Name a classic al***.
Posted by: Consciousmess on 10 October 2009
Hi all,
I have been thinking over the past few days that what one person thinks of as being a great collection of lyrics, another doesn't. However, what one person thinks of as an uplifting, spine-tingling piece of music I postulate as being more universal as this is an autonomic reaction that evolved through arousal and is linked to our ancestors' hair standing on edge to alert the enemy that they are bigger than they are and that they.... back off!!
Now I apologise for the partial ramble in this post, but I like to inform the forum the origins of my questions. To me, a classic album includes albums such as the following:
Dark Side of the Moon
Swan Lake
Abbey Road
Moonlight Sonata
There are MANY more that I rate really highly, but if you could all bear in mind the criteria I opened this post with, I'd love to hear others that you classify as being classic albums.
Many thanks!!
Jon
Posted on: 16 October 2009 by mikeeschman
quote:
Originally posted by ryan_d:
I've been reading this thread with some interest and trepidation. It is very sad that some on here seem to have to try to belittle others tastes and impose their views as gospel.
There are also some who try to imply that they are more knowledgeable just because they play an instrument when actually they are not so. They are though of by some and alluded to as some sort of sage or wisdom of the forum which they seem to believe. They are clearly not and are quite frankly elitist snobs. This is not a difference of opinion which is leads to a fun debate.....this is just about asserting their perceived superiority over others in a vain attempt to improve their banal and empty lives.
Others just sit here to poke jibes as they have anonimity and no recourse to there statements. I am frankly completely pissed off with the whole situation. I have tended to frequent the music room of this forum as up to recently this seemed immune from this type of posting, but it clearly appears that this is not the case.
I am therefore going to remove myself from this forum. I am not looking for a response or sympathy or anything else for that matter. I just though I would make my view known before I bugger off.
To the people that I have met or had positive correspondence with....I wish you all the best and hope we can keep in touch.
Ryan
It is just a forum. Give it another chance.
Posted on: 16 October 2009 by mikeeschman
Pollini's recording of the last three Beethoven piano sonatas.
Posted on: 16 October 2009 by Mat Cork
quote:
Originally posted by mikeeschman:
And Mat, I think I have a good feel for your basic knowledge of music. It's not a very impressive foundation for such strong views.
But Mike this is where your and Georges arguments are so very flimsy...this is the precise point where you both stumble.
I have a reasonable knowledge of classical music, but classical is just a small genre within the huge pool of music. I have a decent knowledge of most types of music, because I love music and exploring all the stops on the track.
You and George (from what I gather) only have a detailed knowledge of one genre and at best, a very poor understanding of many others.
This very point makes your collective contributions to these discussions frustrating to so many (like Ryan) - you are both dismissive of things you don't understand or are even aware of.
I'd always concede Mike, your knowledge of classical is greater than mine, but my knowledge of jazz, world, rock, reggae, electronic would be much more advanced than yours. By extension, when discussing what is a classic or defining point in a genre, my opinion is far mor informed.
I do love our discussions, but the pair of you do often take an extremely simplistic view of matters. Life's never simple.
Posted on: 16 October 2009 by mikeeschman
I don't dismiss anything, excepting atonal music of german origin from the early 20th century, and that on personal preference.
I know a good deal more about jazz than you suspect, and this is reflected in my collection.
I haven't said anything critical about any of the nominations on this thread, or questioned the use of the term classic, and have made six nominations myself, only one of which is classical.
In fact, the only critical thing I have said is that your reach exceeds your grasp, musically speaking.
So stop mixing apples and oranges :-)
All music shares tonality, and that is where I think your arguments fall apart. I don't think you know (i.e. hear) enough about tonality and rhythm at the nuts and bolts level to draw some of your wild conclusions.
My opinions on music are a work in progress, and I am reaching into many venues to expand what I know. You seem to think you have all the answers.
I am simply pointing out that your conclusions are so much wishful thinking.
You just don't get that many Mozarts, and a Miles Davis only comes around once in a while.
I have to wonder if you will spend more than 10 seconds reading this post :-)
Posted on: 16 October 2009 by Mat Cork
quote:
Originally posted by mikeeschman:
You just don't get that many Mozarts, and a Miles Davis only comes around once in a while.
Becuase it nonsense Mike based on your gut reactions...if you had a wider knowledge of music, you'd discover similar levels of genius Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan, Ian Curtis, Augustus Pablo...but of course, you've likely never heard of them Mike, so how could you know, or even comment.
Music about tonality Mike? ...it's about a whole lot more than that. You just need to cast your net wider. Music for example, is also about it's lyrical content, it's context...but yourself and George struggle to grasp that, but that's understandable listening to so much classical music I suspect. I'm not being smug there, it's just a symtom of your narrow habits.
