I find that my difficulty with classical music is that it's difficult to find an entry point. First off, there is a lot of classical music out there, it's hard to know where to start. As well, for classical music, there are many different recordings of the same piece, as opposed to popular music, where there is often only one version of each album. Rather than one definitive version of the work, one must sort through many different versions and pick one to listen to. While this may allow one to hear different interpretations of the same piece, exposing different facets of the material, it does not make it easy for one to make their first foray into classical music. Second off, with many pieces of classical music, the length of the piece makes it less accessible than with popular music. When one is trying to learn about music that is new to them, works broken down into 3-5 minute songs can be less daunting than hour long symphonies divided into 15 minute movements. Thirdly, there are not a lot of social incentives for learning about classical music for many young adults or adolescents. Whereas discovering a new rock album might have some social benefit that may arise by sharing it with friends, the same often cannot be said for classical music (obviously this does not apply to all social groups, but for many, this is the case). Finally, there is a risk of feeling out of one's depth. Works are broken down into movements named according to a very specific, achaic terminlogy. One can feel rather dumb for not knowing their minuets from their sonatas. One can be forgiven for feeling as though they need a degree in music theory before being able to appreciate a piece. As well, musical history has bestowed canonical status on some of these compositions, making one feel inferior should one not agree with the "official" judgement of these works. For these reasons, I have found that classical music is the least inviting genre of music. Though its kingdom may hold the promise of many treasures, it does not make it easy to enter though its gates.
That being said, I have been trying to listen to some pieces of classical music to expand my horizons. I'm hoping that maybe pushing past all the barriers to entry will be rewarded (so far my favourite find has been the Igor Markevitch conducted recording of Stravinsky's The Rite of Spring, which I thoroughly enjoyed).
I can dig it. I meant it to be a relative situation more than a head to head one. Writing a fugue is most definitely the ultimate challenge for anyone wishing to become a master. As a drummer who can't read music, it's not anything I could even fathom.
Since most of the great composers are dead, what do you think of someone like Glenn Gould, (as you mentioned) who can interpret Bach and even add some of his own flair to the music. Does that make him just as good as Bach?
Also what about a song like "Heroes and Villains" by The Beach Boys. There's a lot of stuff that happens in those 3 and a half minutes.
Huge fan here. Got the bug at about age 27 as I started to really want to branch out from rock and blues (growing up, there was none in my home, or even anywhere in my community).
It's hard to incorporate classical inputs given the format of this site. Specific albums? Beyond being hard to choose, how do we classify them? By composer or performer? I believe Seth has made a suggestion that might help deal with this.
As much as I love classical, my consumption has slowed down greatly in recent years as I've gone bonkers for jazz, which is also a huge world with many periods and sub genres. I suspect my listening will return to some equilibrium as a start to feel I've assimilated adequate depth and breadth in jazz. My limited time with classical now is focused on revisiting the big names I didn't really take to the first time around. I've recently developed a taste for both Shostakovich and Prokofiev, two I thought I may never learn to like. Some time off may have been good.
I answered "But, I do! I love Classical Music!", albeit there's two caveats:
1) For BEA: I've already suggested in the suggestions page that entries for "albums" be actually just the pieces themselves and not really tied to recordings because that adds a layer to it all... and do we really want to sort through the 945794 recordings of Beethoven's 9th when putting it on a chart (I never exaggerate... hehe). BEA really isn't geared towards the greatest works of art of all time, rather the greatest recorded albums. And that's ok... there are classical forums (I've never got into them). The way the site is structured is by far my favorite, so it really would be cool to expand it to other art forms (I think we have movie games and the such... why not turn that into something across the board... but I think there's other sites that do that? Like maybe metacritic?
2) My family got me into classical music. I think hearing it live is a totally different ball game and with family playing in the symphony and such, I got that opportunity all the time. Recorded classical music is great too, just like recorded jazz music is great... I mean live music almost always trumps recorded (unless they are terrible artists). Long story short, I don't listen to as much classical music as I do rock music. I'm familiar enough with it to have conversations about it, to know that for me the Russian composers vs German/Austrian composers is a similar argument like American vs British rock/modern music. I can name my favorite composers and pieces. I once learned the classical definition of a symphony and what each movement is trying to do, etc. But neither do I consider myself extremely educated or know more than the average classical listener.
Favorite Beethoven quote: Was ich scheisse ist besser als was du je gedacht hast.
What I shit is better than anything you've ever thought.
