Best Ever Albums

Re: Classical Music on Charts

Jasonconfused — Wed, 27 Mar 2013 23:00:58 GMT

Author: Jasonconfused

Posted: 03/28/2013 03:00

purple wrote:

This is a completely legitimate question. I think the people that consciously don't include jazz and classical in their charts have unknowingly made a wise decision. I personally have a little bit of both jazz and classical in my charts, since the primary objective of my chart is to roughly represent some of my favorite music.

As I've preached elsewhere, some modern philosophers of music consider classical a fundamentally different genre from rock. In fact, they consider three fundamental genres: classical, jazz, and rock. These are broad classifications based on how the music is intended to be performed and intended to be heard, and perhaps where the musical work exists (if it does) in each genre. These genres are so broad that classical would include everything from sonata form to symphonies, jazz would includ everything from big band to free jazz, and rock would include everything from jam bands to hip hop. Classical is intended to be performed live according to a score, with very little to no room for improvisation (unless specified by the score, as in a cadenza) outside of the subtle performance interpretations, and is intended to be heard as a live performance (largely to hear the performance interpretations not explicitly in the score, though a listener would expect each performance to sound similar); jazz is intended to be performed and heard live, like classical, except that jazz is dependent upon improvisation, meaning that every time they play, their music is different; rock is intended to be performed live, and the live performances are not intended to sound like the recordings, which is how rock is intended to be heard. Those are just the larger conclusions (which I've likely botched) and if you want some discussions and arguments, PM me an email and I can send you a few papers. Of course, there are exceptions to each genre, e.g. Charlie Parker composed scores for some of his pieces. Anyways, the main point of all this is to say that three fundamental kinds of music, only one of which (rock) is dependent upon recordings, the format upon which this site is based. Thus, it makes sense to only include rock in a chart. However, since jazz is freely allowed here, it's just a slippery slope until you allow classical. Example: consider putting John Coltrane's Ascension on a chart; the music is explicitly 100% improvisation and if played live, no two performances would ever sound the same, yet we allow that one recording of Ascension to stand as the definitive "work" that is the album in this site's database. Example: consider recordings of Bach's Cello Suites; there are performances from Casals, Rostropovich, Yo Yo Ma and many others, and this site allows them all, because their is no definitive recording since the music is based on a score. Example: consider listening to The Rolling Stones' "Gimme Shelter"; your familiarity with the track is based on the recording, and when you hear them perform it live you don't expect to hear it sound the same (due to "studio trickery"), and may even evaluate the live performance based on the recording. Anyways, sorry for the wall of text; I felt like some rambling might encourage what could be an interesting conversation.

As a side note to swedenman, evaluating music based on whether the composer of the music performs the music is one of the most inane and absurd thoughts I've seen lately on this site. Classical composers explicitly intend their works to be performed by others, and there are several scores that have been composed specifically for a composer's favorite performer. Consider the score; a composer is not writing down the music so they can remember, but rather because they intend others to learn and perform it. It sounds like you would consider a play to be an inferior work if the playwright did not direct it or play the leading role. And though it may not completely follow, it also seems like you automatically believe all rock covers to be inferior because the original composers are not playing the music. Ultimately, personal evaluation is personal evaluation, but I've never imagined anyone would evaluate music based on that criterion.

tl;dr I ramble about the differences between classical, jazz, and rock and, as usual, I disagree with swedenman

Long, but still read. I enjoyed the explanation on the three genres of music. I can see your argument against swedenman, and in a way, I agree with you. However, I do place some sort of value on originals over covers because I do take into consideration the work that was put into the writing process. I wouldn't go so far as to say that the original is automatically better, because in a lot of cases it's not, but have a level of respect for the original.
As far as the performer not being the one who wrote the music, again, I don't evaluate the music itself on that, but, at least for me, I do respect a musician that both writes and performs because it shows their variety of talents. So I think that for that aspect of it, it is fair to evaluate someone in that sense, although on a more human level than a musical level, since as you mentioned, classical composers specifically write for other people to perform it.

