[opnly bafld]

Raj I am glad you said "musicians and composers" because that leaves out a lot that passes for "music" with the general public and what is popular.

Lin

[Dan Banquer]

Yup. Nice post Diapason. Why more people don't appreciate Classical music could be a lengthy discussion for sure, and many of the points you bring up are very valid, and as others have as well.

For example, I'm a Classical music lover. Have been for a long time. I don't enjoy all Classical though. And I can understand why not everyone would. I have the same disdain for Opera, that some others have for the entire Classical genre. I can't handle it at all. It's intolerable to me. But not to an Opera lover, to them it's sublime.

So I can surely understand others who feels the same about different things than I do. Because of my Classical training, I couldn't handle Jazz at all. The dissonance, and obscuring of tonalities, was to much for my ear to bear. My ear was to rigidly tempered to Diatonic melody. When my listening tastes expanded into more modern forms of Classical, where they became much more adventurous with modulation and chromatics, and so forth, my ear became more relaxed and flexible. This has enabled me to enjoy a whole segment of what constitues Jazz. Not all Jazz. But quite a bit. The real "out there" Jazz is too much for me though.

Cheers

 

Dissonance is a relative term. The perfect fourth interval was considered dissonant before about 700 AD if I remember my music history. Jazz through Bebop is based on the song form and most of the improv is based on the chord changes of that song form. The dissonance you may initially hear in more modal jazz is "chords on top of chords" so to speak. The chord progressions are typically much simpler than bebop and the music allows more experimentation in this area. They are harmonically related, but more involved than your strict tertial harmonies. Or think of it this way, Imagine your self playing a simple tertial chord on a piano, now keep going up in thirds and listen to where it takes you and observe theoretically where it takes you.
Hope this helps;
        d.b.

[Wally King]

This has proved to be an interesting thread.  Given the strongly-held views commonly expressed on this site, e.g., vinyl is always and objectively superior to digital, it’s amusing that some would attempt to argue that there is no objective standard in art, specifically in music.  Or, perhaps it would be better to say that the argument being made by some is that there is no objective standard by which to judge any form of self-expression.

I assume I’m supposed to take seriously the assertion that the music of Bach is not inherently superior to that of Britney Spears.  Or perhaps that was merely an attempt to inject a bit of humor into this discussion, though I fear not.

[woodsyi]

Perhaps OT perhaps not. 

When he was 20, J.S. Bach was accused of going into the wine cellar during sermons and making music with a "stranger maid" in the church.   I have been searching for that music among his cantatas, fugues, concertos and oratorios. 

Most believe it was his eventual first wife, who was his second cousin. 

[Russell Dawkins]

 In my opinion, pop/rock is to music as pop-up-books are to literature. You may enjoy it (and I regularly do myself) but it's hardly great art.

Si

 

...great post, Diapason - thanks.

[Dan Banquer]

Perhaps OT perhaps not. 

When he was 20, J.S. Bach was accused of going into the wine cellar during sermons and making music with a "stranger maid" in the church.   I have been searching for that music among his cantatas, fugues, concertos and oratorios. 

Most believe it was his eventual first wife, who was his second cousin. 

Is this why people say Bach's organ had not stops?
With my mind in the gutter once again;
                 d.b.

[Wind Chaser]

I don't think this particular "study" proves anything. I found the article uninteresting and overblown in the extreme, actually, and the general hand-wringing that goes with it does nothing to further the cause of classical music. The message from this is that to be truly "cultured" you have to be willing to miss your morning train, arrive late for work, and basically step outside of the routine that ensures your life runs smoothly every day. Yep, that should go a long way towards alienating the masses! The real world just doesn't work that way...

Having said that, I also despair of the short shrift given to classical (I hate that expression!) music. In my opinion, pop/rock is to music as pop-up-books are to literature. You may enjoy it (and I regularly do myself) but it's hardly great art. Whether you want to listen to art or not is entirely your prerogative, but most people who learn about music, or who study an instrument seriously, end up admiring classical more than any other genre. Note I didn't say liking it more, that varies.

When it comes to music, most people don't want to study or intellectualize it.  Music is primarily and an emotional expression.  Does it need to be rational in order to be relevant?  Is one "level" objectively better or more important than another than another?  When and why does music become "art?"

In a similar vein, I don't have the time or inclination to read Shakespeare. The difference is, while at school I learned a little about Shakespeare, we studied some plays and sonnets, and I have a passing understanding why those in the know consider such things to be of high quality. Unfortunately, music is not afforded the same luxury, so most people have never studied Bach's Goldberg Variations, and have no real understanding of why others admire it. Charges of elitism follow naturally, because it's just not something that everybody learns. Historically, only those from higher income brackets could afford an education that included such things. As much as I'd love to see music study become an integral part of the school curriculum it's not going to happen anytime soon.

