Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 93
  1. #51
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    You are as entitled as anyone to be 100% wrong.

  2. #52
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Roscoe IL
    Posts
    210

    Thanks, we're all entitled to be wrong.

    But who was this for?

  3. #53
    DMK
    DMK is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    332
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    "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.
    Yes, the Norrington set is with the London Classical players, playing period instruments. It's a good set but different from the von Karajan version. Tempi is altered, pitch is A=430 which I find odd but maybe it isn't. I can't really comment on why I prefer the DG von Karajan but it just sounds more "right" to me.

  4. #54
    DMK
    DMK is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    332
    Quote Originally Posted by jbangelfish
    But who was this for?
    It was for all of us, interchangeably depending on who disagrees with him at that particular moment. . I think it was for RB this time! He was being controversial.

  5. #55
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    Quote Originally Posted by DMK
    It was for all of us, interchangeably depending on who disagrees with him at that particular moment. . I think it was for RB this time! He was being controversial.
    LOL, yes it's a wonder for someone to think they're so brilliant not to have learnt modesty or read Dr. Faustus. I'm amazed with all his money and self proclaimed god-like (forget the like) ability that he even wastes his time disccussing anything with the lowly dregs on these boards. Of course if you have a superiority complex then it makes sense.

    But at least you can't say there is any grey area in his views. I love black and white thinkers.

  6. #56
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    123
    "You are fairly smart. Why don't you post more often?"


    I'll assume for the sake of it that that was not a sarcastic comment although it comes across as patronizing however it was meant.


    "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.


    The greatest concerto ever written for any instrument....that is a broard sweep of a statement. How do you measure these things? Why are we looking at classical music like it is a competative sport here? Ah well - each to their own I suppose.


    "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


    That is a relief - I was beginning to think you had lost it completely...


    "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!


    Actually all of the above comments were tongue in cheek, although there may be grains of truth in each of them. You are correct on the Puccini - one of the problems of trying to summarise 400 years of classical music into a post, although I have a weakness for both Verdi and Rossini more.


    "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.


    I'm not sure it is really more rare now that it has ever been, except in certain geographical areas where, at times, Opera was THE major form of entertainment. Interesting side note : Whilst on holiday in Rome we were awoken in the early hours by workmen opposite the hotel on a building site, not by their machines, but by their singing various arias from Verdi (I kid you not). They werent too shabby either. Kinda restores your faith....


    "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."


    I dont know what the situation is in the US as I live in Greece. Over here music has always been taught in private music schools anyway and not in the mainstream. In fact next to my office is a music school that is generally packed with a cacophony of kids in the process of mastering and murdering a variety of classical pieces. Fortunately they do not open their doors till the afternoon.

  7. #57
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    You are as entitled as anyone to be 100% wrong.
    Well, I at least appreciate the fact that you don't hold me to a higher standard than you hold yourself! But what happened to your admonishment to others about shooting the messenger when you have no valid argument against the message?

  8. #58
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by DMK
    It was for all of us, interchangeably depending on who disagrees with him at that particular moment. . I think it was for RB this time! He was being controversial.
    I should think he would enjoy a little spirited debate and controversy. It's not as if he doesn't bring more than his share to this little table. If opinions could ever be "wrong", I'm going to have to come up with some doozies to catch up with him!

    What I find truly heartbreaking is that when folks like Skeptic (correctly in my opinion) complain about the pending death of classical music, they don't realize that they themselves are pounding the nails in the coffin. By elevating classical music to something that transcends the average Joe and making it in his own words an elitist pursuit, it loses its appeal and validity to the mainstream. RGA made reference to the Dreyfus movie and THAT is the way to teach classical music appreciation, not to make it seem as though only educated snobs can understand it. Keep it simple to start and make it relevant and then you can move on to more complex material. Perhaps Skeptic WANTS to kill it which would make it even more of an elitist pursuit, I don't know.

    I recall the Miller Lite beer commercial with jazz baritonist/tubaist Howard Johnson from several years ago. He was using "jazzspeak" to describe how he felt about the beer and he had a (white) interpreter. Everyone thought it was funny but I didn't. It depicted jazz as something you couldn't understand without someone to help out and it made it "jivey" and stupid. But the last thing I'd ever say to someone is that jazz is an "elitist pursuit". That would be the easiest way to turn someone off. Classical is dying and people like Skeptic are partially to blame, IMHO.

  9. #59
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    LOL, yes it's a wonder for someone to think they're so brilliant not to have learnt modesty or read Dr. Faustus. I'm amazed with all his money and self proclaimed god-like (forget the like) ability that he even wastes his time disccussing anything with the lowly dregs on these boards. Of course if you have a superiority complex then it makes sense.