Re: Classical Music on Charts

Anonymous — Wed, 27 Mar 2013 22:33:37 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 03/28/2013 02:33

purple wrote:

That was very interesting, thank you for posting. I'm sorry that I don't have much to say in response, but I don't really have enough knowledge or opinion on the subject to say anything, haha. I think I agree with you, though.

Re: Classical Music on Charts

Anonymous — Wed, 27 Mar 2013 22:12:21 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 03/28/2013 02:12

This is a completely legitimate question. I think the people that consciously don't include jazz and classical in their charts have unknowingly made a wise decision. I personally have a little bit of both jazz and classical in my charts, since the primary objective of my chart is to roughly represent some of my favorite music.

As I've preached elsewhere, some modern philosophers of music consider classical a fundamentally different genre from rock. In fact, they consider three fundamental genres: classical, jazz, and rock. These are broad classifications based on how the music is intended to be performed and intended to be heard, and perhaps where the musical work exists (if it does) in each genre. These genres are so broad that classical would include everything from sonata form to symphonies, jazz would includ everything from big band to free jazz, and rock would include everything from jam bands to hip hop. Classical is intended to be performed live according to a score, with very little to no room for improvisation (unless specified by the score, as in a cadenza) outside of the subtle performance interpretations, and is intended to be heard as a live performance (largely to hear the performance interpretations not explicitly in the score, though a listener would expect each performance to sound similar); jazz is intended to be performed and heard live, like classical, except that jazz is dependent upon improvisation, meaning that every time they play, their music is different; rock is intended to be performed live, and the live performances are not intended to sound like the recordings, which is how rock is intended to be heard. Those are just the larger conclusions (which I've likely botched) and if you want some discussions and arguments, PM me an email and I can send you a few papers. Of course, there are exceptions to each genre, e.g. Charlie Parker composed scores for some of his pieces. Anyways, the main point of all this is to say that three fundamental kinds of music, only one of which (rock) is dependent upon recordings, the format upon which this site is based. Thus, it makes sense to only include rock in a chart. However, since jazz is freely allowed here, it's just a slippery slope until you allow classical. Example: consider putting John Coltrane's Ascension on a chart; the music is explicitly 100% improvisation and if played live, no two performances would ever sound the same, yet we allow that one recording of Ascension to stand as the definitive "work" that is the album in this site's database. Example: consider recordings of Bach's Cello Suites; there are performances from Casals, Rostropovich, Yo Yo Ma and many others, and this site allows them all, because their is no definitive recording since the music is based on a score. Example: consider listening to The Rolling Stones' "Gimme Shelter"; your familiarity with the track is based on the recording, and when you hear them perform it live you don't expect to hear it sound the same (due to "studio trickery"), and may even evaluate the live performance based on the recording. Anyways, sorry for the wall of text; I felt like some rambling might encourage what could be an interesting conversation.

As a side note to swedenman, evaluating music based on whether the composer of the music performs the music is one of the most inane and absurd thoughts I've seen lately on this site. Classical composers explicitly intend their works to be performed by others, and there are several scores that have been composed specifically for a composer's favorite performer. Consider the score; a composer is not writing down the music so they can remember, but rather because they intend others to learn and perform it. It sounds like you would consider a play to be an inferior work if the playwright did not direct it or play the leading role. And though it may not completely follow, it also seems like you automatically believe all rock covers to be inferior because the original composers are not playing the music. Ultimately, personal evaluation is personal evaluation, but I've never imagined anyone would evaluate music based on that criterion.

tl;dr I ramble about the differences between classical, jazz, and rock and, as usual, I disagree with swedenman

Re: Classical Music on Charts

RFNAPLES — Tue, 26 Mar 2013 23:53:38 GMT

Author: RFNAPLES

Posted: 03/27/2013 03:53

swedenman wrote:

Well I'm not going to keep arguing, since it's a pretty pointless argument and your only problems are with my word choice, but I would dare say the majority of classical music (probably specifically modern classical music, but definitely classical music in general, which is what I was talking about) does not fall under that umbrella, so "for the most part" was completely appropriate. And since "almost always" is not by any stretch rigorously defined, I don't see how that could be incorrect, but I would also daresay that the vast majority of rock music is written for the one who performs it, and even if that's not true (which I highly doubt), I have virtually nothing like that on my chart (or ever will), which is the only point I was trying to make, anyway.

