Classical Music

[Kir-ir-Bannog]

Elgar - Enigma Variations, ffs
Holst - The Planets
Beethovens 5th
Vivaldi - four seasons
Barbers Addagio

all good starting points

 

[the_drip]

Geez, what a bunch of crap posts in this thread.

For sorrowful, check out Barber's Adagio for Strings. You've probably heard it in movies (Platoon comes to mind), and it is, to me, a peice that, performed well, can bring tears to my eyes for reasons I can't even begin to explain or understand. Real. Good. Stuff. (Interested to know what performances of this people suggest. For me, the slower, the better.)

For musicians who are interested in "classical" (don't know about the OP) and want to be amazed, check out Paganini. The 24 Caprices are a good place to start. The violoin virtuosity will floor you. Midori played it when she was, what? 12? Completely ridiculous. These pieces were basically written to own other violinists, and Paganini hands them their asses.

only.good.post.in.thread

 

[NFU]

only.good.post.in.thread

thank you final noobantasy 8 for that amazing observation youre obviously so qualified to make.


p.s. im drunkh

 

[Hubster]

 

[soundave]

I just can't dig it, derbeder.

After listening and reading, I just find...

...well, let's put it this way - I was having a conversation with my gf the other day about this, and I feel that the evolution of instruments might have actually been a "big mistake". It was all revolving around "show" and "size" not substance or quality, it was a fashion revolution, not a logical one imo.

The changes from viol's to the present string family was an attempt at loudness, or rather their first attempts heading towards amplification if you look at it in a broader sense.

That's why the gut strings became obsolete: the "fashion" became "large".

I also find the later music to be a bit more "narcisstic" and less spiritual... it's deeper meaning, while still there, just isn't as epic. it should transcend the self, and I don't find more modern styles achieving this. Also, the focus becomes more on "shredding" (hehe, excuse a pun there) and the limitations of the instrument as you said.

I may well break free of this gripe, but I don't think I can see it happening.

I hear violins, cellos, double basses... my mind's alarm goes off saying "primitive". A single note from a piano... against the mighty resonance of the lute harpsichord.

For some reason, I see the earlier music and its instruments as more advanced, not the other way around.

Great observations. I don't completely agree. I certainly think there are modern pieces that achieve what you're looking for. It's not all about bombast and "shredding" (though I stand by my Paganini rec for a poster on a metal forum...). I don't think it can be helped that the sound of music changed as composers ceased to be associated with the Church and with the rise of secular humanism. It was bound to happen. And it can't be helped that rubes like to be wowed. Most people need to be whacked upside the head to "get it". Simplicity rarely sells. People like to be overwhelmed. Life is pretty underwhelming for most of us, and when we go to a show, we want to be moved. Sure, you can be subtle, but subtle is HARD.

 

[Nothinggod]

I think all of those assessments about what is 'moving' or 'spiritual' are pretty subjective. People relate to different music for different reasons, from culture to exposure to aesthetic appeal. I think the intent of any given author of a piece of music has as much validity in composing a given piece of music as the next author of any other given piece of music. I don't think complexity is necessarily about how many notes are being played either. For example Opeth might not play their guitars like say, Steve Vai for example, but then again you don't really hear Steve Vai employ the kind of anticendence and consequence or polymodality that Opeth use. People also tend to put Mozart, for example up on a pedistal like he was some kind of creative visionary, but for all intents and purposes he was the equivolent of whoever writes Britney Spear's music. He wrote music that appealed to the consumer of it and got paid to do so. So I guess that if the consumer felt 'moved spiritually' by his work for what ever reason it was spiritually moving. Just like Britney Spears music might be spiritually moving to someone else, for whatever reason. I don't really agree with the statement that simplicity rarely sells either. I think in one context it might be right, but in another, look at the example I just made. I bet that Britney Spears has sold a lot more music than reproductions of Paganini.

 

[the_drip]

thank you final noobantasy 8 for that amazing observation youre obviously so qualified to make.


p.s. im drunkh

more so than you, in druudkness and qualification. also, I can still type while inebriated...tirple pwnage. d'oh!

 

[all_sins_undone]

wtf

 

[Hubster]

... I don't think it can be helped that the sound of music changed as composers ceased to be associated with the Church and with the rise of secular humanism. It was bound to happen. ..... Simplicity rarely sells. People like to be overwhelmed. Life is pretty underwhelming for most of us, and when we go to a show, we want to be moved. Sure, you can be subtle, but subtle is HARD.

Yes you are right there - the seperation from the church was bound to happen alright.

Ironically, and as a somewhat anti-relgious person though, I find the most "religiously parallel" works strike a particular chord in me. Various choral works depicting a lamentation of Christ's passing just seems so pure, so real, that imo it evokes darkness and sadness to levels not achieved by music which concentrates on the emotions of the individual.