I have this list I put together a long time ago, but don't completely agree with it - it's more like a group of things rather than really the best recordings/best pieces ever written (although that's the goal of what that chart would be):
First, love the Classical list you linked to! Many, many great renditions on there! Also, love that Beethoven quote too
Re #1: Yes I totally agree. One could just list their preferred recording(s) in the comments of each entry, or could even post lists on it such as the one I'm doing.
Fyi, I did recently join talkclassical.com, which is a superb site that is mostly classical, but also has additional categories available (film, etc) not too different from BEA (mainly just the forums though, a larger version of that with more active users).
Oh I also know enough that those who study "classical music" actually often refer to what we call classical music "art music" as to not confuse it with the classical period, even if for most people it is accepted that classical music is basically everything written before Jazz music... and then after jazz it's anything written by a composer - orchestrated for an orchestra... unless you are John Cage or Schoenberg... then no it's not classical music, it's art music . haha.
For me, in all my discussions in life/across the internet, I have found that "Classical" music is by far the more common of the two, and that "art" music is quite rare as terminology. _________________ Best Classical Best Films Best Paintings
You know... I think I've learned something about emotion and Kant's discussion on what is art/aesthetics and what's called Gesamtkunstwerk.
1) Kant claimed that music was the lowest art form because it required no cognitive function to process and was strictly emotional. Keep in mind this was at a time when most music was not written, therefore there weren't lyrics to process. Yes opera was music - but hey, this was his argument, not mine and I don't think he included opera in this argument. Anyway - Classical music=Emotion
2) Then Wagner comes along and has this idea of Gesamtkunstwerk (total work of art). He wanted to combine music, poetry, paintings, theater, and whatever other artforms all into one giant work of art. This is why you have a 14 hour opera called Der Ring des Nibelungen (which is based off Norse mythology... which yes Lord of the Rings is based of the same concepts... so imagine a 14 hour Lord of the Rings... oh wait... they did that didn't they...). The idea behind this was to really create the greatest work of art ever by combining it all into one. This brought all levels of aesthetic from the lowest, emotion, to the highest, cognitive thought, and combined them together.
Ok the whole reason why I brought all this up is often AfterHours is talking about emotional depth and of course the emotional depth of Beethoven is greater than anything else is because of the medium he is using. He's not ruining his emotion with what could be construed as sappy lyrics, etc. Although if you translate Beethoven's 9th and understand the lyrics, they are both the most amazing and sappy lyrics ever. I saw that on 4th of July at the Hollywood Bowl with LA Phil... and well, there may have been moments where I actually cried.
By the way, I think U2 is just as emotional as Beethoven, especially when Bono belts and Edge chimes those angelic sounds. And to be frank, I think Stravinsky and Mahler have even more emotional depth than Beethoven. I've cried at a U2 concert. I think it really has to do with human connection, and if you think U2 can't connect at a very deep emotional level... you probably haven't been to one of their concerts.
Ok, those are my opinions... just opinions... don't banish me just yet.
In this case, Kant has proven very incorrect. Only the most serious listeners and most intelligent people I know seem to really 'get' most Classical music.
The thing with your "lyrics" point in relation to my criteria is that I rate many Rock albums just as highly as most of my Classical ones, very few of which are good/great "literature/poetry"! Even Bob Dylan doesn't hold a candle, poetically, to say, T.S Eliot. And Tristan and Isolde and Verdi's Requiem are right at the top, but as literature, do not hold much of a candle to Shakespeare's theater. The Ring would of course rate highly as well whenever I get around to revisiting it. My criteria has very little to do with the written word. I am much more interested in how such words are relayed. For instance, to bring up a little point I forgot to get back to you on a week or more ago, it's not really the librettos of Mozart's operas, but what did he do with them musically? It's not so much the script of the film so much, but how is it presented visually and by the shots and by the actors and by the editing? Tarkovsky films, for instance, would not be so interesting as literature... Same with Welles... It's the language of cinema and visual art they were masters in.
I don't see how there's any tactful, productive way to discuss U2 with you in relation to Beethoven's incredible genius, so I'll just leave it at that. Though it's awesome you've gotten such a reaction from them. I may have too among so many adoring fans. The energy there is pretty amazing.
I would agree that certain works by Mahler approached Beethoven's greatest, and their 9ths are virtual equals, but overall, and in terms of consistency I would disagree. Though Mahler was certainly more elaborate (few can approach him there). Beethoven got just as much, usually more, "per increment of time" so to speak, and definitely "per his means applied", even if Mahler showed his effort, complexity, elaboration of elements more often (which, for me, may mean "more content", but not necessarily "more emotional/conceptual depth"). Mahler had to go apply much more elaborate means to be as effective as Beethoven. _________________ Best Classical Best Films Best Paintings
Not much time right now, but I appreciate your comments.