    But at least you can't say there is any grey area in his views. I love black and white thinkers.
    I prefer gray thinkers. It tends to foster meaningful dialogue. And as bizarre as most of Skeptic's views on music are, black and white views aren't teaching him anything. But he does have the courage of his convictions. OTOH, he's now trying to kill off the audio industry along with the classical music industry because I've just read that classical is the only music worthy of accurate audio reproduction, according to Skeptic. Thankfully, that is far from the truth.

  10. #60
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    rb122

    You bring up a HUGE point about teching classical music that I raised but didn't realize it. What Dreyfuss discovered when teaching classical music was that NO ONE could relate to the music. One reason why English Literature and Social Studies rank at the bottom of preferences for students is that student's think who the hell cares about something that happened 50 years ago let alone 300-500 years ago. I'm not a music teacher but the same thing applies.

    Why do you think that most band teachers, at least in Canada, have something recognisable to modern audiences. For instance you're bound to hear one of John Williams movie themes such as Raiders of the Lost Ark, Star Wars or Superman etc thrown into the student's playing because THEY ALL WANT TO PLAY it and the audience, Skeptic and purists aside, all want to hear it.

    The reason these subjects fail students - not the other way around - is because we give them Social studies like we force brussel sprouts on people who hate brussel sprouts. We say stupid things like History is important because without a knowledge of history you're doomed to repeat it. Well we know it and we repeat it and kids see this and know the statements are BS.

    To get interest in CLASSICAL music he pulled out all the current ROCK music that basically STEALS everything it can get from classical. This will then have a "Cool" factor perhaps where the teacher can present two passages and the class can hear for themselves what has been done to the piece.

    This does not mean they're going to dump their Aerosmith collection for Verdi but they may come to appreciate, value or respect Verdi and not be put off to the idea of trying those classical buying for beginners from Naxos.

    Just like rock there is a lot of classical that I simply don't like...and people that listen to classical who say they hate it often don't give it much of a chance - they relegate it to elevator Muzak.

    I liked the end of that movie too where he had his completed little opus with all the traditional classical instruments and then some electric guitar, drums etc integrated into it. The movie was sentimental smaltz in the best possible light - and despite it's flaws I liked the film points about where music is valued compared to high school football. Pretty sad commentary.

  11. #61
    Forum Regular Woochifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    6,883
    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    You bring up a HUGE point about teching classical music that I raised but didn't realize it. What Dreyfuss discovered when teaching classical music was that NO ONE could relate to the music. One reason why English Literature and Social Studies rank at the bottom of preferences for students is that student's think who the hell cares about something that happened 50 years ago let alone 300-500 years ago. I'm not a music teacher but the same thing applies.

    Why do you think that most band teachers, at least in Canada, have something recognisable to modern audiences. For instance you're bound to hear one of John Williams movie themes such as Raiders of the Lost Ark, Star Wars or Superman etc thrown into the student's playing because THEY ALL WANT TO PLAY it and the audience, Skeptic and purists aside, all want to hear it.
    I think it depends on the contemporary context. When I was in an orchestra, we always preferred to play the movie themes because we related to it and we liked it. Sure, the Mozart or Bach or Vivaldi pieces were more challenging and still fun to play, but for those of us who didn't go onto major in musicology or play professionally, we got the most joy out of playing more recent stuff like the John Williams marches. But, at the same time I think that people develop a broader range of music taste as they get older. Teenagers listen to certain types of music often for the image, coolness, and peer pressure aspects. Listening to anything more than 10 years old just conveys an aura of geekiness that doesn't play well with teenagers. I didn't start listening to jazz until I got to college, but now that comprises about half of my listening. So, it does evolve.

    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    To get interest in CLASSICAL music he pulled out all the current ROCK music that basically STEALS everything it can get from classical. This will then have a "Cool" factor perhaps where the teacher can present two passages and the class can hear for themselves what has been done to the piece.

    This does not mean they're going to dump their Aerosmith collection for Verdi but they may come to appreciate, value or respect Verdi and not be put off to the idea of trying those classical buying for beginners from Naxos.
    There's a fine line between keeping it contemporary and keeping it cool. In the late-70s, we got stuck playing a piece called "Disco Strings" right at the time that the disco backlash was hitting high gear. We hated the piece and by the time we played it for a school assembly, the boos from the audience drowned us out throughout from the mention of the word "disco" onward. If a high school orchestra transcribed and arranged an overplayed Top 10 song from last year, you'd probably get a similar negative reaction.

    And keep in mind that even professional orchestral players branch out and listen to other stuff. When the San Francisco Symphony was approached to perform a series of concerts with Metallica about four years ago, several of the orchestra members stated that they were long-time fans and listened to Metallica regularly, and of course loved the opportunity to do a full tilt rock concert with the band. Those concerts were later released on DVD and CD.

