Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 93
  1. #26
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    Frankly, I've been surprised that manufacturers of audio gear haven't started marketing entirely integrated systems in a big way. Especially high end manufacturers. It seems to me that far more could be done to exploit the current 2 channel paradyme by producing amplifiers and preamplifiers with built in active crossovers, dedicated equalization, and bi and tri amplfication for specific loudspeakers. To say the the AN speaker doesn't sound as good with a Sudgeon amplifier as with one of their own means that AN missed an opportunity to market them as an integrated pair.

    Audio manufacturers, especially so called high end manufacturers have been remarkably conservative tweaking the same tired worn out designs for over 20 years and calling each new minor variant, a big breakthrough or improvement. AN for example has tweaked 20 year old Snell speaker designs (and not even their best models, the A series.) When it comes to vacuum tube amplifier design, there really is nothing new under the sun and the deisgns are actually all over 40 years old with minor improvements in signal coupling capacitors and power supplies. (The best sounding of them in my experience were the OTL types like Futterman and NY Audio Labs, a Futterman knockoff design.) The best strategy is to buy the ones that are a few years old that have fallen by the wayside and no longer in favor with those who must have the latest and geatest in a particular line. The truth is that in most cases, the newest version isn't much different or better than the older one. In this throw away world, used equipment, even high end used equipment, loses market value very quickly.

    The advantages that the larger manufacturers have over the smaller ones are truely great. One is economy of scale. Another is research capabilities. Yet another is extensive quality control. Another is a vast array of in house technical skills. And another is a large established distribution and service network. Add them up and you can produce high end equipment for a fraction of what the little guys charge. Apparantly, they just don't want to. Another thing is that the engineers who do work on this equipment are paid a normal salary. As normal working stiffs they don't get the illusion that because they are also the CEO, CFO, VP of sales and marketing, they are worth hundreds of thousands a year which must be covered by the profits from a relatively small number of units sold.

    It's hard to see how all of the crazy high end equipment with crazy prices get sold. Most of the people I know are putting kids through college, paying off mortgages, saving for a vacation and retirement, and would never dream of spending even a thousand dollars for a sound system. There must be an awful lot of rich people out there I've never met.

  2. #27
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    Rolls Royce has less QC issues than andy opf the big three's best efforts and also a vastly superior car...not any more now that a congomorate took them over...first time they ever had a recall becuase the conglomorate cheaped out on the seats(and they melted from the seat warmers). D'ohh.

    And as for expertise. Audio Note's chief designer Mr. Kondo was Sony's Chief Designer way back and was dissatisfied with the engineering and quality of the componants.

    And if you're the world wide expert on engineering let me listen to the products you've designed - surely someone with your staggerring degrees and the only person who could possibly design goiod gear and the only person that can find it surely you must own a company making this stuff.

    But since your opinion on music is limited to classical(ohh and maybe Jazz on occasion) and Any and artists beyond those are talentless hacks who nothing about playing music - you wonder why it's tough to take any other views seriously.

    You come to this forum because there is less techie people to discuss issues so you can feel you have something over them...go to Audio Asylum and rant then I can watch all the OTHER basement engineers with the degrees - but no actual product to point to - battle out it with you as to the MANY problems that the Conglomorate speakers have the poor old Peter Snell all by himself obviously didn't have.

    You may be right about the A - it was certainly the most expensive of the line. AN has toiled with re-making it as well. They have attempted many big name highly touted speakers from Quad among others - but many don't cut it. And Cost is no object with them.

    And as for preferring a particular tube topology...well good for you...the fact that others actually like something different is a fact of life. Darn that Rock...must all be noise to you. Pity, they are saying something with their music just as Mozart was doing. People say this to me about Rap which I loathe...but I can acknowledge the goal some have behind it. Some rockers have a lot of classical training could be classical musicians and prefer Folk/rock/pop etc.

  3. #28
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    A very angry post RGA. I must have hit a nerve. You seem to take anything that even suggests that AN's Qvortrop isn't god seriously. To me they are just another quirky little company, making quirky little equipment, at big bucks prices, owned by a quirky little ex salesman with a quirky spelling name. I'm going to try to hear the AN speakers this spring after the weather warms up. You've aroused my curiousity and I've got an open mind about them even though their advertising seems like just one more pile of hype. Unfortunately, the dealers who carry it are not very close to my home.

    "Rolls Royce has less QC issues than andy opf the big three's best efforts and also a vastly superior car...not any more now that a congomorate took them over...first time they ever had a recall becuase the conglomorate cheaped out on the seats(and they melted from the seat warmers). D'ohh."

    I know a little about Rolls Royce and I nearly bought one myself a few years ago. Then I realized that it would just be an expensive ornament, a toy to show off. On American roads and I suspect on many Europeans roads today, it is virtually useless as a car. And they DO break down. BTW, the transmissions are made by General Motors and the suspensions are made by Citroen. At least they used to be.

    "And as for expertise. Audio Note's chief designer Mr. Kondo was Sony's Chief Designer way back and was dissatisfied with the engineering and quality of the componants."

    So Kondo was interested in products for a segment of the Market Sony didn't manufacture for. So he left. Nobody is a one man band. It takes a lot more than one guy to pull of a world class anything today. AN was lucky to get him but as the old saying goes, Sony Corporation misses him like you'd miss a drop of water taken out of a bucket. A month after he left, most people forgot he was ever there. I saw an interesting interview with Akio Mauro Sony's founder shortly before he died. He took the original idea for the pocket transistor radio (it was slightly too big to fit in a normal man's shirt pocket at that time so they had shirts with oversized pockets made up) to Longines, the Swiss watch maker. The execs at Longines told him that the product would never sell and they weren't interested. Today, Sony could buy Longines lock stock and barrel with their spare pocket change. If Sony wanted to enter the high end audio market, they could eat Peter Qvortrop's lunch. They could produce products equal or better than his to sell at a fraction of the price. That just isn't where they are going and Qvortrop should be eternally greatful for it.

    "And if you're the world wide expert on engineering let me listen to the products you've designed - surely someone with your staggerring degrees and the only person who could possibly design goiod gear and the only person that can find it surely you must own a company making this stuff."

    The sound system I patented never saw the light of day commercially. In 1983 as a member of AES, I tried to market it to about two dozen manufacturers at the AES trade show and convention in New York and none of them were interested. The original best prototype was disassembled 19 years ago and I am just beginning to experiment with a new one for the first time in all these years. However, I don't intend to demo it to you.

    "But since your opinion on music is limited to classical(ohh and maybe Jazz on occasion) and Any and artists beyond those are talentless hacks who nothing about playing music - you wonder why it's tough to take any other views seriously."