I also find that such works reflect a crystalline portait of the feeling in Europe at this time: a dark period, i.e. The Dark Ages, a Europe reeling from the blow of the Black Death, a civilisation made humble through obliteration. I feel that the later periods do not evoke this "puristic" or concentrated emotional expression as the later ages didn't experience such chaos on a massive scale.

I guess one thing I search for in music is truth, and honest expression, and I find this is usually borne of mass level catastrophe.

I think all of those assessments about what is 'moving' or 'spiritual' are pretty subjective. People relate to different music for different reasons, from culture to exposure to aesthetic appeal. ... People also tend to put Mozart, for example up on a pedistal like he was some kind of creative visionary, but for all intents and purposes he was the equivolent of whoever writes Britney Spear's music. He wrote music that appealed to the consumer of it and got paid to do so. So I guess that if the consumer felt 'moved spiritually' by his work for what ever reason it was spiritually moving. Just like Britney Spears music might be spiritually moving to someone else, for whatever reason. I don't really agree with the statement that simplicity rarely sells either. I think in one context it might be right, but in another, look at the example I just made. I bet that Britney Spears has sold a lot more music than reproductions of Paganini.

Agreed (to extents). My interpretation is definitely "my interpretation", as is anyone else's. Music will forever spark debate with interpretation as its vehicle, I guess that's the beauty of it, as you said, people relate to music for different reasons.

I must say though that I don't agree with the Mozart comment. I don't think it's so much that he was a visionary, it's more so that he brought so much life into music unlike many others of the time.

I don't think you can compare Mozart to a songwriter of Brittany's: Mozart changed music, he brought in new life, colour and expressions to music, and used the brilliance of Bach to do it. You can't put Mozart and some hired songwriter with little originality and put them in the same plate. It's like comparing apples to oranges.

Again though you bring your point back to the sales aspects of music, which isn't relevant to quality of music imo. The masses have little perception of true good music.

No offence, but I think you need to need to shake this volume-sales approach to music. It is a big skew to your perception to assessing quality music. Just because something sells or is mass accepted, it doesn't mean it is worth being noted among true music lovers. imo it is not a revelant aspect with which to assess standards of music.

PS - as above, I said no offence, so please don't write a blasting post in reply. I'm not taking an aggressive approach here.

 

[metal_wrath]

So....I was at my local Borders store browsing the classical section, and I decided to pick up a Baroque comp and a Mozart box set...then I realized my cd-dvd drive is not working (it only plays dvds) and I left with nothing. Pwned. However, my drive seems to be working this morning...

 

[Hubster]

Bugger.

What Baroque did you pick up dude?

Be careful when buying Western Art Music - its important to make sure your purchase is a good quality recording, theres a lot fo junk out there.

 

[JoeVice]

maurice ravel pretty much blows me away. there are a few of his works that i have heard, but can't find.

 

[derbeder]

I also find that such works reflect a crystalline portait of the feeling in Europe at this time: a dark period, i.e. The Dark Ages, a Europe reeling from the blow of the Black Death, a civilisation made humble through obliteration. I feel that the later periods do not evoke this "puristic" or concentrated emotional expression as the later ages didn't experience such chaos on a massive scale.

well, nothing has really been as catastrophic as the two world wars. the middle ages is also way too far in the past to influence music in the 16th and 17th centuries.

 

[metal_wrath]

Bugger.

What Baroque did you pick up dude?

Be careful when buying Western Art Music - its important to make sure your purchase is a good quality recording, theres a lot fo junk out there.

I didn't pick up anything, but I was going to buy a random Baroque comp, and some Mozart.

 

[Nothinggod]

Agreed (to extents). My interpretation is definitely "my interpretation", as is anyone else's. Music will forever spark debate with interpretation as its vehicle, I guess that's the beauty of it, as you said, people relate to music for different reasons.

I must say though that I don't agree with the Mozart comment. I don't think it's so much that he was a visionary, it's more so that he brought so much life into music unlike many others of the time.

I don't think you can compare Mozart to a songwriter of Brittany's: Mozart changed music, he brought in new life, colour and expressions to music, and used the brilliance of Bach to do it. You can't put Mozart and some hired songwriter with little originality and put them in the same plate. It's like comparing apples to oranges.

Again though you bring your point back to the sales aspects of music, which isn't relevant to quality of music imo. The masses have little perception of true good music.

No offence, but I think you need to need to shake this volume-sales approach to music. It is a big skew to your perception to assessing quality music. Just because something sells or is mass accepted, it doesn't mean it is worth being noted among true music lovers. imo it is not a revelant aspect with which to assess standards of music.

PS - as above, I said no offence, so please don't write a blasting post in reply. I'm not taking an aggressive approach here.

On the contrary, I personally don't base anything on the volume and sale of music production. On the other hand sales and marketing does greatly affect the way that other people consume music and judge the quality of it. Which is where I think you miss my point in a big way.