  12. #62
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    " When I was in an orchestra, we always preferred to play the movie themes because we related to it and we liked it. Sure, the Mozart or Bach or Vivaldi pieces were more challenging and still fun to play, but for those of us who didn't go onto major in musicology or play professionally, we got the most joy out of playing more recent stuff like the John Williams marches"

    Children prefer reading comic books to novels. Simple, uncomplicated things are more palatable to undeveloped minds than those things that are complex, profound, and intricate making them more difficult to understand but that is what fine art is about. And if you are never exposed to them, you spend your entire life thinking an ice cream sundae is the ultimate food and a simple little five minute ditty sung by an untrained voice is actually music. In other words it what is called THE DUMBING DOWN OF SOCIETY. Many people don't like that idea. They don't like thinking that they never developed their minds beyond the tastes of an adolescent. They find it insulting when someone calls a spade a spade. But if the shoe fits.....

  13. #63
    Forum Regular Woochifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    6,883
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    Children prefer reading comic books to novels. Simple, uncomplicated things are more palatable to undeveloped minds than those things that are complex, profound, and intricate making them more difficult to understand but that is what fine art is about. And if you are never exposed to them, you spend your entire life thinking an ice cream sundae is the ultimate food and a simple little five minute ditty sung by an untrained voice is actually music. In other words it what is called THE DUMBING DOWN OF SOCIETY. Many people don't like that idea. They don't like thinking that they never developed their minds beyond the tastes of an adolescent. They find it insulting when someone calls a spade a spade. But if the shoe fits.....
    And if you bothered to read the rest of the paragraph that you quoted, you'd find that I addressed those exact topics. Our tastes expand and evolve as we get older. At what point do I advocate ONLY playing simple, accessible music? I find nothing wrong with playing something fun to go along with the more challenging pieces. It's those self-righteous music teachers that have some kind of ideological crusade against modern music that make learning instrumental music painful drudgery, and drive music students away from learning how to play period. We know that vegetables are good for us, but I see nothing wrong with having dessert as well. I'm sure that even you will occasionally indulge in trivialities just because they're fun.

    Go ahead and believe that society's going all to pot because they don't share your world view, but the reality is that art evolves, music evolves, life goes on, genres like jazz that were once derided as vulgar abominations become widely acknowledged as essential contributions to the arts. The world survived jazz, it survived rock and roll, it survived hip hop, and it will survive the next emergent music development that alienates the ears of older generations. You're welcome to believe what you want to about how ignorant and dumb the rest of society is, but unless you plan to completely cloister yourself in your own hermetic world, you're part of it.

  14. #64
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    Simple, uncomplicated things are more palatable to undeveloped minds than those things that are complex, profound, and intricate making them more difficult to understand but that is what fine art is about. And if you are never exposed to them, you spend your entire life thinking an ice cream sundae is the ultimate food and a simple little five minute ditty sung by an untrained voice is actually music. .. They find it insulting when someone calls a spade a spade. But if the shoe fits.....
    Gee, some might suggest that of folks who believe that AR-9s and Cit 11s represent anything even approaching state of the art in audio today. I'm not sure if they could appreciate HP's system or not given the vast performance gulf.

    rw

  15. #65
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    It took many years and a lot of tweeking to get those AR9s to sound the way I wanted them to. When I first owned them they were disappointing. In fact they would have been very disappointing had I paid more than $500 for them new. Now they sound far better than I ever expected.

  16. #66
    DMK
    DMK is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    332
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    " When I was in an orchestra, we always preferred to play the movie themes because we related to it and we liked it. Sure, the Mozart or Bach or Vivaldi pieces were more challenging and still fun to play, but for those of us who didn't go onto major in musicology or play professionally, we got the most joy out of playing more recent stuff like the John Williams marches"

    Children prefer reading comic books to novels. Simple, uncomplicated things are more palatable to undeveloped minds than those things that are complex, profound, and intricate making them more difficult to understand but that is what fine art is about. And if you are never exposed to them, you spend your entire life thinking an ice cream sundae is the ultimate food and a simple little five minute ditty sung by an untrained voice is actually music. In other words it what is called THE DUMBING DOWN OF SOCIETY. Many people don't like that idea. They don't like thinking that they never developed their minds beyond the tastes of an adolescent. They find it insulting when someone calls a spade a spade. But if the shoe fits.....
    So what's your issue with modern classical music such as Shostakovich, Cage, Penderecki, Xenakis, Stockhausen, etc? Classical music is evolving. ALL music evolves. There can never be another Golden Age of Classical where all the music sounds like Bach or Beethoven. Beethoven was an evolution of Bach and Mahler an extension of LVB and so on. Over 300+ years, your own favorite music has evolved to the point where you no longer recognize it. Do you consider Peter Ruzicka's string quartets music? Likely not. How about Edgard Varese? Do you enjoy the poignancy of Steve Reich's "Different Trains" with the Kronos string quartet? How about Terry Riley's "In C"? Anything by Phil Glass strike your fancy? Or how about even more avant garde composers such as John Zorn, Alvin Lucier or Mark Applebaum?