    Aside from your gramatical error making your statement a little unclear, you are right. IMO, I don't take musicians who perform other than classical or jazz seriously. Most all of them really are talentless hacks, their commercial success and fame notwithstanding. It's not open for discussion. That's how I see it.

    "You come to this forum because there is less techie people to discuss issues so you can feel you have something over them...go to Audio Asylum and rant then I can watch all the OTHER basement engineers with the degrees - but no actual product to point to - battle out it with you as to the MANY problems that the Conglomorate speakers have the poor old Peter Snell all by himself obviously didn't have."

    I came to this forum because I enjoy it. I only stayed at Audio Asylum a few weeks several years ago because their culture was intolerant of dissident views about audio cables. It was like a cult. I wish there were more technically savy people here, not less. But I accept this site for what it is If I didn't, I wouldn't read or post here. As for Peter Snell, I met him shortly before he died. I give him a lot of credit for starting and running a successful small business. But he faced a mountain of problems like any other small manufacturer which strained his resources to the limit. Perhaps the stress contributed to his untimely demise. I don't know.

    "You may be right about the A - it was certainly the most expensive of the line. AN has toiled with re-making it as well. They have attempted many big name highly touted speakers from Quad among others - but many don't cut it. And Cost is no object with them."

    The type AII and the AIIIi were the only Snell speakers I heard that I liked. I was not even slightly impressed with the others. If you are saying AN can't reverse engineer the type A, it speaks mountains about their technical limitations. BTW, cost is an object with everyone. Even NASA.

    "And as for preferring a particular tube topology...well good for you...the fact that others actually like something different is a fact of life."

    To each his own. The NY Audio Labs was the best sounding tube amplifier I ever heard. Sounded just as good as a fine solid state amplifier. Without the output transformer, it had all the clarity you could want. It certainly convinced me that neither tubes nor transistors have any actual sound of their own. Of course if you own one of these expensive amplifiers and it needs service, expecially if the bias voltages need adjustment, you are in real trouble. NYAL has the only equipment that can make it possible to adjust it correctly and I don't know if they are even in business since Harvey Rosenberg died. One more danger of buying expensive equipment from a small company.

    " Darn that Rock...must all be noise to you."

    Pure noise, that's all. A blight on the sensibilites of humanity. Even traffic noise is preferable.

    " Pity, they are saying something with their music just as Mozart was doing."

    I don't know what you are smoking but it must have affected your mind. You don't have a clue about what you are saying.

    "Some rockers have a lot of classical training could be classical musicians and prefer Folk/rock/pop etc."

    Maybe. Maybe they see more money in Rock. Maybe they just couldn't cut it as classical musicians either. A third rate classical musician could easily be a first rate rock musician. When all you have to know is 1,4,5 chords, C major, and 4/4 time, you can snooze your way through any of it. NO SKILL REQUIRED.

  4. #29
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Roscoe IL
    Posts
    210

    hate to step into a warzone, but...

    What the hell, nobody ever said I was too bright. While we are all entitled to our opinions, no matter which side of the fence we are on, these opinions tend to get in our way and close our minds to new things.
    Skeptic's technical knowledge of equipment and of music is highly regarded by most of us, just sometimes alittle narrow in focus. I wish he could bring himself to listen to some of what I would consider to be modern classical music. As RGA stated, many rock musicians cut their teeth on classical music and have considerable talent. I believe that many of them were too creative to be content playing the old classics that they grew up on, especially when they found that they had the abiltiy to write something new and of course, make huge sums of money.
    I'm quite certain that many of them were or are talented enough to play with an orchestra and probably many did at one time or another. Their choice to write and perform their own music made enormous sums of money for many which they would not have made if they merely played professionally in an orchestra. I still think that they were driven more by creativity than greed but once the money and superstar status starts coming in, it probably becomes frustrating to them in that they are forced to create marketable tunes by recording contracts.
    If Skeptic would give some things a listen, he might open up alittle and at least give some credit to some modern composers, but maybe not, it would sound unfamiliar. I enjoy the newness and appreciate the creativity of many modern artists. Sarah McLachlan and Tori Amos have written some very beautiful music on the piano and are accompanied by many orchestral instruments on their albums. Tori Amos plays a Bosendorfer concert grand and thanks them for building the best pianos in the world. (hear that Skep?) I'll bet she can play Chopin as well as Van Cliburn did. I'm not sure which instrument Sarah chooses but she is also extremely talented. Skep, I can't imagine that you would not enjoy at least some of their music. I too grew up on classical music, mostly piano and pipe organ and I still enjoy both. Bach pieces on the pipe organ to me, are very much like rock music (good rock music), loud, fast and difficult to play. He must have been the Ozzy Osbourne of his day, a superstar, and probably not everyone liked him either.
    Bill

  5. #30
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    "If Skeptic would give some things a listen, he might open up alittle and at least give some credit to some modern composers, but maybe not, it would sound unfamiliar."

    If you're talking about classical composers, I have. I've warmed up to much of Stravinsky. But don't hold your breath waiting for me to acknowledge Schoenberg as a great composer. It won't happen. Ditto, De La Joya and his ilk.

    As for other genres of music, as an example I've been holding back on my review of John Coltrane's album "A Love Supreme" which DMK persuaded me to purchase and listen to. I wrote it a while back but haven't posted it yet. Believe me he won't like what I have to say about it. I tried very hard to have an open mind listening to it but it only confirmed my beliefs more stongly. Having heard it well over a dozen times already, I'm waiting for a while to listen to it again once or twice more just in case it subconscously grew on me. It will be a very long and detailed review because I did listen to it very carefully and extensively.

    One of my sister's closest childhood friends became a pop and rock music song writer. What a waste of talent. BTW, she didn't need the money. Her father was a wealthy lawyer and her husband is a well to do doctor. Nobody could figure out what went wrong inside her head.

  6. #31
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Roscoe IL
    Posts
    210

    Hey Skep

    I remember the Coltrane exchange. I'm not familiar with his music so I might be a reclusive shut-in myself. All I can say is that I've heard of him and that many people like him, I probably would not but I really don't know.
    I've not heard Schoenberg or De La Hoya that I can remember but I'm guessing I would not like them either. Seems to me Bernstein also composed but was not particularly well received. How far back is Stravinsky? Wrote the Firebird Suite, didn't he? I think I have a copy of that somewhere.
    I will give credit to some very recent artists such as Rick Wakeman, Keith Emerson, Tori Amos and Sarah McLachlan or even Billy Joel (he said he was retiring to write classical music, I'm still waiting) who are all pianists and organists with a great deal of talent IMO. They all have truly outstanding keyboard skills and certainly came from classical beginnings. You could say that they all sold out in a way to become rock stars and to make money. By the same token, they wrote some very beautiful music and did become very popular which says to me that there is not a total aversion to music that is written as it was hundreds of years ago by the great classical composers. Even my dad who was a church organist for 50 years would listen to some of their music and give them credit for being talented musicians and composers, maybe you would too. It is surely not all noise and likely some of it would strike you as more musical than some of these other modern composers that you mention.
    Bill

  7. #32
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    We have this discussion in my family all of the time. My aunt who debuted at Town Hall when she was 16 must have a recording of every piece of classical piano music ever written. Now she's closing in on all of the jazz paino music ever written. (She'll be 95 this year.) She thinks some of the jazz pianists are greater than most of the classical pianists. I of course don't agree. And I also still don't think that the most complex jazz approaches the most complex classical music in the range of tonal colors, dynamics, or the demands placed on the musicians.