Most modern classical music is written and often commissioned for performers and/or orchestras. See for instance the recipients of the Pulitzer Prize for Music. In fact, that is how most classical music came about-through a commission perhaps from a royal or a church etc. Obviously we don't have the works as originally performed before recordings but we do have musicians that attempt to reproduce the original music of the composers often using period instruments.

Much of rock music has been written by the performers at least post 1965 but there are still many exceptions.

Sorry if I missed your point. I thought classical was not on your charts because you thought little original material wasn't available, not because you didn't like it or were ignorant about it.

Re: Classical Music on Charts

Anonymous — Tue, 26 Mar 2013 22:16:35 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 03/27/2013 02:16

RFNAPLES wrote:

I disagree with your choice of wording "for the most part" and "almost always." I showed you examples of how you were wrong with classical music. Need I direct you to similar errors with rock?

Re: Classical Music on Charts

RFNAPLES — Tue, 26 Mar 2013 22:11:48 GMT

Author: RFNAPLES

Posted: 03/27/2013 02:11

swedenman wrote:

The problem with classical music is that the composers (for the most part) were never able to record it themselves, so what you're hearing is not the work of the people performing it. It's still got its merits (I play violin, so I can certainly appreciate classical music), but it's virtually impossible to compare to rock music which is almost always performed by the ones who wrote it (which I think is a much greater achievement).

I disagree with your choice of wording "for the most part" and "almost always." I showed you examples of how you were wrong with classical music. Need I direct you to similar errors with rock?

Re: Classical Music on Charts

Anonymous — Tue, 26 Mar 2013 22:06:13 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 03/27/2013 02:06

RFNAPLES wrote:

There are many that were performed by orchestras or musicians that they were specifically written for. Try
Copland: Appalachian Spring; The Tender Land (Orchestral Suite); Billy the Kid (Ballet Suite)
Aaron Copland (Composer), Aaron Copland (Conductor), Eugene Ormandy (Conductor), Boston Symphony Orchestra (Orchestra), Philadelphia Orchestra (Orchestra) | Format: Audio CD

What point are you trying to make? I said there are exceptions, and I said I'd even consider including them in my chart, so I'm confused how this proves what I said wrong...

Re: Classical Music on Charts

RFNAPLES — Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:52:10 GMT

Author: RFNAPLES

Posted: 03/27/2013 01:52

Here are a few more:

Re: Classical Music on Charts

RFNAPLES — Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:43:10 GMT

Author: RFNAPLES

Posted: 03/27/2013 01:43

swedenman wrote:

Not really. Most releases of classical music written in the 20th and 21st century are still performed by orchestras or musicians that they weren't specifically written for (I'd gladly welcome an exception to this onto my chart). I also said "for the most part", so I did acknowledge the exceptions.

As for assuming that most rock is performed by the composers, that's not what I meant. Even if music is written by a producer for the musician to perform, it's still written specifically for the musician who performs it to perform. That's the distinction I'm trying to make.

Re: Classical Music on Charts

Robert Anton Wilson — Tue, 26 Mar 2013 17:11:23 GMT

Author: Robert Anton Wilson

Posted: 03/26/2013 21:11

I have made the decision to not include classical or jazz in my charts except for a few exceptions (2 of each if my memory serves me well) because to me this is uncomparable.

I cam here for the rock-pop (defined very -very- broadly) or at the very least younger people's music, sorry to admit it.