All in fun though Mike. I spend long hours in the pub trying to pursuade my christian mate, that there really aren't any fairies at the bottom of the garden. As soon as we get anywhere, he'll always resort to 'you're just being silly now' - just as we approach the truth. He's still a great, if deluded mate who I think the world of.
I've not got all the answers Mike, but my knowledge is wide enough to have robust opinions...which is of course all there is when it comes to art. I'm always happy to change my opinions though...with good reason.
Posted on: 16 October 2009 by mikeeschman
Mat, I love the way you make a virtue of having no knowledge of tonality and rhythm, as if it gives advantage in understanding music.
It doesn't.
Understanding music is more involved than buying a cd and giving it a listen.
Posted on: 16 October 2009 by Mat Cork
quote:
Originally posted by mikeeschman:
Understanding music is more involved than buying a cd and giving it a listen.
I don't make a virtue out of Mike, don't be cheeky ;o)
I simply think it's a part of a bigger, more exciting picture.
If that's all you look for though, that's all you'll see. I'm far more demanding, I expect a lot more than that.
Posted on: 16 October 2009 by mikeeschman
Mat, in looking for your bigger picture, I believe you left rhythm and tonality behind. That's a bit like loving books, but not bothering with words.
It's called being the master of none.
Silly me, listening to the notes ...
Posted on: 16 October 2009 by Mat Cork
No Mike, you're not silly...it's what you enjoy.
Good forbid I'd ever read a book and think the words were the key aspect. Call me old fashioned, but I'd be looking for a well crafted story or account - the bigger picture, if you will.
What you miss though Mike, with your limited approach, is: music that tells you about the struggle of oppressed people (many examples), stories of love (many examples), calls to arms (such as the revolutions witnessed in the 60's), joyous, guilt free sex (many examples), the human condition (many examples)...all lost, in the focus on tonality Mike. Like tears in the rain.
Posted on: 16 October 2009 by mikeeschman
Mat, you are the most irrational person I've ever corresponded with.
I listen to music to hear the music. I devote energy to being able to hear more.
If it's not music I'm wanting, I turn to a book or a movie.
I'd bet real money I simply hear more than you do.
Posted on: 16 October 2009 by Mat Cork
[QUOTE]Originally posted by mikeeschman:
If it's not music I'm wanting, I turn to a book or a movie.
QUOTE]
I'm not irrational Mike, you just have a very narrow mind. So do I on many things.
We're way off topic but it's been fun. My points have been exressed simply. You just don't see them. You clearly believe that musical output of any note, needs to have been based in europe in the past odd hundred years, but not since 1914. All the thousands of years of music which preceeded it (which relates to the majority of the worlds population) does not register on your radar. That strikes me as extremely irrational. But, I understand.
Your quote above says it all Mike. I've no problem with that...it's your choice. I do care about much, much more than just 'notes' and I expect more when I listen. It's why I consider Leonard Cohen a genius and you'd have no interest. Neither of us is right or wrong it's choice.
You and George are true gents and smashing chaps, but sometimes you do flounder about like little fishes on the boardwalk of musical life, when the discussion turns to musical context. I could flap you under the table though when it comes to many other matters.
Enjoyable as ever Mike and best wishes Mat
(now I've a three week old baby to attend to and must get on with it ;o) )
Posted on: 16 October 2009 by Guido Fawkes
quote:
Originally posted by David O'Higgins:
Consciousness, is there a particular reason why you don't rate 'Duncan Browne' ahead of 'Give me take you'?
Can't speak for Consciousmess, but both elpees are excellent and vastly underrated - I wouldn't be without either. Anybody who hasn't heard these two great collections of songs should do so or run the risk of never knowing how wonderful the art of song can be.
Posted on: 16 October 2009 by Guido Fawkes
The word classic has several meanings. In general, these meanings refer to some past time. Something that is classical is a classic, but the word classic has more meanings, often more closely associated with popular culture and mass-produced goods.
Classic Rock magazine focuses on the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s. and presented The 100 Greatest British Rock Albums Ever, which were voted for by Classic Rock staff and various people associated with rock music (including Glenn Hughes of Deep Purple and Black Sabbath fame, Lemmy of Motörhead and Francis Rossi of Status Quo). Led Zeppelin's fourth album was first.
So you have to be old to be classic now then - oh well (said in a Rowan Atkinson type voice). In my recollections of the future, I can only see the songs of Dicks & Rudge truly surviving and all else being forgotten, which only goes to show the future is just like the past.
Posted on: 16 October 2009 by mikeeschman
quote:
Originally posted by Mat Cork:
I'm not irrational Mike, you just have a very narrow mind. So do I on many things.
Mat, all I can say is that your ego is making the most of your musical illiteracy. If that floats your boat, so be it. But don't be suprised to not be taken seriously. I sure don't.