1) I think the U2 reply is basically emotion and deep emotion are two different things. It is the maturity and depth of the emotion... to which I give you this piece... although I realize you stand firm in thinking U2 is garbage (or probably better said, doesn't really have much depth to it).
I don't think Kant was saying people who like music are dumb, rather, music is more related to emotion than it is cognitive funciton - you don't have to process a story, or read and comprehend words to appreciate music. Of course there's more intelligent music... but it still is received emotionally.
I don't know much about Beethoven's subject matter other than it's political side (3rd and 9th symphonies triumph of brotherhood/democracy over monarchy). Perhaps a love song from Für Elise? Again don't know much... but Mahler subject matter is much deeper. The witnessing of the rape of his mother. His battle with being a Jew in pre-nazi Germany. Very heavy subject matter. I don't think Beethoven even scratched the surface on that kind of subject matter.
The Ring cycle - took a whole college class on it. Absolutely mind blowing work... but ain't nobody got 14 hours unless you aristocracy.
But to your other point to which I wholeheartedly agree... Beethoven and Mozart had an uncanny and yet to be matched ability to turn emotion into music (minus The Beatles ... totally kidding, not kidding). Mozart's personality is all over his music... even Lech mich im Arsch (translation: Lick me in my butthole - which he totally, literally wrote):
Lastly... I think emotional/human connection is 80% of why I listen to music. The last 20% is that intellectual... what is the context... what is the meaning, why does this matter?
As much as I love classical, my consumption has slowed down greatly in recent years as I've gone bonkers for jazz, which is also a huge world with many periods and sub genres. I suspect my listening will return to some equilibrium as a start to feel I've assimilated adequate depth and breadth in jazz. My limited time with classical now is focused on revisiting the big names I didn't really take to the first time around. I've recently developed a taste for both Shostakovich and Prokofiev, two I thought I may never learn to like. Some time off may have been good.
Now this I'm jealous of... I know Jazz has so much to offer. But sadly it often falls on deaf ears for me, often like classical does for most peeps today.
What's funny is I get jazz - meaning I'm familiar with it. I did 3 years of jazz band in high school at a performing arts magnet. I've listened to more than just a few songs (kind of like everyone thinks classical music is basically Beethoven's 5th... as if 495769 years of music history got turned into that one tune).
But sadly I've yet to really fall in love with it. It's emotionally too vibrant or something... it goes from extremes perhaps too much for me... I don't know.
And when I say jazz, I mean free jazz or avant-garde jazz. If you call Swing jazz, well then I'm all aboard. 1900s to 1950s, it was all about the blues, americana, and swing that I immediately fall in love with. Kind of Blue had to grow on me as well did a few other great jazz records, and even then I don't appreciate them probably as much as you do.
I find that my difficulty with classical music is that it's difficult to find an entry point. First off, there is a lot of classical music out there, it's hard to know where to start. As well, for classical music, there are many different recordings of the same piece, as opposed to popular music, where there is often only one version of each album. Rather than one definitive version of the work, one must sort through many different versions and pick one to listen to. While this may allow one to hear different interpretations of the same piece, exposing different facets of the material, it does not make it easy for one to make their first foray into classical music. Second off, with many pieces of classical music, the length of the piece makes it less accessible than with popular music. When one is trying to learn about music that is new to them, works broken down into 3-5 minute songs can be less daunting than hour long symphonies divided into 15 minute movements. Thirdly, there are not a lot of social incentives for learning about classical music for many young adults or adolescents. Whereas discovering a new rock album might have some social benefit that may arise by sharing it with friends, the same often cannot be said for classical music (obviously this does not apply to all social groups, but for many, this is the case). Finally, there is a risk of feeling out of one's depth. Works are broken down into movements named according to a very specific, achaic terminlogy. One can feel rather dumb for not knowing their minuets from their sonatas. One can be forgiven for feeling as though they need a degree in music theory before being able to appreciate a piece. As well, musical history has bestowed canonical status on some of these compositions, making one feel inferior should one not agree with the "official" judgement of these works. For these reasons, I have found that classical music is the least inviting genre of music. Though its kingdom may hold the promise of many treasures, it does not make it easy to enter though its gates.
That being said, I have been trying to listen to some pieces of classical music to expand my horizons. I'm hoping that maybe pushing past all the barriers to entry will be rewarded (so far my favourite find has been the Igor Markevitch conducted recording of Stravinsky's The Rite of Spring, which I thoroughly enjoyed).