    Most listeners simply refuse to live in the past as you do. Granted, a lot of people prefer the simpler forms of music such as rock... and let me tell you, a "trained" voice can't do most of the things rock singers can do. Dispute that if you can. Again, it's emotion rather than technique. The best musicians have a nice mix of technique and emotion but if I have to choose, I usually choose the latter. I may marvel at the facility of the technician but I generally find it less musical. I prefer creativity rather than being at the whim of the composer. But I enjoy both. With all due respect, perhaps it's YOU who have been dumbed down. Traditional classical music is wonderful and everything you describe it to be with the exception of all the comparisons you make to other musics. It is what it is, no more and no less. And what it is is another form of this fantastic stuff we call music. It is no better nor worse than anything else.

    You'd cringe if you ever saw my music collection. The Ramones sit proudly next to Rachmaninov, Bach sits next to Bad Brains and Mahler snuggles up to bluesman Taj Mahal and is just a breath away from shock rocker Marilyn Manson and avant jazz trumpeter Raphe Malik. Why should I separate them? It's all music and it's all good. Whether YOU like it or not! Sorry, but you aren't allowed to dictate what is and isn't music to anyone but yourself. Face it, Skeptic - you're an old man in a young world. Same with me. But I choose to embrace the new with the old because both have a lot on offer. I would be cheating myself otherwise.

  17. #67
    DMK
    DMK is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    332

    Unhappy I missed this post

    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer
    And if you bothered to read the rest of the paragraph that you quoted, you'd find that I addressed those exact topics. Our tastes expand and evolve as we get older. At what point do I advocate ONLY playing simple, accessible music? I find nothing wrong with playing something fun to go along with the more challenging pieces. It's those self-righteous music teachers that have some kind of ideological crusade against modern music that make learning instrumental music painful drudgery, and drive music students away from learning how to play period. We know that vegetables are good for us, but I see nothing wrong with having dessert as well. I'm sure that even you will occasionally indulge in trivialities just because they're fun.

    Go ahead and believe that society's going all to pot because they don't share your world view, but the reality is that art evolves, music evolves, life goes on, genres like jazz that were once derided as vulgar abominations become widely acknowledged as essential contributions to the arts. The world survived jazz, it survived rock and roll, it survived hip hop, and it will survive the next emergent music development that alienates the ears of older generations. You're welcome to believe what you want to about how ignorant and dumb the rest of society is, but unless you plan to completely cloister yourself in your own hermetic world, you're part of it.
    When I posted my response to Skeptic, I missed this one - not sure how. Good point, and one I tried to make but did less well, about having dessert with the "good food". Not everyone that listens to rock is a moron. Not even everyone that ONLY listens to rock. The music is fun, exciting, visceral, and often thought provoking. And I'm not sure the world is ignorant and dumb. I think it's faster paced... less free time to explore. I do so because music is my one and only passion. I like to hear new things. If I had to listen to only classical, I'd go bonkers! I could probably listen to only jazz but even so, I'd feel somewhat cheated.

    You hit the nail on the head with your second to last sentence. Classical lovers thought early jazz was for idiots who thought swing was dumb who couldn't make any sense out of bebop who thought rock was only for stupid teenagers who hated hard rock who laughed at punk who despised disco who can't stand rap and on it will go forever. I wouldn't want it any other way. When all the world shares one simple personality, we can pick our one form of music.

  18. #68
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    In a world gone insane with noise, music must bring me something beautiful but if it is not harmonious, it must at least be interesting. In an analogy with literature, pop music is like the pulp fiction the hack writers turn out several at a time which churns on the conrner news stands next to the girlie magazines. So called music which resembles little more that a random selection of tones without direction or purpose holds little interest for me as well. The thing about great music is that you not only can enjoy it over a lifetime, but far from getting bored with it, it becomes more interesting as you grow older and see more in it each time discovering nuances you didn't notice before. As for the performers, those who took a lifetime to study their instruments, music from both an historical and technical point of view, and achieve a command of it where technical considerations are secondary because they have been completely conquered, and the thoughtful interpretation of the composer's intent becomes the means of effective communication from the composer to the listener, create a sublime appreciation for music's true value. It speaks for itself and doesn't need to be hyped and I don't have to be told by someone else that it is something to be savored and treasured. The performer becomes merely a vehicle for this communication. The cheap commercial exploit of poorly conceived, poorly performed so called music is of no interest to me. You can call that anything you like. I don't care. I don't expect other people to see the world the way I do. I just offer my point of view and you can take it or leave it.

  19. #69
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    You can call that anything you like. I don't care. I don't expect other people to see the world the way I do. I just offer my point of view and you can take it or leave it.
    It would be nice to believe this but you do expect people see the world the same way you do. We're all 100% wrong after all.