    There are no composers IMO today or even in the last century who appoach the great musical geniuses of the 17th 18th and 19th century. Another big arguement in my house revolves around who was the greatest composer or at least who would you listen to if you could only hear the music of just one composer. I choose Beethoven hands down. His music never fails to satisfy. If there is one composer whose music invariably displays power it's his. And the logic of the way it progresses is unchallengable. Listening to a Von Karajan's recording of the Eroica the other day was totally captivating. The other person who lives in my house, "the musician" prefers Brahms. Well, there's no accounting.

    Bernstein was an outstanding musicoligist and musician. But he was not a great composer. Even by the standards of American music, he was not at the same level as Copland or Gershwin (IMO as usual.)

    My tastes have changed over the years. When I first heard The Rite of Spring, it was so strange to my ears as to be out on the fringe. Recently, I became aware after having heard it for the first time in many years how accustomed I had become to it and how familiar it seemed. Hardly strange sounding any more at all. (A good recording of it will give those AR9s quite a workout.)

    Crossover artists are usually unsuccessful. Kiri TeKanawa is a great operatic voice but many of her pop recordings leave a lot to be desired. Admittedly she did not use her operatic voice to record them but she had some great arrangements and wonderful orchestral backup (She made recordngs of Kern, Porter, Gershwin, and Berlin as well as a very nice one with Nelson Riddle's arrangements and orchestra but the EMI engineers who mastered all but the Riddle recording done on London were awful and put their sibilant echo signiture on all of them to one degree or another.) On the other hand, Linda Rondstat tried to record La Boheme. A total catastrophe. Her voice wasn't even close to being up to it. If only Barbara Streisand could learn to sing on key, she would not be so unbearable. Is that asking too much. It's not like I'm asking her to learn how to read music or something.

  8. #33
    DMK
    DMK is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    332

    Are you KIDDING???

    [QUOTE=skeptic
    As for other genres of music, as an example I've been holding back on my review of John Coltrane's album "A Love Supreme" which DMK persuaded me to purchase and listen to. I wrote it a while back but haven't posted it yet. Believe me he won't like what I have to say about it. [/QUOTE]

    I can't WAIT to read it! If your review is anything like your posts on non-classical music, I'm sure it'll be hilarious! Hey, all that "persuasion" on my part wouldn't have anything to do with you disparaging in an earlier post without having heard it, would it? Ah, forget that - I told myself I wouldn't bring it up and there I go!

    Skeptic, I realize that your comments about music aside from classical are meant to elicit anger. That's fine. But truly, I can't even imagine being less concerned with your opinions than I am now. It's perfectly fine if you don't like "A Love Supreme". I'll be the first to support your right to your opinion. Some people who honestly do understand modern jazz have trouble with it. It's ok if you don't get it. Even if you bash it beyond repair, I won't mind. I only wanted you to hear it so that your opinion might carry a little weight. It's only when you post opinions and pass them off as facts that I have to intercede. I realize that just about everything on this board is opinion but there might be a newbie or lurker out there that might be swayed the wrong way.

    But I see you've qualified your opinions recently for the most part. That's critical in your case because I have no doubt that you make excellent points on other things and we may discount them based on your complete lack of knowledge of music beyond classical. Oh, there is one you forgot to qualify -the one about any classical musician could play rock. That's a total laugher! Of all the musicians I know, there are... oh, about two dozen that are primarily rock musicians and that can play a lot of classical music very well. Know how many classical musicians can play a convincing solo over even the most simple blues progression? None. Zero. Zilch. Third rate or first rate (if the belittled Indianapolis Symphony Orchestra players could be called first rate.) they can't do it! If it's so simple and requires no talent, why can't they do it? Must be beneath them. Or it could be that rock requires them to be creative. They didn't learn THAT in music school, did they?

    Anyway, there are plenty more outrageously humorous parts of your posts, past and present, but there's no point in rehashing all that. As far as the Trane, you should probably put it away for a year or so. Some comprehension might hit you or it might not. But one thing I can say with 98% certainty is that if you don't like this disc (and I had no delusions that you would), there's no point in your pursuing any jazz after 1960 or so. Don't waste your time and I mean that sincerely.

    Finally, comparing different genres of music in the areas of complexity, virtuosity, and talent level is ridiculous. There are things that rock musicians can do that classical musicians cannot, and vice versa. Ditto for most other kinds of music. Until you've heard everything out there (something I'm spending my life trying to accomplish), you have no clue what you're talking about and you come off as foolish. Now, how about that review? Oh, also you should be able to get a few bucks for the Coltrane at your local music store. I'm sure it won't sit in their used bin beyond a couple of minutes! Hey, if it helps motivate you to post your review, I find "La Boheme" to be a pretensious, boring, overrated piece of ****e and the mere fact that Ronstadt even attempted it shows her incredible bad taste. But I still don't deny it is music. It may even be GOOD music but I don't care for it or any other piece of opera I've ever heard. Maybe I just don't get it. See the qualification? But you're getting better and you receive brownie points for trying the Trane in spite of your obvious biases against anything modern, the derisive comment about Schoenberg as a case in point.

  9. #34
    DMK
    DMK is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    332

    I have an honest question for you

    Yourself and many other classical enthusiasts discuss different renditions of classical compositions such as this conductor's version of Beethoven's Fifth as opposed to someone else's. Many of you have umpteen different readings. As someone who owns maybe two versions of my favorites and only one of other things I enjoy, please explain to me why I should own several. Let's take Beethoven since he is your favorite. I own Norrington's complete version and von Karajan's. What am I missing by not owning another?

    Could it be that you like a little creativity with your old favorites? Ok, maybe I have an ulterior motive for asking but I'm still curious. But if you enjoy a different conductor's viewpoint on a familiar theme, you might begin to understand why as a jazz nutcase for 30 years that I've gravitated beyond dixie and swing into what I deem as more creative jazz. Beyond that, I have no agenda other than curiousity.

    Oh, the Norrington is on CD and the von Karajan is on vinyl. Two guesses which one I find more satisfying!

