around ideas, the spirit of discovery. Doesn't take much to scream and jam, but to get more sophisticated takes lots of work. Hendrix may have sounded off the wall, but he really knew what that guitar could do. then he just went a another step beyond.

quote:

Originally posted by Wolf2:
Doesn't take much to scream and jam...

But done right, which is extremely rare, it moves crowds like nothing else. Rock Music by the Pixies being a sublime example.

quote:

But we all had great art killed for us in school.

Really? This may be true to you and a few others here who share this sentiment but hardly true for everyone. What I sense here is that you believe a "school" is responsible for something YOU ultimately chose to do or believe. Substitute in for "school" society, parents, my job/boss, the church etc. and it is still the continual cry of the victim mentality. I don't like (or get) math or english or chemistry because of old Mr. or Mrs. ____. This is nonsense. Somebody else is not responsible for your own decisions and attitudes.

This is really just a combination of ones own maturity at the time mixed with ones values and the cultural climate you live in. If all your friends think this way about a certain subject, then, if you want to fit in, you will too. If your immediate family culture is different from your group of peers, then you will likely rebel here too. Rebelling against authority is the favorite past time of most youths (and adults). I know this because I went through this phase as well and did my share of rebelling.

quote:

Beethoven followed no rules, nor Ravel

Fred, you know I always agree with your writing on music especially but I have to take exception for these two guys anyway (the rest I am not probably qualified to comment on). Although I agree with your sentiment I think it is misleading to say these guys followed no rules. They did follow rules. To compose anything that Beethoven did he would have definitely had to follow rules (that he learned from Haydn). For example, his Sonatas are generally composed using the Sonata form. As time went on though he did push the envelope a bit. This is the process of evolution. He just intuitively knew which rules to break for great effect and to make his creations clearly something that represented himself or his expression.

Regards,
Doug

quote:

Beethoven followed no rules, nor Ravel

Forgive me for second guessing but I assumed that Fred meant that Beethoven followed no rules in how he manipulated a particular musical language; the sonata being a particular musical form that he used. One cannot make art without working with a viable language.

As regards punk the musical form is just as prescribed as any other and a lot narrower in scope consisting of a few rhythm and major barred chord patterns.

Give me Jimi Hendrix anyday over the Sex Pistols as an example of someone exploring the bounds of musical creativity.

regards,
mat

quote:

Originally posted by mjamrob:
As regards punk the musical form is just as prescribed as any other and a lot narrower in scope consisting of a few rhythm and major barred chord patterns.

Some of it, but this doesn't begin to address the wonder of Einsturzende Neubaten and other experitmentalists, using no instruments other than power tools etc, to make some of the greatest music ever heard imo. The suggestion that punk was just a few power chords, is like suggesting classical is just a few strings, or jazz a few toots on a horn.

I don't agree for a second that art needs some kind of common language (musical or otherwise). The Cocteau Twins make stunning music, but it's not strictly lyrical, she just mouths sounds only she can understand. Autechre make stunning music (imo) but use a range of approaches, such as non repeating time signatures and beats etc - marvelous.

I prefer Hendrix too tho Mat, but I still love the Pistols, Stooges, Runaways etc.

quote:

Some of it, but this doesn't begin to address the wonder of Einsturzende Neubaten and other experitmentalists, using no instruments other than power tools etc, to make some of the greatest music ever heard imo.

Your definition of 'Punk' as a genre is obviously a lot wider than mine. I was referring to what was a marketing and fashion and pop movement in the late 70's rather than to artists who experimented on a purely uncommercial level. I've never been impressed with the Sex Pistols, they seem to me to have been more of a clever marketing and political tool orchestrated by Malcom Mclaren than a genuine musical phenomenon. But yes I acknowledge that the music was fun and enjoyable at the time.

quote:

The suggestion that punk was just a few power chords, is like suggesting classical is just a few strings, or jazz a few toots on a horn.

Well the punk I was referring to was bands like the Sex Pistols, Clash, Sham69, Ramones and their music is based on a few simple rythmic and major chord patterns. I am not denigrating their music, just pointing out a salient fact. I think some of The Ramones' tracks have great power and energy which I thoroughly enjoy. I don't know of Einsturzende Neubaten but I've never heard of them mentioned in the same breath as the aforementioned bands, and if they're that experimental as you say, I would suggest they are exploring a completely different musical form and direction, and musically should be considered seperately I would have thought.

quote:

she just mouths sounds only she can understand

You've proved my point here, how can the Cocteau Twin's music be stunning to you, if only 'she' can understand the sounds 'she' is mouthing? In order for it be so for you, 'she' must be using a musical form or language that is familiar to you and anyone else. I am not however demeaning any musical genre, just pointing out that they all have a particular language that they work within and against. This applies equally to experimental atonal free form music, whether it be Albert Ayler, Last Exit, Stockhausen, John Cage or anyone else including the examples you cited yourself.