    Your reference to literature makes more sense to me though. There is canonized literature that gets studied to the ends of the earth and then you have those doled out pop novels like this week's Britny Spears - a little of the old T and A has replaced a lot of music - possibly due to the advent of MTV - sex sells. The PACE of society has increased to fast food fast cars that can't drive fast because of the conjested roads, everyone is in such a bloody hurry they can't even wait to make a phone call. This does not make people stupid it makes their pleasure time 40 minutes (Maybe) a day.

    Woochifer's comment is apt that older people generally shift their tastes and appreciate classical music. Perhaps it's because they have time to sit back and listen to a 3hours worth of music than 8minutes while they're rushing out the door to a rat race job they don't like. Ahh Death of a Salesman applies to this too.

    Rock music typically has shoort duration 3 minutes give or take a minute. Movies like Armageddon come out that have not a single steady shot last longer than 2 or 3 minutes and somehting has to explode or a punchline met. Attention spans have decreased. As a student teacher I have gone into grade 7 and 2 classrooms and I have been stunned at the environment they're learning in as compared to when I went to school. ADHD? The question seems who hasn't got it?

    I think a lot depends on WHERE in the world you live. I grew up in Vancouver BC a fairly large met city though nothing like a major US city. Moving to the island the pace is much slower. A year later I go back to Vancouver for a visit and felt like a country bumpkin in awe at the hurry to get nowhere.

    But I would like to use your music stance and project it to movies just for a moment not as a direct analogy. Horror films would be reduced to the low man on the totem pole because generally speaking it has the least to offer as a genre. If I love the art film(which I do) when I see some Friday the 13th retread for the 50th time and given out my 50th zero star rating I could start to grumble at the entire genre of horror. Especially if these were the first 50 horror films I watched. A lot of people HATE classical music but if you ask many of these people they could not even tell you which piece or from whom they didn't like.

    For the artsy people in the film world that hate horror films I like to offer up Nosferatu(The original or 1979 version), or Dawn of the Dead. The latter is one of if not the most gory films of all time horrifying and disgusting complete with decapitations, disembowelments, intestines splattered on the floor, arms being ripped off the list goes on and on. And nevertheless it's one of the best social commentaries on consumerism in America and a commentary on human nature at its core. And of course hollywood is remaking it this March and will probably take out the commentary and just ritz it up for new audiences.

    The point of that was that different countries develop their own music from their heritage and i can't see how music can be looked at out of context. Gaelic music is a part of the heritage along with Canadian Folk music that speakes more to many Canadians or Welsh people than anything out of Italy or France. There is great music from Latin countries and from Africa that I may not get. Just as certain verbiage or humour goes over people's head if they're not from the country.

    Rock music developed against the machine of government and exploded in the 60s largely due to a rather tyranical American government that was hopelessly out of touch with a large segment of people. When they continually try and propagandize their people to think and act a certain way you get a revolt. Peace revolts with music that had lyrics to fight their government. Look at the long list of Anti-Vietnam songs that came out. You simply cannot use Italian classical music when there are no words or the words are not in English to make points about the Vietnam War. The point was to fight back against the machine.

    That is largely what MUSIC has turned into in the world of Rock and pop. Jackson Browne as one example is usually trying to get his message out through music. Will his music have the staying power of Beethoven? That is highly doubtful...but there is nothing wrong with the here and now...just as one of my English teachers once said "Nothing wrong with a pulp novel or any mystery novel - it's like eye candy you read once and it's done...the great books you go back and read and get things out of it again and again.

    So on that mark Classical music is probably superior - add to the fact that most rock music lifts everything from classical and Jazz anyway is kind of telling. That however doesn't mean that some rock will last well into the future or isn't FAR more moving to present day audiences than any classical music could ever hope to achieve. And I don't mean sales here. I think of the impact that John Lennon's Imagine or power to the people must have had - and even today Sarah McLachlan's Angel is used heavily at funerals. Linda McCartney's for a start.

    I think the mistake made is placing classical music expectations on rock. Completely different thing. You look at a horror movie and you don't go in expecting Lawrence of Arabia production values nor do you go in expecting great performances or a terribly complex script or for that matter for the plot to be even plausable. The only thing a horror/thriller needs to do is serve to perform as a roller coster. John Carpenter's Halloween scared me then it did it's job that it set out to do and it gets top marks. The sequals made me want to stick the knife in my own brain then it failed and gets the worst marks.

    Even people like Gene Siskel that I gathered didn't care for Horror films could at least differentiate from a good one and a bad one. And if the critic could not at least do that - then he/she should not be a critic. Same for books and IMO same for music.