  10. #35
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    First of all stop trying to convince one track minded arrogant people who think only they are right about ALL things in life. He thinks by attacking Streisand, Rondstadt, all rock or basically all music for the last 100 years he thinks himself a more musical intellect. Frankly, I don't see how anyone can really argue that classical and jazz are generally more difficult to actually PLAY as musical intruments. So basically the more difficult it is to play the better?? I guess it is totally insane of me to prefer Vivaldi to Mozart and Beethoven...which isn't to say I don't like some of what they do a great deal.

    Rock and roll, Skeptic because you're too dense to figure it out, has something called Lyrics. What is a Lyric? A Lyric is a poem. What is poetry? The highest form of Literary writing which requires knowledge to uncover the point, message or political argument etc of the writer's choosing. Now some of it is crap on that level no doubt just as a lot of Crap was penned from Wordsworth - who was a talentless HACK IMO compared to Colerige, Byron and Shelley but that's an aside.

    Basically ROCK is a poem put to words. Hell even Loreena McKennit put "The Lady of Shallot" to music nearly word for word at about 11 minutes. Lots of violins for ya too.

    DMK there is really no use to trying to convert narrow minded people to expand their horizons because that would be like converting a Jehovah's Witness to being athiest or agnostic.

    I happen to like a huge array of music because each serves a use. John Williams makes music for a lot of films that take those films to a new level. Jaws for example would be nothing without that theme...and even the basic few notes on the piano for the movie Halloween made a low budget low plot indy film in to the highest grossing horror picture(or indy film) hugely popular - and scary. Of course to be an intelligent film critic one can't throw out all the genres of films because they happen to only think silent films were best(after all older is better right?)

    Then there is music simply there for a mindless toe tapping beat. As much as Skeptic despises Streisand he would probably conced that Streisand is more talented a singer than oh say Madonna. I concede that Madonna has a limited vocal range - 2 octaves maybe and certainly isn't going to do those vocal gymnastics of Streisand or Celine Dion(the latter has no training either and many feel that with work she has the basis of a classical voice). Back tp the point. I recognize that Streisand or Shirley Bassey or Charlotte Church or Katrina Gauvin can SING better than Madonna - and yet as much as I hate to admit I prefer to LISTEN to Madonna or a Gloria Estefan over these other better singers. Music is not JUST about the talent of singer. Indeed, a lot of LESSER singers sound one of kind or unique. No one else sounds like Tom Petty or Rod Stewart and you can pick off Madonna's voice all in a few bars. None of em are particularly great singers and certainly don't hold up to operatic singers. But have you heard Pavorotti try and sing those duets rocky type songs...now that's a laugh - but then his voice has ALWAYS irritated me.

    Basically Rock/Pop has a consitant beat - I call it beat music. I also had to laugh that in the movie Mr. Holland's Opus you see Richard Dreyfuss trying to teach kids music and the students are all totally bored with classical music. Then he plays on the piano some tune and asks the class what it is. The tudents say ohh that is such and such a song from the platters or the Beatles etc. Mr. Holland say ERRRRRRRRRR no Beethoven. Rock/pop music has elements of classical right in it for Heaven sake.

    I get into the same kind of discussions on film criticism. You'll have the die hard anti-Hollywood anti-English speaking and of course Anti-Spielberg (the latter the most Anti of all) because if the general public likes it and the MOST money is generated by something then it mus automatically mean it's crap. You can't have a superiority complex if you like all the things the masses like. Which kind of explains the love of Citizen Kane, a good film no question but the best. Well if people stdied their Shakespeare they might realize in fact how unoriginal the film really is. Pauline Kael wasn't fooled thankfully.

    Lastly, Beethoven's music incidentally transformed and was integral to one of my favorite films...A Clockwork Orange.

  11. #36
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    Quote Originally Posted by jbangelfish
    I enjoy the newness and appreciate the creativity of many modern artists. Sarah McLachlan and Tori Amos have written some very beautiful music on the piano and are accompanied by many orchestral instruments on their albums. Tori Amos plays a Bosendorfer concert grand and thanks them for building the best pianos in the world. (hear that Skep?) I'll bet she can play Chopin as well as Van Cliburn did. I'm not sure which instrument Sarah chooses but she is also extremely talented. Skep, I can't imagine that you would not enjoy at least some of their music. I too grew up on classical music, mostly piano and pipe organ and I still enjoy both. Bach pieces on the pipe organ to me, are very much like rock music (good rock music), loud, fast and difficult to play. He must have been the Ozzy Osbourne of his day, a superstar, and probably not everyone liked him either.
    Bill
    Some people don't want creativity they like to stagnate in the era of witch hunting and limited intruments and political pressures stifling creativity - a complaint and a sore spot for Mozart who was perhaps prohibited from really letting loose.

    Sarah McLachlan is a terrific artist but unfortunately sings a catchy tune or two whcih is not mundane and the same old song that was done from 1743 France so forget it. She is classically trained on the piano, she plays the guitar, she writes the music and the lyrics. What the hell else do people want. Heck people get mad at singers LIKE Celine Dion because they say if you don't write your own stuff you're a hack...well geez that makes all those gifted Oboists hacks if they don't write their own stuff because the VOICE IS a musical intrument and no two are the same. And since no two are the same it's pretty stupid to say well the Cello is a BETTER instrument than the Flute. You can say the Oboe is HARDER to play than trumpet but that doesn't mean the trumpet is a totally useless instrument and should be chucked out with all the other lowly brass instruments.(That is EXACTLY what Skeptic's rant is all about).

    Heck look at Kenny G. I don't play but according to a Jazz nut and player at my school apparently Kenny G plays 5 notes in varying routines. The thing is he plays the five very well and while it may not be to everyone's taste he sells it as mood music and i understand why women gravitate to the music at a spa or whatever.

    I joke but honestly if you want to fall asleep to relaxing music Kenny G will work, along with Enya. This doesn't mean that Kenny G is better than Miles Davis talent wise.

  12. #37
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    "And since no two are the same it's pretty stupid to say well the Cello is a BETTER instrument than the Flute. "

    Then let me say something pretty stupid; THE CELLO IS A BETTER INSTRUMENT THAN THE FLUTE. A MUCH BETTER INSTRUMENT. From a cello, you can get the Dvorak cello concerto, the Bach double, and so much more. The cello sings like no other instrument with the possible exception of the violin. With its vast repertoire, even the piano cannot sing like a cello. What do you get from a flute? Vivaldi flute concertos. Mozart flute sonatas. It's like comparing a trickling stream with a vast raging river or an ocean. It's hard to lump Gallway and Rampal in with the same league as Rostropovich or even Cassals. They're music is worlds apart. While it is true that the flute is indespensible to a modern symphony orchestra, the flute is not a musical instrument to be taken too seriously on its own. Even a sax is a much more serious instrument.