I get the sense you would be fun to talk to, on a topic you know something of. It's just not music.
Posted on: 16 October 2009 by Mat Cork
So Mike, do you seriously consider your knowledge of music, other than classical is on a par with mine (or indeed many on here)? I find that an astonishing claim. You have clearly stated that you have no interest in music which has any lyrical content, notes only concern you...your words Mike, not mine.
Far from having an ego Mike, I do not claim to be a 'master' - I'm far too humble for that. I am, as you say, a jack across the genres which collectively make up music. One of which is classical.
As I've said though Mike, all fun, nothing of serious note (no pun intended).
Posted on: 16 October 2009 by Fred Mulder
True 
Oh, it's from spandau ballet
(this post has nothing to do with the messages direct above)
Posted on: 16 October 2009 by mikeeschman
quote:
Originally posted by Mat Cork:
So Mike, do you seriously consider your knowledge of music, other than classical is on a par with mine?
I suspect your ability to hear pitch and rhythm is so far inferior to mine, I would consider you deaf.
If you can't hear pitch and rhythm, you've never heard music. Any music.
And your ability to focus on a singular topic is so poor, it would take an act of faith to declare you rational.
In simpler English, I consider you deaf and daft, but you are fun :-)
Posted on: 16 October 2009 by fatcat
Mike. Are you attempting to become the Mick Parry of the music room-
Stop winding Mat up, you know very well he's making perfect sense.
Posted on: 16 October 2009 by mikeeschman
quote:
Originally posted by fatcat:
Mike. Are you attempting to become the Mick Parry of the music room-
Stop winding Mat up, you know very well he's making perfect sense.
I don't know who Mick Parry is, and don't want to.
I'm winding Mat up because I want to have something longer term with him. Still, he is full of crap. The two of us will work that out.
For the record, I think Mat could resolve all of his deficiencies as a listener in three months, 1 hour a day. And he would enjoy all of his music more.
Of course, if he wants to enjoy his music and refrain from overarching grand theories about the whole of music, so he doesn't rile up old men like me who get stirred up by any proclamation, he doesn't have to put in the three months.
This is a forum, and the questionable should be challenged.
I haven't seen Mat forward any notion that might be debated.
I am waiting :-)
Mat, you are challenged.
I have my game face on.
And I have a topic.
There are two general phases a lover of music passes through.
At first, they revel in the pure emotional response to music.
But for some, it fades.
When that happens, they look more closely.
It's like moving closer to the campfire as the embers die away.
Maybe you have to listen for 40 years to understand that.
If you're smart enough to look at what musicians believe and live, you will learn to discern pitch and rhythm, and learning to hear harmony soon follows.
It really doesn't matter what sort of music you end up creating; this is where most people who succeed begin.
Posted on: 16 October 2009 by fatcat
quote:
Originally posted by mikeeschman:
I haven't seen Mat forward any notion that might be debated.
That the problem, YOU don't see. I can see he makes some valid and logical points.
Posted on: 16 October 2009 by mikeeschman
quote:
Originally posted by fatcat:
quote:
Originally posted by mikeeschman:
I haven't seen Mat forward any notion that might be debated.
That the problem, YOU don't see. I can see he makes some valid and logical points.
Well if you do, enlighten me.
enumerate them here and now :-)
Posted on: 16 October 2009 by Mat Cork
quote:
Originally posted by mikeeschman:
There are two general phases a lover of music passes through.
At first, they revel in the pure emotional response to music.
But for some, it fades.
When that happens, they look more closely.
It's like moving closer to the campfire as the embers die away.
Mike, Mike, Mike...you young whippersnappers eh. Getting drunk and making stuff up tsk, tsk. How am I supposed to respond to that little nugget above? It's just your take on matters...getting your opinions and facts confused.
You miss the points, which are simple I wouldn't know where to start Mike.
You:
Music, in a given genre, with a very narrow focus.
Most folk:
Music, across a range of genre's, with an open minded approach.
Your great failing, is that you lack the humility to see that your approach, may not be valid or of interest universally. Simple.
I'm equally pulling your (illogical) chain Mike...but also just for some good natured banter.
I wouldn't accuse you of being deaf however...that is bad form.
Enjoy the weekend with your metronome mate, I'm off to a gig. ;o)
Posted on: 17 October 2009 by Derry
Albeit dressed in their finest clothes, we are sharing only opinions.
Until there are some clear, universally accepted, criteria objective to determine musical worth we will continue to argue pointlessly.
It does seem to be the case, though, both here and on other forums that the classical deveotees seem to believe that their opinions are more valid, their chosen genre more pure.
Posted on: 17 October 2009 by mikeeschman
Mat, it is impossible for us to communicate. So this is it for me.
Posted on: 18 October 2009 by Mat Cork
With some genuine sadness Mike I agree.
Have a great weekend...Mat