...which will give you a very big advantage over others starting out. You may find recordings afterwards that you prefer over mine, but I strongly doubt any of my choices will outright disappoint you, aside from just not liking the Classical work itself. Over the years, I've heard more renditions of these than I care to try and think about, and my choices have been made very meticulously (plus it's always in progress and frequently being updated) in an attempt to discern the finest recorded performances of all time -- and I don't mean those legendary, dusty, crackly, muffled recordings from 1935 (or whatever) where you can hardly make out the different orchestral parts. I take sound quality quite validly into account! I mean, it's something we're listening to right!?
Re: Length of compositions ... There's simply more to say (thematically/emotionally) in most cases
Re: Social incentives ... Talkclassical.com is a wonderful site that has many more active users than I see here. I am not recommending leaving BEA, which is a great site -- just adding talkclassical.com to your repertoire, maybe after you get yourself going with Classical music a bit. It has friendly users, many of them knowledgeable and quite contributive to discussion/helpful with recommendations. I recently joined there and have only had a few minor ruffling of feathers among lots of relayed ideas, discussion and so forth. It has a great combo of more experienced listeners, as well as others trying to learn
Re: Out of depth ... I recommend listening, evaluating/thinking about, discussion when possible, maybe some study here and there of key points about works (even while listening if it's light reading and you're used to the work by then, and it's not too distracting). You're always welcome to discuss Classical on one of my pages. I'd be happy to help with insights.
Also, wikipedia does a pretty good job of defining basic terms. Or, I'm sure there are simplified glossaries available online. Books such as Classical Music for Dummies (excuse the title!) are actually quite useful for starting out. _________________ Best Classical Best Films Best Paintings
Not much time right now, but I appreciate your comments.
1) I think the U2 reply is basically emotion and deep emotion are two different things. It is the maturity and depth of the emotion... to which I give you this piece... although I realize you stand firm in thinking U2 is garbage (or probably better said, doesn't really have much depth to it).
I don't think Kant was saying people who like music are dumb, rather, music is more related to emotion than it is cognitive funciton - you don't have to process a story, or read and comprehend words to appreciate music. Of course there's more intelligent music... but it still is received emotionally.
I don't know much about Beethoven's subject matter other than it's political side (3rd and 9th symphonies triumph of brotherhood/democracy over monarchy). Perhaps a love song from Für Elise? Again don't know much... but Mahler subject matter is much deeper. The witnessing of the rape of his mother. His battle with being a Jew in pre-nazi Germany. Very heavy subject matter. I don't think Beethoven even scratched the surface on that kind of subject matter.
The Ring cycle - took a whole college class on it. Absolutely mind blowing work... but ain't nobody got 14 hours unless you aristocracy.
But to your other point to which I wholeheartedly agree... Beethoven and Mozart had an uncanny and yet to be matched ability to turn emotion into music (minus The Beatles ... totally kidding, not kidding). Mozart's personality is all over his music... even Lech mich im Arsch (translation: Lick me in my butthole - which he totally, literally wrote):
Lastly... I think emotional/human connection is 80% of why I listen to music. The last 20% is that intellectual... what is the context... what is the meaning, why does this matter?
Re: U2 ... I actually think Joshua Tree is a superb album. Conversely, yes, next to Beethoven's or any work I rate highly, I do feel it doesn't approach such emotional/conceptual depth.
You're right that I do think they're pretty worthless these days however -- a complete waste of time, of which I feel I have a lot better works that I need to listen to/revisit.
I do not at all see the point in listening to them when the same types of experiences/emotions as any of the songs of their last 10+ albums, have been captured thousands of times in much more compelling ways, in far greater works that deserve and reward much more attention.
Sorry
Re: Kant ... Fair enough
Re: Mahler/Beethoven ... More extrapolatingly personal yes, unless we're taking Beethoven's Piano Sonatas or String Quartets as examples. Beethoven did everything though. He seemingly consumed and relayed all possible human emotion across the unparalleled visionary forms and scope of his works, in their simplest forms all the way to works that are complex like Mahler (late String Quartets), and heavily influenced him. He mastered a particular balance between the two, in his Symphonies, which will never be replicated: all further efforts spring from him (in other words, that alone should allude to their available depths and why you can hear them a million times and always look for more and listen intently as if you never did).
Re: Ring cycle ... Indeed, perhaps the epitome of what should come to mind with the words "towering masterpiece" (even if I probably don't think it's quite Wagner's greatest work [see: Tristan and Isolde])
Re: Beethoven/Mozart, uncanny abilities ... Agreed, minus those four lads from Liverpool of course lol (Lech mich im Arsch to that!)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
. haha.