  13. #38
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    "As someone who owns maybe two versions of my favorites and only one of other things I enjoy, please explain to me why I should own several."

    I don't know that you should. For me though, it's different.

    It might interest you to know that I deliberately sprang for the extra $10 to buy the deluxe version of "A Love Supreme" so that I could get more than one point of view of it, even if it was from the same musician. One of the things about music is the way the performer sees it. Sometimes one performer will see something no other performer has done before. And you are always looking out for something more interesting. I also own the Von Karajan redcordings of the Beethoven symphonies but mine are on CD. It's the versions recorded in the early 1960s. I think I read somewhere he recorded 4 different sets. I have another full set of the Beethoven on DG vinyl but I can't remember by who. I've got another full set on cd with Walter and several of those including the 4th, 5th, and 9th on vinyl. I'd bet I've got at least 15 different recordings of the 9th between cds and vinyls. Each has something different to offer although believe it or not, on the whole, the Von Karajan set is my favorite. I am not familiar with the Norrington recordings but wish I at least heard some of them. Is that the one with the London Symphony Players? If it is it got rave reviews. Of course, the best of all worlds is to have your favorite performances on the best sounding recordings. But life is not always so accomodating. Tonight I heard Artur Rubenstein's recording of the Greig piano concerto he recorded in 1961. Who thought when I first owned and heard that recording on vinyl in 1968 I would be listening to it on cd 35 years later. It's still a wonderful recording and performance. I just wish I could find a cd of Martha Argerich playing it. I'm sure it would be a killer too.

    Believe it or not, I have access to a vast collection of jazz and pop and yes even rock recordings. It's not that I don't own them. It's just that I don't enjoy them nearly as much. And then there are many I don't much enjoy hearing at all.

  14. #39
    Forum Regular Woochifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    6,883
    Quote Originally Posted by DMK
    Skeptic, I realize that your comments about music aside from classical are meant to elicit anger. That's fine. But truly, I can't even imagine being less concerned with your opinions than I am now. It's perfectly fine if you don't like "A Love Supreme". I'll be the first to support your right to your opinion. Some people who honestly do understand modern jazz have trouble with it. It's ok if you don't get it. Even if you bash it beyond repair, I won't mind. I only wanted you to hear it so that your opinion might carry a little weight. It's only when you post opinions and pass them off as facts that I have to intercede. I realize that just about everything on this board is opinion but there might be a newbie or lurker out there that might be swayed the wrong way.
    Well, all I can say is at least he tried! With Trane, you either have to accept it on its own terms or reject it out of hand, because what he's expressing on "A Love Supreme" is about as intimate an insight into the mindset of a person through music as I've ever heard. It's uncompromising, and simultaneously inspiring and disturbing. Even without knowing anything about Trane's personal life, it's like that instrument is a conduit into what his life is all about. It's about as personal an expression as you can get.

    I'd already heard plenty of Coltrane's stuff before I put "A Love Supreme" on for the first time, and literally I got chills several times while listening to that album. When music becomes that transcendent, then you know it's got meaning. If someone doesn't connect with the music like that, then it's really their misfortune as far as I'm concerned. This intense bond between musician and listener is why "A Love Supreme" is so frequently cited among the greatest jazz albums ever made, even if you can name hundreds of other albums that have better precision, more logical progressions on the solos, more technical virtuosity, etc.

    Also, Elvin Jones' drumming on that album is about as perfect and intuitive a rhythm as I've ever heard. That pretty much cemented his stature with me as the quintessential jazz drummer. I got to see him perform a club gig last year and it was just amazing (easily the most inspired rendition of "It Don't Mean A Thing" that I've ever heard). Gonna see McCoy Tyner as well in a couple of weeks.

  15. #40
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    "Skeptic, I realize that your comments about music aside from classical are meant to elicit anger."

    Not so. But I'm not surprised that attacking someone's taste in music can cause anger. Especially people who identify themselves with the music they listen too. Frankly, I would never be angry at anyone who said that they detested classical music. Many of my best friends don't like it. For me it is a privelege and a gift my parents gave me to enjoy one of life's rarer pleasures. Learning to appreciate some of the others like fine wine I had to do on my own.

    I've met more than a few jazz and even pop musicians. One of the most delightful evenings I ever spent was with Dick Hyman the other guys in his trio, and their wives at a midnight buffet on the Royal Viking Star in 1989 when he was performing there. He invited me to join them when I told him I remembered his recordings from his old days at Command Records. Anybody ever hear of Enoch Light and the Light Brigade? And as much as I enjoyed him and his performance on the ship, I must say that the half dozen or so recordings of his that I own are not nearly as pleasing. He is supposed to be the jazz pianist's pianist but I just don't get it.

    " There are things that rock musicians can do that classical musicians cannot"

    One thing rock performers sometimes do at a concert that I've never seen any classical musician do is set fire to their instruments. Based on the way they play, had I been in the audience, I'd have opted for them to do that BEFORE the performance.

  16. #41
    Forum Regular Woochifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    6,883
    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    First of all stop trying to convince one track minded arrogant people who think only they are right about ALL things in life. He thinks by attacking Streisand, Rondstadt, all rock or basically all music for the last 100 years he thinks himself a more musical intellect. Frankly, I don't see how anyone can really argue that classical and jazz are generally more difficult to actually PLAY as musical intruments. So basically the more difficult it is to play the better?? I guess it is totally insane of me to prefer Vivaldi to Mozart and Beethoven...which isn't to say I don't like some of what they do a great deal.

    Rock and roll, Skeptic because you're too dense to figure it out, has something called Lyrics. What is a Lyric? A Lyric is a poem. What is poetry? The highest form of Literary writing which requires knowledge to uncover the point, message or political argument etc of the writer's choosing. Now some of it is crap on that level no doubt just as a lot of Crap was penned from Wordsworth - who was a talentless HACK IMO compared to Colerige, Byron and Shelley but that's an aside.

    Basically ROCK is a poem put to words. Hell even Loreena McKennit put "The Lady of Shallot" to music nearly word for word at about 11 minutes. Lots of violins for ya too.

    DMK there is really no use to trying to convert narrow minded people to expand their horizons because that would be like converting a Jehovah's Witness to being athiest or agnostic.

    I happen to like a huge array of music because each serves a use. John Williams makes music for a lot of films that take those films to a new level. Jaws for example would be nothing without that theme...and even the basic few notes on the piano for the movie Halloween made a low budget low plot indy film in to the highest grossing horror picture(or indy film) hugely popular - and scary. Of course to be an intelligent film critic one can't throw out all the genres of films because they happen to only think silent films were best(after all older is better right?)