The Paragraph where you said "you can't compare"..etc, is the crux of my whole argument. In fact I am saying that Mozart was to a large extent doing exactly the same thing. Making music for the consumption of a paying market, using more or less the exact same principles as pretty much all of the music written by whoever writes for Britney Spears, Ditatonic I IV V progressions predominantly.

Ironically I think it is probably you that is judging music based on it's marketing and salability. It seems that because that music is popular and marketed to be so that it must be music be of lower quality, which is the other point I am making. I don't think you can say someone that listens to say Mozart is any more or less of a "true music lover" than someone that listens to Britney Spears. You might say, "Oh, but the true music lover understands the mechanations of music" in which case you have to quanitfy how much knowledge of music makes you a true lover of music in the first place. Then you have to take into account that you can never know everything about music, and that perceptions of music as I said before are subjective anyway. You are right that the "masses" have little perception of what good music is, but then again what is good to any given individual is all a matter of opinion too.

Perceptions about how brilliant Mozart was are subjective also, and how much he really changed music comes down to how well he was inducted into our cultural perception of his contribution. Don't mistake Mozart for a struggling genius that fought his whole life to make himself known and revolutionise music as it was known. He was basically a child star (strangely like someone else I have referenced) whose father made him a popular icon of the time and in very high demand. I think whether he brought life into music is a subjective opinion too. Some people might say he made it more 'fruity', like poncing about playing croquet on the lawn.

Remember too, that music in those times was made by either people that were educated and well paid enough to be able to score music for orchestras or other paid musicians and have it performed, these people were masters who had completed their apprencticeships under a mentor, or it was made by people who played traditional or other types of popular music for functions on a much smaller scale. There was no recording industry, the only music that survied at the time was music that was scored by the composer or music that was popular enough to be remembered by a large number of amature or semi-professional musicians. Usually music that was scored was scored by a commissioned composer or scorewriter. So making a judgement on how much Mozart revolutionised music is only based on how popular and well paid he was to a large extent. Otherwise we would never have heard of him.

 

[metal_wrath]

Reading the lyrical content on these kinds of works helps a lot, as it does with reading librettas for Operas (the CD I recommended does come with this).

A soprano or tenor might not be singing in English, but comprehension of their words will open the music up for you remarkably.

Unlike many other forms of music, this is vital to the understanding of western art music - it opens the compisition up to the listener that much more, as 99.9% of compositions, especially that of older (e.g. Baroque, or Early Music) have a clearly defined purpose.

I also recommend (but not for melancholy as such) this recording of Mozart's Requiem. This kind of work is infact a "death mass", or "religious mass for death", and this work of his is extremely powerful. In some sections, I can almost imagine souls in heaven and hell, it is such visual music, brilliantly written only by someone so stark raving mad as Mozart could be.

The musicianship and recording is simply mind-blowing, vocal work is stunningly powerful. A must-have.

My favourite sections for example:

Track 3 - "III. Sequenz 1. Dies Irae (Allegro assal)": the singing drives this movement entirely imo. A crushingly powerful wall of soprano voices supported by their tenors crying to heaven:

"King of majesty tremendous,
Who dost free salvation send us,
Found of pity, then defend us".

It is so powerful, it reduces me to tears almost every time. You cant do anything but sit back in awe, it's THAT fucking amazing. Music at its purest and most uncomprimisingly powerful best.

Track 7 - "III. Sequenz 5. Confutatis (Andante)", a thunderous, super-tight, almost galloping movement of the deeper strings, with heralding trumpets and booming kettle drums. Fucking dark as hell.

As you can tell by my babble above, you just must buy this CD. It's too fucking good to not own.

I am listening to this piece right now, although I didn't purchase this particular performance. I have gotten the Karl Bohm recording. So far this is extremely satisfying, very beautiful music, and very EPIC. And this is my first time listening to this type of work. I was thinking that I might start on the right track which I think I am by listening to something as good as this. Also, I might have to listen strictly to Classical works for a while so I can better appreciate it Anyway, thanks for the recommendation

 

[Hubster]

Well done!

Keep in mind with this work to check out the libretto, it makes a difference to the music's impact on you.

 

[metal_wrath]

Yeah, I usually prefer to know atleast some of the lyrics when I listen to music. Anyway, cheers

 

[Hubster]

Well I am rapt: my continuing obsession with Early Music has yielded a book which finally landed in the letterbox today. It cost me almost a $100, but god is it worth it. I now have some of the most detailed literature on this instrument in the form of this very hard to find book.

Very happy.

 

[Lothlorien]

Well I am rapt: my continuing obsession with Early Music has yielded a book which finally landed in the letterbox today. It cost me almost a $100, but god is it worth it. I now have some of the most detailed literature on this instrument in the form of this very hard to find book.

Very happy.

very nice my friend.