  20. #70
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    In a world gone insane with noise, music must bring me something beautiful but if it is not harmonious, it must at least be interesting... So called music which resembles little more that a random selection of tones without direction or purpose holds little interest for me as well. The thing about great music is that you not only can enjoy it over a lifetime, but far from getting bored with it, it becomes more interesting as you grow older and see more in it each time discovering nuances you didn't notice before..
    At age 47, I am not too terribly different from you. While I prefer Sergei, Aaron, and Maurice to Ludwig, I do very much relate to complex musical scores. In fact, I believe that I am even more of a detail junkie than you. I am not satisfied with the limited capabilities of zip cord and RS interconnects. Having heard several very high resolution systems that defy simplistic evaluation criteria, I couldn't care less what anyone thinks about said. Especially when they have never experienced what I have. Unlike you, however, I do find complexity in a number of popular musical veins. Such that bears repeating and reveals more detail with every experience.

    rw

  21. #71
    Forum Regular Woochifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    6,883
    Quote Originally Posted by RGA

    So on that mark Classical music is probably superior - add to the fact that most rock music lifts everything from classical and Jazz anyway is kind of telling. That however doesn't mean that some rock will last well into the future or isn't FAR more moving to present day audiences than any classical music could ever hope to achieve. And I don't mean sales here. I think of the impact that John Lennon's Imagine or power to the people must have had - and even today Sarah McLachlan's Angel is used heavily at funerals. Linda McCartney's for a start.
    I don't know if you can call it superior out of hand, it just depends on what your own expectations are. The thing about musical evolution is that every genre exhausts its vocabulary to a point that a totally new set of musical structures need to be created. Baroque, romantic period, swing, bebop, fusion, prog rock, new wave, punk, etc. -- all of these genres at some point were supplanted because continued evolution in music necessitated going outside of the prevailing genre in order to keep music in general from stagnating.

    If anything, the main contribution that classical music made to rock music is in the timing and key structure, since almost all pop music follows the western scaling that we take for granted but is not followed at all in some other world music forms (just listen to music that originates out of the Middle East -- completely different approach to steps between notes). Rock's main evolutionary precedent though is from American blues. Keep in mind that in the early days, bands like Led Zeppelin were called "heavy blues". The main contribution that jazz makes is in the improvisation, but rock music is much more structured.

    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    I think the mistake made is placing classical music expectations on rock. Completely different thing. You look at a horror movie and you don't go in expecting Lawrence of Arabia production values nor do you go in expecting great performances or a terribly complex script or for that matter for the plot to be even plausable. The only thing a horror/thriller needs to do is serve to perform as a roller coster. John Carpenter's Halloween scared me then it did it's job that it set out to do and it gets top marks. The sequals made me want to stick the knife in my own brain then it failed and gets the worst marks.

    Even people like Gene Siskel that I gathered didn't care for Horror films could at least differentiate from a good one and a bad one. And if the critic could not at least do that - then he/she should not be a critic. Same for books and IMO same for music.
    That's a very common pitfall for movie critics -- they have a fixed set of expectations or preferences and don't waver from that in their ratings. Even if they don't like specific genres, I think a film critic has to at least understand them. Just as an example, "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" was one of the most widely acclaimed films a few years ago, yet so many of the reviews that I read displayed an unbelievable ignorance of its roots, which is in the Chinese "wu xia" stories. The reason why a lot of critics even bothered to review the movie was because of Ang Lee's art house pedigree. Had that film NOT been directed by Ang Lee, it probably would've been dismissed in much the same way that most American critics dismiss other films from overseas that features martial arts. Ironically, Crouching Tiger was a flop in Asia, with some critics over there calling it boring, derivative, and unoriginal. And to a large degree, anyone who's a wu xia movie junkie will be very familiar with all of the elements in that film. It adds a higher level of production value, but nothing new with regard to character archetypes and story elements.

    Out here in SF, I think we got the absolute worst group of film critics anywhere in the country. I can't name one that I trust or respect for their depth of knowledge. The worst of these critics is on a crusade to pull Hollywood back to the Golden Age, and will pretty much slam any violent movie that doesn't star Russell Crowe or Tom Cruise, or any movie that depicts creatures or aliens. So, of course she goes out of her way to dismiss LOTR as nothing more than a video game, yet any movie that resembles a 50s Doris Day comedy, she will wax poetic about no matter how lame it actually is. It's when critics of any kind treat their reviews as a soapbox for their narrow preferences that they lose all credibility with me.

    I actually liked both Siskel and Ebert, not necessarily because of their TV show but because they really show their depth of knowledge about a wide range of films in their print reviews and Q&A columns. Michael Wilmington, Gene Siskel's successor at the Chicago Tribune, I regard as one of the most knowledgeable film critics anywhere. He's more apt to like a film than not, but his reviews are probably about as thorough and well prepared as any that I normally read. If a film is based on a novel or short story, he will read it before reviewing the movie so he can make note of the origins. And he's one of the few critics that understands and appreciates genre pics, like horror and martial arts.