    Then there is music simply there for a mindless toe tapping beat. As much as Skeptic despises Streisand he would probably conced that Streisand is more talented a singer than oh say Madonna. I concede that Madonna has a limited vocal range - 2 octaves maybe and certainly isn't going to do those vocal gymnastics of Streisand or Celine Dion(the latter has no training either and many feel that with work she has the basis of a classical voice). Back tp the point. I recognize that Streisand or Shirley Bassey or Charlotte Church or Katrina Gauvin can SING better than Madonna - and yet as much as I hate to admit I prefer to LISTEN to Madonna or a Gloria Estefan over these other better singers. Music is not JUST about the talent of singer. Indeed, a lot of LESSER singers sound one of kind or unique. No one else sounds like Tom Petty or Rod Stewart and you can pick off Madonna's voice all in a few bars. None of em are particularly great singers and certainly don't hold up to operatic singers. But have you heard Pavorotti try and sing those duets rocky type songs...now that's a laugh - but then his voice has ALWAYS irritated me.

    Basically Rock/Pop has a consitant beat - I call it beat music. I also had to laugh that in the movie Mr. Holland's Opus you see Richard Dreyfuss trying to teach kids music and the students are all totally bored with classical music. Then he plays on the piano some tune and asks the class what it is. The tudents say ohh that is such and such a song from the platters or the Beatles etc. Mr. Holland say ERRRRRRRRRR no Beethoven. Rock/pop music has elements of classical right in it for Heaven sake.

    I get into the same kind of discussions on film criticism. You'll have the die hard anti-Hollywood anti-English speaking and of course Anti-Spielberg (the latter the most Anti of all) because if the general public likes it and the MOST money is generated by something then it mus automatically mean it's crap. You can't have a superiority complex if you like all the things the masses like. Which kind of explains the love of Citizen Kane, a good film no question but the best. Well if people stdied their Shakespeare they might realize in fact how unoriginal the film really is. Pauline Kael wasn't fooled thankfully.

    Lastly, Beethoven's music incidentally transformed and was integral to one of my favorite films...A Clockwork Orange.
    I don't know why musical arguments have to be framed in terms of whether one genre is better than another, whether one is harder to play than another, whether one is more artistic than another. I think you're getting drawn in a bit too hard on this topic, ease up dude! If you listen to it, and you like it, who cares what others think?

    I get weird reactions all the time whenever I tell people that I sometimes spiritually connect with rave music (that is when the right DJ is manning the decks). To them, it's mindless droning; to me, it's beat, pulse, note, tones, and amplitude creating a transcendent connection. For the same reasons, I listen to John Coltrane and Metallica. If the music gives me chills, and I feel what's expressed through the music, then that's transcendental. I don't expect people to share my reaction. It's nice to have a common point of view, but I don't expect it. It's almost like trying to argue religion -- either you believe in it or you don't.

    Ultimately, we listen to music for different reasons. If technical precision is all that matters, then just put an endless loop of Bach inventions and be done with it. Other expressions are more personal than others. Some are more fraught with imperfections than others. Some are more accessible than others. Some are happy, others are not.

    P.S. I don't think you can put Citizen Kane as something that's considered great strictly because of people with a superiority complex. It's in my personal top 10, not because someone told me it was great, but because I just like it. Yeah, it's got elements of Shakespeare, but then there's plenty of other classic writing that predates Shakespeare that contains similar tragic elements. It's considered a great film because it was ultimately so influential and ahead of its time, and pulled together so many filmmaking techniques. Friends of mine who've gone to film school study that movie inside and out, even after graduating, not because it was assigned viewing, but because the technique has contemporary relevance. Keep in mind that it was not highly regarded in its own time, but its legacy grew as time went on.

    Even on a lighter note, "Singin' In The Rain" is now consistently ranked among the top films in these polls, yet in its own time it was considered vastly inferior to "An American In Paris." Both starred Gene Kelly, but one film's star has risen while the other's has fallen over the years. The legacy of any art form is not always immediately discernible in its contemporary context. In its own time, jazz was considered vulgar "jungle music" by the mainstream press. Now, the common tagline is to call jazz America's only unique contribution to the arts.

  17. #42
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    I certainly won't tell people what music they SHOULD be liking. Of course statements like "What do you get from a flute? Vivaldi flute concertos. Mozart flute sonatas" well yes and you can't get that music from a cello.

    Anyway I don't care what someone Likes in terms of music or movies for that matter and I want to stress that I do like Citizen Kane but I also fall into the camp, and there is a big camp on this, that Kane leaves me cold as a tragedy. I much enjouyed arguing that Death of a Salesman serves as a better tragedy for modern audiences. Of course i had to argue that Death of a Salesman could even be considered a tragedy because in order for it to fit the definition of the literary term would have to be changed. Basically I find Kane more of a distanced technical excercise with great cinematography that has bith a pro/con effect. It is marvelous to look at but distances the characters and at times I almost felt like they're doing this JUST to do it. There was a TV show a number of years ago that everyone raved on about because it had a herky jerky camera (hand held no doubt) that became frustrating to watch.

    People have often argued that some directors Spielberg most notably manipulates his audiences emotions through the use of music or whatever. Well I can make that case for most directors with their use of the camera...it's more subtle but no less manipulative. And in fact a lot of the time i would argue that some directors CAN'T evoke feeling to the same level. THis isn't to say that Spielberg hasn't had shlock in some of his films like Amastad or the bookend of Saving Private Ryan or cowered from attacking a sensitive issue perhaps in the Color Purple where he should have kept certain issue of the book in. At least Spielberg admitted later that he shouldhave given the project to a different director because he felt he didn't do it justice. Hell it was still a good film and had 11 nominations and this was his "Mistake."

    I don't particularly value films for their technical merrits...same for music actually. The fact that a film in 1950 set new ground for visuals and inspired all that followed is all nice and fine as film history, but I weight the gutteral aspect of the movie every bit as heavily...and on that Kane fails me. I prefer the 1985 Hoffman Death of a Salesman which was made for tv that follows a great literary piece and is visually impressive considering it's made for tv and the tragic element was Willy Loman following the "So-Called" American Dream. I had no sympathy whatever for Kane AKA William Randolph Hurst.

    I don't have anything against older films as many including most notably the Seven Samurai, Dr. Strangelove and The Third Man are in my top 100. Lots of films highly loved like the Godfather to me come across as a 3 hour long mob soap opera with about as much depth. Then when Goodfellas IMO the easily superior film IMO comes along the arguements ensue about the SCOPE of the film and the importance of the level of mob and blah blah. Goodfellas is a raw and tighter film well paced and handles the grunt mob exceedingly well. The Godfather is like the big slow ocean liner tugging along shows you the sites but is a bit vacuous and even a little dull. The second one I liked FAR more. But hey Cabaret beats them both by a country mile IMO.

    OK stop RGA once i get on movies I'm Roger Ebert's wrst nightmare.

  18. #43
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    123

    What a thread....