The point I was making in my previous post is that language and creativity are not mutually exclusive but dependant upon each other, in the making of any viable work of art.

regards,
mat

I can see your point Mat (even if you have stolen my name), but my point is it's easy to point to rules folk adhere to and suggest it's all some form of conformity. I don't think it is and I think experimental music (I call it punk, but Stravinsky and Beethoven clealry knocked out punk stuff) should not be tared with the same brush as deadpan stuff like Vivaldi or Robben Ford playing some hackneyed blues riff on a perfectly tuned guitar. Stockhausen is a good example as is Cage, but McClaren for me, was a genius...the whole nature of the orchestrated con, was a wonderful ride, with some sad casualties (but most great things leave some wreckage sadly).

I think it would be very hard to argue that classical music is not by it's very nature extremely conformist, whereas jazz and rock has the potential to be much less so.

quote:

Originally posted by Mat Cork:

I think it would be very hard to argue that classical music is not by it's very nature extremely conformist, whereas jazz and rock has the potential to be much less so.

LOL!

Certainly the most funny and most ill-informed post that I have ever had the good fortune to see on the Naim Forum!

ATB from George

quote:

Originally posted by GFFJ:

quote:

Originally posted by Mat Cork:

I think it would be very hard to argue that classical music is not by it's very nature extremely conformist, whereas jazz and rock has the potential to be much less so.

LOL!

Certainly the most funny and most ill-informed post that I have ever had the good fortune to see on the Naim Forum!

It's not that funny at all, George.

Mat, on the contrary, it wouldn't be hard in the least to argue that classical music is not extremely conformist by nature.

There's as much conformist rock and jazz as classical, and every genre of music has equal potential to be conformist or non ... it all depends on the operator.

Best,
Fred

Dear Fred,

Sorry, but I meant funny-peculiar!

As you suggest all genres have the chance of being conformist or non- but of all the genres of music it seems to me that none has been subject to so variation and evolution as the classical, which though it has been going on for centuries - so a relatively new art-form,, but it is of all the musical art forms one of the oldest living genres ... And this variation implies to me that no other musical genre has been so much non-conformity over time ...

Perhaps Church Chant is, as a living tradition, older ...

ATB from George

quote:

Originally posted by GFFJ:
LOL!

Certainly the most funny and most ill-informed post that I have ever had the good fortune to see on the Naim Forum!

ATB from George

Maybe tho George, it only appears that way because of your blinkers and narrow expectations, or lack of wider musical knowledge. Not saying it is mate of course...but it's seems likely.

I'm sure, given the lack of wider musical appetite by many on here, there would a world of ill-informed material for your continuing enjoyment my friend But, if I could offer you any advice, it would be to spend the time exploring music that challenges your preconceptions instead of trawling through all that little lot.

PD

Hi George,

Well, we could quickly get lost in a house of mirrors debating things like the age of European/Western classical music versus the age of European/Western popular music ... jazz is a little over a hundred years old but popular music, as opposed to art music (which classical hasn't always been ... another room in the house of mirrors), is probably older.

And then there's the argument that jazz, for instance, has developed nearly as much only faster ... if you consider the musical distance from Fats Waller to, say, late John Coltrane.

I still maintain that all musical genres offer equal potential for conformity or non, because that's something determined not by the parameters of the genre but by the parameters of the operator.

Best,
Fred

"Hi George,

"Well, we could quickly get lost in a house of mirrors debating things like ...

"Best, Fred"

I think we could, and indeed it would be about as useful.

ATB from George

quote:

Originally posted by jcs_smith:

Music for me is an emotional experience not an intellectual one.

They aren't mutually exclusive, and I wish the lingering misconception that they are would go away.

Best,
Fred

Dear Fred,

Would you agree that music is a meeting of the two aspects, and some music is almost all emotion, and some is far more intellectual?

Perhaps Ain't Misbehavin' is more emtional than say The Art Of Fugue, but neither is Ain't Misbehavin' anymore lacking the intellectual, than the Art Of Fugue lacks the emotional ... I love both! I tend to find emotional music more directly lovable than the more obviously intellectual.

It is only an idea.

I don't know any music that does not have both aspects to some extent ...

It's only an opinion. ATB from George

quote:

Originally posted by Mat Cork:

But punk is unique in that it doesn't require competence to aid expression ... The world has no shortage of technically awesome musicians with not a shred of artistic flair...you can't teach that.

Punk is absolutely not unique in this regard ... outsider art, in any medium, has always been a healthy component of human expression, from countless delta blues musicians to pictorial artists like Henry Darger.

That said, while it's certainly true that "the world has no shortage of technically awesome musicians with not a shred of artistic flair," it's no less true that there's an equal surfeit of technically incompetent musicians without a shred of artistic flair. In other words, technical competence, in and of itself, is no guarantee of, nor impediment to artistic flair.

Best,
Fred

quote:

Originally posted by GFFJ:

Would you agree that music is a meeting of the two aspects, and some music is almost all emotion, and some is far more intellectual?

...

I don't know any music that does not have both aspects to some extent

Yes, I would agree ... it's a continuum, and all human musical expression has elements of both in varying degrees.

Best,
Fred