I did not look forward to having to study Willy Shakes in school, but it wasn't all that bad.  I actually enjoyed the few plays we studied but I certainly haven't been the least bit interested in reading it since then. 

Six years ago I met a "vampiress,” fangs and all... a really creepy creature but kind of intriguing in a sensual way... She took great pride in being able to recite Shakespeare.  It rolled off her lips like a child who's mastered the alphabet.  Does that some how elevate her to another level?

There are still plenty of people flying the flag for serious music, and it will always be with us. I just wish that the "Average Joe" had a little more respect for the art and expertise involved, whether they understand it or not, and that people weren't quite so quick to label such music as old-fashioned or boring. This, however, cuts both ways and I think a modicum of respect for the musical tastes of others is a good idea across the board.

I think the music of the 60's has been far more influential on society today than the composers of centuries gone by.  People back then were almost without exception very religious and not merely in a superficial way.  Rock ‘n roll changed everything and made rebellion fashionable.  People started to think for themselves rather than just parrot what the church dictated…

Reality is the “average Joe” can admire a skillful musician of the music he prefers, but he isn’t going to pay homage to something he can’t relate to.  What one person calls serious music or literature is neither here nor there.  What matters to an individual is what he can relate to.

[Wind Chaser]

perhaps this has already been mentioned, but if those "great composers" had access to the electric guitar, synthesizers and all our modern technology, do you really think they'd still have produced the same body of work?  I think not...

[Daygloworange]

Dissonance is a relative term. The perfect fourth interval was considered dissonant before about 700 AD if I remember my music history. Jazz through Bebop is based on the song form and most of the improv is based on the chord changes of that song form. The dissonance you may initially hear in more modal jazz is "chords on top of chords" so to speak. The chord progressions are typically much simpler than bebop and the music allows more experimentation in this area. They are harmonically related, but more involved than your strict tertial harmonies. Or think of it this way, Imagine

Dan, it was the best I could do, that early in the morning, with other things on my mind. But I did hope that mentioning my tempered ear for diatonic harmony would help with any ambiguity with my comment about dissonance. What I was referring to was chord stacking and obscurring tonality and chromatics. I had a hard time with that. It took a while for my ear to relax. Many, many years as a matter of fact.  

I will say that it allows me a more broad listening experience to melody and counterpoint now. I can see the forest, through the trees, for lack of a better term.

It's definitely been a positive thing, expanding my listening horizons in a harmonic context.  

Cheers

Not to mention a polyrythmic one.  

[Daygloworange]

Windchaser,

They had organs with hundreds of stops, for voicing. ( An ancient form of analog synthesizer). And they had orchestras with strings, woodwinds, brass, percussion etc..

They had a lot of tools at their disposal to create varied sounds.

They composed music in their heads, often writing out parts without an instrument at their disposal. They were not limited by technology.

Again, it's rhetorical. This is a different time and place. Of course modern day living and culture, and all that would have an influence. I don't know what point you're trying to make. Are you thinking that if you were to transport in time a "Bach" or a "Mozart", that they would be jammin' on " Achy, Breaky, Heart" ?

What would Trent Reznor or Marilyn Manson do in the 18th century???  ( Hint: the correct answer is: Starve )   

Cheers

[rajacat]

perhaps this has already been mentioned, but if those "great composers" had access to the electric guitar, synthesizers and all our modern technology, do you really think they'd still have produced the same body of work?  I think not...

Wind Chaser,

You don't really know do you? You must understand music in historical context. I think that they might be able to come up with something beyond repeating the same hooks and chords like much of today's pop music. Also the so-called "classical composers" when they did cater to a market it was for an educational elite of aristocrats. Mass instantaneous media didn't exist back in Mozart's era. Nowadays much of pop music is created to the lowest common denominator for a market largely controlled by profit motivated corporations not as a vision and creation of the individual artist. Do you have any standards or is it just the subjective, narcissistic individual that reigns supreme? In your world Bach is no better than Ms. Spears. I'm sure that there were some third rate musicians/composers back in Bach's day but in historical terms the cream rises to the top. Do you really think that the Back Street Boys will still be played 3 centuries from now?

Raj

Raj

[Dan Banquer]

I did some digging on the net for wind chaser and I think I found something appropriate:

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/unreleased_jimmy_page_guitar_riff

d.b.