    Have we concluded yet whether Red is a better colour than Green?

    Like Sceptic I am a classical lover and can see where he is coming from. Unlike him, however, I have room in my collection for Rock, Soul, Jazz, Pop, Reggae and who knows what else. I dont think this makes me either a better or a worse person than him - I just have more eclectic tastes when it comes to music.

    There is no right and wrong when it comes to music - except in the eye of the individual beholder. What is music to my ears to white noise to another. Good. With that kind of variation of tastes we are assured a bright and musically varied future.

    So Sceptic likes Beethoven and rates him as the best composer. Well - maybe for symphonies, his violin concerto and 5th piano but I would hardly rate Fidelio as an Opera worth spending time on.

    For Opera look to Mozart, Verdi, Rossini and of course Wagner to name but a few, all in a different league from Beethoven.

    For Violin - well Beethoven's Violin concerto is superb, but is it really better than works from Mendelssohn, Brahms, Dvorak etc.? How do you compare these things?

    Come to that do I prefer Beethoven's 5th piano over, say Rachmaninof's 2nd and 3rd Piano concertos? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. How would I go about comparing these to, say, Bach's Organ works?

    Beethoven's competative piece to Dvorak's Cello concerto is?

    The point I am making here, is that whilst Beethoven is one of the all time greatest composers without doubt comparisons are really futile. If I were to be stranded on a Desert Island with a single composers works I might choose Beethoven, but then again I might choose Haydn - there is a lot to be said for being stranded with over 100 symphonies as opposed to 9, only 7 of which are really rated.

    final points:

    1. The violin is better than the cello.
    2. Opera is a purer form of music than the Symphony.
    3. The only good composer is a dead composer.
    4. Italians write the best Opera's.
    5. or not....

  19. #44
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    "Skeptic, I realize that your comments about music aside from classical are meant to elicit anger."

    Not so. But I'm not surprised that attacking someone's taste in music can cause anger. Especially people who identify themselves with the music they listen too. Frankly, I would never be angry at anyone who said that they detested classical music. Many of my best friends don't like it. For me it is a privelege and a gift my parents gave me to enjoy one of life's rarer pleasures. Learning to appreciate some of the others like fine wine I had to do on my own.

    I've met more than a few jazz and even pop musicians. One of the most delightful evenings I ever spent was with Dick Hyman the other guys in his trio, and their wives at a midnight buffet on the Royal Viking Star in 1989 when he was performing there. He invited me to join them when I told him I remembered his recordings from his old days at Command Records. Anybody ever hear of Enoch Light and the Light Brigade? And as much as I enjoyed him and his performance on the ship, I must say that the half dozen or so recordings of his that I own are not nearly as pleasing. He is supposed to be the jazz pianist's pianist but I just don't get it.

    " There are things that rock musicians can do that classical musicians cannot"

    One thing rock performers sometimes do at a concert that I've never seen any classical musician do is set fire to their instruments. Based on the way they play, had I been in the audience, I'd have opted for them to do that BEFORE the performance.
    Well, you are certainly good at pouring water on fires you start, I'll give you that!

    The fact that people identify themselves with the music they listen to is precisely why they get angry when that music is belittled. When you do so, you are belittling the person.
    Some people take offense at that. My opinion is that if you don't like something, you're free to say what you want. That's the point of these boards. If you recall, "A Love Supreme" was my desert island recording and I have never wavered on that. I'd choose it over anything else. The fact that you don't like it doesn't change that one iota, just as your taste wouldn't change if I said I didn't like Beethoven's 9th... of course, that wouldn't be true! But I'd gladly leave it behind if I had to choose.

    As for the cello, I don't agree that it's a "better" instrument than the flute but I prefer it. If I had become a classical musician instead of a jazz musician, I would have gravitated to the cello. Such a "human" instrument with a nice wide voice. The guitar in my opinion is the jazz "cello" if you will - several octaves available and predominately in the midrange frequency where the human voice is.

  20. #45
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer
    Well, all I can say is at least he tried! With Trane, you either have to accept it on its own terms or reject it out of hand, because what he's expressing on "A Love Supreme" is about as intimate an insight into the mindset of a person through music as I've ever heard. It's uncompromising, and simultaneously inspiring and disturbing. Even without knowing anything about Trane's personal life, it's like that instrument is a conduit into what his life is all about. It's about as personal an expression as you can get.

    I'd already heard plenty of Coltrane's stuff before I put "A Love Supreme" on for the first time, and literally I got chills several times while listening to that album. When music becomes that transcendent, then you know it's got meaning. If someone doesn't connect with the music like that, then it's really their misfortune as far as I'm concerned. This intense bond between musician and listener is why "A Love Supreme" is so frequently cited among the greatest jazz albums ever made, even if you can name hundreds of other albums that have better precision, more logical progressions on the solos, more technical virtuosity, etc.

    Also, Elvin Jones' drumming on that album is about as perfect and intuitive a rhythm as I've ever heard. That pretty much cemented his stature with me as the quintessential jazz drummer. I got to see him perform a club gig last year and it was just amazing (easily the most inspired rendition of "It Don't Mean A Thing" that I've ever heard). Gonna see McCoy Tyner as well in a couple of weeks.
    It's obvious to me that you could wax eloquently for hours on this music as you have hit on some very real truths. When the listener can understand this music as a personal, naked statement of emotion rather than merely as notes on a page or in the air, they are well on their way to understanding what music is for me and what it was for Trane. When musicians (jazz musicians, anyway) stop searching and become complacent (or as we say, they become content with the sound of their own voice), the music stagnates. When we want to make a technical statement, the music stagnates. Without the emotion behind the music - and I mean HIGH emotional content, night after night after night - the music may as well have been left unplayed.

    With the musicians I play with, we can always tell when one of us has a bad night. It's not flubbed notes, missed chords or timing errors. It's when we simply have nothing to say. Unfortunately, we keep saying nothing - gotta finish the gig and get paid! . When we have nothing to say, we are emotionally not in the room. In that sense, it's simpler to play classical music. The notes are there for us to read and we are not required to bring anything to the table other than our technical ability. That certainly isn't simple but in my mind it's a lot more difficult when you are soloing and all eyes and ears are on YOU alone...and you play and play and play and emotionally move not a soul.

    BTW, DMK's statement about classical players not being able to sustain a simple improvised solo over changes is spot on. They can sometimes play the notes but they aren't saying anything as I mentioned above. It's very difficult. On the other hand, the classical guitarists I know can play a lot of that things I would need about two years of constant practice to master! That said, there is an abundance of talent and skill in most all different forms of music. Whether we appreciate it or not, even rock music requires skill. As a guitarist, I can tell when another player has the tools, both technically and emotionally. The Jimmys (Jimis ?) Page and Hendrix can teach the world a thing or two about playing the guitar! There are others.