Also the fact that i don't think I have re-bought a single classical album I used to have on vinyl on CD format. MP3 just does not serve Mozart very well.

Re: Classical Music on Charts

Anonymous — Tue, 26 Mar 2013 14:14:18 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 03/26/2013 18:14

RFNAPLES wrote:

Fails to acknowledge classical music written in the 20th and the 21st century, while falsely assuming that most rock is performed by the composers.

Re: Classical Music on Charts

RFNAPLES — Mon, 25 Mar 2013 22:52:01 GMT

Author: RFNAPLES

Posted: 03/26/2013 02:52

swedenman wrote:

Fails to acknowledge classical music written in the 20th and the 21st century, while falsely assuming that most rock is performed by the composers.

Re: Classical Music on Charts

Anonymous — Mon, 25 Mar 2013 22:23:13 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 03/26/2013 02:23

swedenman wrote:

Too late. I just did compare them. 😁

Re: Classical Music on Charts

Anonymous — Mon, 25 Mar 2013 22:20:45 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 03/26/2013 02:20

The problem with classical music is that the composers (for the most part) were never able to record it themselves, so what you're hearing is not the work of the people performing it. It's still got its merits (I play violin, so I can certainly appreciate classical music), but it's virtually impossible to compare to rock music which is almost always performed by the ones who wrote it (which I think is a much greater achievement).

Re: Classical Music on Charts

Anonymous — Mon, 25 Mar 2013 20:43:14 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 03/26/2013 00:43

Defago wrote:

Well, for me it's easy to compare rock with pop with hip-hop with blues and with any of their subgenres, but it's infinitely harder for me to compare any release out of those genres with anything out of either jazz or classical, so my chart avoids including many incredible albums (Mingus, Monk, Coleman, Sun Ra, etc... don't really know much about classical).

Actually, I'm pretty good with comparing Classical and Celtic with rock and pop. Basically, take an album by Celtic Woman. It has classical amd Celtic. Most of it's good, but their debut isn't tone of the best. Now an album like The Phantom of the Opera was phenomenal! The production, lyrics, voices, instruments, and everything else where either 8, 9, or 10/10. I found it better than Nevermind, but not as good as Who's Next.

Re: Classical Music on Charts

Anonymous — Mon, 25 Mar 2013 20:30:39 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 03/26/2013 00:30

Defago wrote:

Yeah, I understand that.

I don't know a thing about classical, I just like listening to it. XD

Re: Classical Music on Charts

Defago — Mon, 25 Mar 2013 20:27:56 GMT

Author: Defago

Posted: 03/26/2013 00:27

Well, for me it's easy to compare rock with pop with hip-hop with blues and with any of their subgenres, but it's infinitely harder for me to compare any release out of those genres with anything out of either jazz or classical, so my chart avoids including many incredible albums (Mingus, Monk, Coleman, Sun Ra, etc... don't really know much about classical).

Re: Classical Music on Charts

Anonymous — Mon, 25 Mar 2013 20:20:50 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 03/26/2013 00:20

JMan wrote:

Why would anyone wanna remove classical music from charts? It's MUSIC, and they can come in ALBUMS, thus it's unfair to exclude a certain genre. That would be like racism, except for music... "musicism."

Of course, that's only a valid argument if people wanna exclude it from ALL charts.

Genreism? Soundism? Haha. XD

Re: Classical Music on Charts

Anonymous — Mon, 25 Mar 2013 20:18:01 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 03/26/2013 00:18

Why would anyone wanna remove classical music from charts? It's MUSIC, and they can come in ALBUMS, thus it's unfair to exclude a certain genre. That would be like racism, except for music... "musicism."

Of course, that's only a valid argument if people wanna exclude it from ALL charts.

Re: Classical Music on Charts

RFNAPLES — Mon, 25 Mar 2013 20:17:25 GMT

Author: RFNAPLES

Posted: 03/26/2013 00:17

They're your charts