  22. #72
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    Woochifer

    Well this thread has really strayed from cartridges

    Most film critics are not film critics they're reviewers...and there's quite a difference. I'm not a big fan of having to read a book before I see a film in order t understand the film. This is the job of the Director and the Screenwriter adapting the novel or book into a film.

    May critics/reviewers, especially amateur ones, are going to have a tough time if we expect one individual to be able to be versed deeply in so many genres. I'm not a knowledgeable martial arts film person - what I have seen is limited to what comes out here, which is the odd Jackie Chan film and Bruce Lee pictures and dozens of dreck like Enter the Ninja. So when Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon hits the screen it is both visually impressive well acted and basically a dance. And I thought it one of the best films of the year. But that's because it's fresh to me as it would be to many a critic this side of the ocean.

    Some films can be reviewed and some like to be anayzed and re-analyzed and over-analyzed. Not unlike a good poem that once analyzed ends up being less liked after the process.

    My favorite movie is not hard to discern from my avatar. I'm not going to say best because these terms are subjective since best lists even in the high brow community don't have the exact same films on them. But, I was worried that when I started down my History minor focussing on Germany through the war (3 courses worth) that my favorite film would take some heat - and I'd like it less. Turns out the reverse happened because I found some things of minor intrigue that most moviegoers and critics would never key in on.

    In fact Schindler's List takes a hit from many critics toward the end of the picture that I think is the strongest part of the film. Having the luxury of reading the Keneally novel and other arguements of popular opinion in Germany at the time allows me to know what changes to history were made, why they made them and how well it works. Though I still loved the film without ANY of that prior knowledge because it wasn't truly necessary.

    My view of Lord of the Rings unfortunately is that it's not nearly the masterpiece the hype proclaims. I think Roger Ebert's review of the last part is spot on perfect as to the way I see the film and rate them. I have not read the novels...but even then I know several peers that have and are dismayed that the films ruined the novels...others who have read the novels think the films are masterpieces. As good as they are technically I find them, as with Ebert, just a little too silly to make masterpiece status.

    But then so are Star Wars films - basically Cowboys and Indians in space and IMO Harrison Ford's tongue in cheek performance made the first two highly enjoyable and then came the "I want to sell Ewoks to kids" Revenge of the Jedi(later re-named Return) and for me the series cracked. I could not even get throgh episode one it was just so stupid for words.

    I was thinking of starting a site for film criticism - more like reviewing as a hobby. Look at James Berardinelli. His film history is weak but that's ok...he's young and working at catching up.

    The best thing IMO for finding a critic is to see if their TASTE is similar rather than JUST how well they argue their case. Ebert usually always makes a valid argument for what he likes - but in the end "Crash" is still a terribly pointless piece of soft porn garbage disguised as art for shocking the audience to try and hide the fact that the script was atrocious. But Eert sure does make a solid case for liking it. Blegh.

  23. #73
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    In a world gone insane with noise, music must bring me something beautiful but if it is not harmonious, it must at least be interesting. In an analogy with literature, pop music is like the pulp fiction the hack writers turn out several at a time which churns on the conrner news stands next to the girlie magazines. So called music which resembles little more that a random selection of tones without direction or purpose holds little interest for me as well. The thing about great music is that you not only can enjoy it over a lifetime, but far from getting bored with it, it becomes more interesting as you grow older and see more in it each time discovering nuances you didn't notice before. As for the performers, those who took a lifetime to study their instruments, music from both an historical and technical point of view, and achieve a command of it where technical considerations are secondary because they have been completely conquered, and the thoughtful interpretation of the composer's intent becomes the means of effective communication from the composer to the listener, create a sublime appreciation for music's true value. It speaks for itself and doesn't need to be hyped and I don't have to be told by someone else that it is something to be savored and treasured. The performer becomes merely a vehicle for this communication. The cheap commercial exploit of poorly conceived, poorly performed so called music is of no interest to me. You can call that anything you like. I don't care. I don't expect other people to see the world the way I do. I just offer my point of view and you can take it or leave it.
    Perhaps you don't expect others to see the world as you do but you do denigrate those that don't. If your posts are any indication, you believe yourself superior to others simply because you love classical music and hate rock. You believe yourself superior because you have established a hierarchy of music in your mind. You elevate your opinions to facts. How many times have I read from you that something is a "proven fact" when it is nothing but your opinion?

    Music without direction holds very little interest for me, also. It's just that I don't make that statement simply based on a piece of music whose direction has totally escaped me. You do. The mere fact that you can unequivocally state that music has no direction rather than stating you don't know or haven't found its direction is the personification of arrogance and makes your opinions even less credible.

    Great music does indeed speak for itself. That's why you don't need to read music reviews from Schwann's or other sources, correct? You intuitively know what's good, correct? Classical may not need "hype" but you are giving it hype by putting it on a pedestal that is way too high. The hype you're giving it is negative and exclusionary. You are helping to kill the music you love. Either change your thinking or keep buying those nails for its coffin. While you are talking down to possible allies and pushing them away from classical music, I'll continue to try to offset what you are doing by explaining its relevance to newcomers - its relevance within the context of all forms of music. After all, a musical education that is incomplete is no better than skipping those last two semesters of engineering school.

  24. #74
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by DMK
    So what's your issue with modern classical music such as Shostakovich, Cage, Penderecki, Xenakis, Stockhausen, etc? Classical music is evolving. ALL music evolves. There can never be another Golden Age of Classical where all the music sounds like Bach or Beethoven. Beethoven was an evolution of Bach and Mahler an extension of LVB and so on. Over 300+ years, your own favorite music has evolved to the point where you no longer recognize it. Do you consider Peter Ruzicka's string quartets music? Likely not. How about Edgard Varese? Do you enjoy the poignancy of Steve Reich's "Different Trains" with the Kronos string quartet? How about Terry Riley's "In C"? Anything by Phil Glass strike your fancy? Or how about even more avant garde composers such as John Zorn, Alvin Lucier or Mark Applebaum?

    Most listeners simply refuse to live in the past as you do. Granted, a lot of people prefer the simpler forms of music such as rock... and let me tell you, a "trained" voice can't do most of the things rock singers can do. Dispute that if you can. Again, it's emotion rather than technique. The best musicians have a nice mix of technique and emotion but if I have to choose, I usually choose the latter. I may marvel at the facility of the technician but I generally find it less musical. I prefer creativity rather than being at the whim of the composer. But I enjoy both. With all due respect, perhaps it's YOU who have been dumbed down. Traditional classical music is wonderful and everything you describe it to be with the exception of all the comparisons you make to other musics. It is what it is, no more and no less. And what it is is another form of this fantastic stuff we call music. It is no better nor worse than anything else.

    You'd cringe if you ever saw my music collection. The Ramones sit proudly next to Rachmaninov, Bach sits next to Bad Brains and Mahler snuggles up to bluesman Taj Mahal and is just a breath away from shock rocker Marilyn Manson and avant jazz trumpeter Raphe Malik. Why should I separate them? It's all music and it's all good. Whether YOU like it or not! Sorry, but you aren't allowed to dictate what is and isn't music to anyone but yourself. Face it, Skeptic - you're an old man in a young world. Same with me. But I choose to embrace the new with the old because both have a lot on offer. I would be cheating myself otherwise.
    Using an art analogy, I would much prefer a painter to create his own expression in art rather than to recreate one of the great paintings of the past. Lack of creativity stagnates any form of art. I prefer to live in the present, learn from the past and look to the future. Otherwise, to what do we look forward?

  25. #75
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    Complexity in and of itself is not sufficient IMO to create interest or be great art. I lived in Manhattan for about 4 years and went to the Museum of Modern Art quite a few times to try to understand what it is that makes art, art. I must have seen the Guernica 20 times but I'll be damned if Picasso's paintings don't remind me of a schitzophrenic seeing the world through a kalidescopic prism, utterly fractured and incomprehensible. I can't relate to it. Ditto Jackson Pollack. Ditto everything else hanging there. My appreciation of art stops somewhere in the early twentieth century with Manet, Monet, Renoir and the rest of the French Impressionists. Almost the same with music however I do concede that there were post Romantic and even some modern composers well into the first half of the twentieth century whose music I enjoy very much. This includes Rachmaninoff, Copland, Gershwin, and even Stravinsky. It does not include Charles Ives. I cannot follow two or three different musical themes in different keys going simultaneously. Sorry but to me that is cacophony.

    I don't have a clue what any of this has to do with films in general or horror films in particular but I do enjoy horror films to this day but they must be excellent. And in that genre I like the original Bela Lugosi Dracula, the original Boris Karloff Frankenstein, and Hitchcock's Psycho. As for Nosferatu, I like the German silent made early in the twentieth century best of all. A psychotic with a chain saw chasing a terrified woman doesn't amuse me.

    I stopped going to movie theaters to see current movies a long time ago. For me the best movies were made mostly prior to the 1970s. I did enjoy The Red Violin however. Occasionaly I get dragged to movies against my will and better judgement. Among the worst I've detested having to sit through included Field of Dreams, Jurassic Park, Big, Gorillas in the Mist, and possibly one of the ones on my all time ten list of most detestible moveis, The French Lieutenant's Woman. If the film, recording, and sports industries had to depend on my money to survive, they'd all go broke. Hey, maybe that wouldn't be such a bad idea. Think of all the gasoline we'd save if there were no live sporting events.

Page 3 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
  •