  21. #46
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    " When we have nothing to say, we are emotionally not in the room. In that sense, it's simpler to play classical music. The notes are there for us to read and we are not required to bring anything to the table other than our technical ability."

    You are entitled to your opinion of course but my opinion is that you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

  22. #47
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    One of my favorite kinds of music is Flamenco. I'll bet you wouldn't have guessed it. It's best when it's heard live. Not just the guitar, the whole thing. I heard some live in Madrid and it was wonderful. Madrid is a town that doesn't get going until about 10 PM. You go down into these little basement cafes, buy a pitcher of sangria (that's the cover charge) and sit for hours absorbed by the singers, the dancers, the castinets, the costumes, and yes of course the guitars. I've also seen it in San Juan with a Spanish troup using recorded music which greatly diminished it. Live and intimate is best. And I always look for recordings by Carlos Montoya.

    But don't sell classical guitar short. It wasn't just for the latin/hispanic community either. Although I of course have a lot of guitar recordings of Granados, Villa Lobos, and Albeniz among others, there are many great transcriptions for guitar of music by Bach, Schubert, and even Paganini. Vivaldi taught and wrote for guitar. And of course, no collection of guitar music is complete without at least one recording of the Rodrigo Concierto de Aranjuez, possibly the greatest piece of music written for guitar. (I have both vinyl and cd recordings of Siegfried Behrend's recording with the Berliner Philharmoniker on DG.)

    The acoustic guitar is a surprisingly difficult instrument to reproduce accurately on recordings and many seemingly good sound systems fall short in this regard. A fine guitar has a wonderful tone with rich sonorous undertones and close miking picks up the sound of fingers on the strings before and after they are plucked. (Not the equal of a violin but still a very good instrument.) And while somewhere down in my vinyl collection, I've got a recording or two of Chet Atkins, most pop and rock guitarists who play the dreaded electric guitar produce IMO an awful sound which at best is akin to Coca Cola versus fine Bordeaux when you get the real thing.

  23. #48
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    You are fairly smart. Why don't you post more often?

    "Beethoven's competative piece to Dvorak's Cello concerto is?"

    There isn't any. Beethoven or anyone else. The Dvorak may be the greatest concerto ever written for any intrument. I like the Rostropovich recording best. Brahms came the closest but he needed a violin in there too. The Piatagorsky/Heifetz recording is by far my favorite of the Brahms double.

    "Come to that do I prefer Beethoven's 5th piano over, say Rachmaninof's 2nd and 3rd Piano concertos? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. How would I go about comparing these to, say, Bach's Organ works?"

    Agreed


    "1. The violin is better than the cello."

    Agreed. But the cello is still a great instrument.

    " 2. Opera is a purer form of music than the Symphony."

    I'll have to think about this one but a strong arguement can be made for it.

    "3. The only good composer is a dead composer."

    I can't think of one good living one right now. Of course, that wasn't true in the past.

    "4. Italians write the best Opera's."

    Absolutely one hundred percent correct. But they have a big advantage. Their language is music to the ears to begin with. German on the other hand has two strikes against it even before the first words are sung. (How could you have omitted Puccini from your all time opera greatest composers?)

    "5. or not...."

    NO Comment!

    "There is no right and wrong when it comes to music - except in the eye of the individual beholder. What is music to my ears to white noise to another. Good."

    Love of classical music is an acquired taste. In the McDonalds Coca Cola world, it is becoming exceedingly rare. However, if it weren't for my love of classical music, I would have no interest in sound reproduction as there would be no value IMO of accurately reproducing anything else.

    "With that kind of variation of tastes we are assured a bright and musically varied future."

    Don't be too sure classical music isn't dying. Schools no longer have funds for music appreciation classes. This segment of the market may be disappearing. If all of the great oil paintings in the world disappeared, there would still be cartoons. But as far as fine art was concerned, it would be dead. Take it while you still can.

  24. #49
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    " When we have nothing to say, we are emotionally not in the room. In that sense, it's simpler to play classical music. The notes are there for us to read and we are not required to bring anything to the table other than our technical ability."

    You are entitled to your opinion of course but my opinion is that you don't know what the hell you are talking about.
    No one knows what they are talking about unless they agree with you, eh? As a result, I think your POV goes well beyond elitism and into total self-absorption. But that's just my opinion, of course. I stand firmly by what I posted.

  25. #50
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Roscoe IL
    Posts
    210

    this old argument again

    We've hashed this around a few times and it's safe to say that not all of us will agree 100% of the time and some of us can never agree. I guess that's the beauty of human nature. At least we all love music in some form and can be very passionate as to why. I like the emotion that people can bring to a song whether they wrote it or not. Ray Charles sang and played with great emotion and he could be a joy to listen to. When music is so beautiful that it brings tears to your eyes or gives you goosebumps, that is what it's all about. Other music may make you happy, sad, make you feel like dancing or at the very least, tapping your foot.
    Giving superiority to any genre is not so easy for me, classical is certainly complex and can be beautiful but many people hate it. Not much can be done about that I guess. I admire the new artists for being creative and for putting their emotion into their work while at the same time, putting on a very pleasant and listenable performance. Hearing someone or some orchestra play a very old classical piece can also be a very pleasant experience but my admiration for the performance is not the same as if they had written the piece. Can't help it.
    Choosing one composer to listen to in the desert isle scenario, don't think I can do it. I'd give the most credit to Bach, Beethoven, Mozart and Chopin, in that order for being the original creative geniuses and maybe the founding father's of classical music and I think their influence made for other creative geniuses right up to the present. Skeptic will surely disagree with that and that's fine. This is purely opinion.
    If one instrument can be superior over all others, it must be the pipe organ. I don't think that there is a more complex instrument unless you want to include computer and electronic generated sounds which basically have no limit. The Aeolean/Skinner organ that Virgil Fox played for nearly 40 years has 10,000 pipes and is certainly an impressive instrument. Mr Fox to me was the greatest interpreter of music written for the pipe organ and the most talented organist of all time. I guess this doesn't mean that he was but he was to me.
    I have an LP of his from the 70's entitled "Heavy Organ" which is a live album and I'm not really fond of live albums. There is some crowd noise that I'd rather not hear unless I'm there. It is interesting to hear what he has to say between each piece and at one point he speaks about music interpretation. He says there are those who say that the classics are not to be interpreted and should only be played exactly as they were written and goes on to say that these people lack talent and are full of crap. His interpretations of Bach and others are great performances in my view and probably more difficult than they were meant to be. I just found it interesting to hear what he had to say and he was certainly an extremely talented and gifted performer. What does anyone think about the interpretation view?
    Bill

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Well, it's interesting
    By rb122 in forum Analog Room
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 11-24-2003, 03:09 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •