What Bach piece is this?

You know what's annoying about classical music? How people think that just because its "artistic" and has rigid theoretical underpinnings, that it is somehow better than other music. It's just one tradition, not that different from any other.

This isn't directed at anyone in this thread or even on this forum, its just an attitude I've seen way too much of around, from academia to popular art-music magazines to webforums, etc.
 
Demilich said:
You know what's annoying about classical music? How people think that just because its "artistic" and has rigid theoretical underpinnings, that it is somehow better than other music. It's just one tradition, not that different from any other.

This isn't directed at anyone in this thread or even on this forum, its just an attitude I've seen way too much of around, from academia to popular art-music magazines to webforums, etc.
I totally agree... doesn't change the fact though that some classical absolutely destroys (like this piece)
 
The reasoning i think is that it takes so much more effort and work to compose a piece of "classical" music. You have to have a significant understanding of the tonality of the instruments you use, the capabilities of each instrument, as well as the interactions between the instruments. Beyond that, writing orchestral pieces or arranging for an entire symphony is an extremely difficult task because you have to write music for, say, 50 different people. Of course some parts are the same, but it's a daunting task. Did you also ever wonder why most classical composers don't really come to be until they are older? Something tells me the learning curve is a bit longer and flatter than it is for, say, metal.

Another reason for this idea that classical is "better" is that there are no production "tricks" which make it interesting. The general sonic qualities of every piece are quite similar, and have been for hundreds of years. In popular music, the "sound" is often as much a part of the songwriting, and technology/production is always changing and growing, and often times that is what keeps the music interesting. Something that "sounds" new, often intrigues us enough for that to be the reason we initially start listening to it. Classical doesn't have this "cheap trick" appeal.

One other thing i think can be said is that so much of what is out there is borrowed from classical, or was already done in classical first. Sure, not the "sound" of pieces of music, but if you were to examine the tonality and progressions of a piece of music from nearly any other style, you'll see it's been done long before in the world of classical. There are exceptions (i don't remember ever hearing "bluesy" classical) but in general this tends to be the case.

I'm not really an expert on the subject, but i think there are a lot of valid reasons people have for holding classical in higher regard than most other music. It takes a lot more long-term dedication to really learn how to compose that way, and to me that in itself is an indication that those who can are more talented than your average 20-something metal musician.
 
Alex78 said:
however, you'll grow out of metal, but you'll not grow out of classical music. that's the experience I made

Indeed, i've never heard of someone "leaving" classical. I think part of this comes from that whole "sonic quality" thing... once you're over the "wow this is so distorted" or "that growl was sick" or other simply aethetic things, you realize the songwriting just isn't that good. :p
 
I was in the middle of writing up some kind of point by point refutation of your post, but reconsidered part way through.

What gets me is, people think that classical theory is how music SHOULD be composed. This is just one tradition which evolved out of the folk/traditional/popular music of the early Common Era. Yes, it is a rigorous, involved process with a daunting learning curve. This serves to keep the dregs of society out in some respect, and this sort of this attitude is taken up by all kinds of musical theorists.

What it comes down to for me is that the rules of classical music seem so forced and contrived, so limiting. I can accept the outstanding, diverse accomplishments within this sphere, but what I disdain is the elitism that so often goes along with it.

Why not make non-classical music just as serious an endeavor as classical? To many people, the process is no less demanding. I'm not implying that you're one of the people I'm criticizing, just expressing dissatisfaction with an attitude I've seen out there.
 
Demilich said:
What it comes down to for me is that the rules of classical music seem so forced and contrived, so limiting.

hmm... have you listened to any classical post-1850? :p these "rules" have long since dissapeared from existance. The only limit i can think of to classical music is the instrumentation, which even still has been challenged to an extent by people like Iannis Xenakis.

I agree with a lot of your points, but there are no limits to the songwriting in classical music, and any percieved limits have more to do with instrumentation (ie no distorted guitars) than anything to do with the notes or dynamics used.
 
Well first of all, I don't know when any of the classical music I've heard is from, or even who composed it. I'm basing that part of my stance on whats been written by a few particular people. Essentially, I know what's out there in terms of classical music in the 21st century, but I find that rigid classicist attitude still permeates a lot of circles. Innovators, from Schoenberg to the most avant garde modernists of today, aren't all thats out there, and they surely aren't my focus in the above post.

I'm very keen to start actually listening to classical music, but haven't gotten around to it yet. What I do know about the limitations of classical theory comes partly from my own experience and training in classical music theory, as I took lessons for a few years. This stuff was taught to me from 1998-2001, so I'm sure its relevance extends a bit beyond 1850. The limitations are still there.
 
Demilich said:
I'm very keen to start actually listening to classical music, but haven't gotten around to it yet. What I do know about the limitations of classical theory comes partly from my own experience and training in classical music theory, as I took lessons for a few years. This stuff was taught to me from 1998-2001, so I'm sure its relevance extends a bit beyond 1850. The limitations are still there.

of course, harmonic theory is still important to know... but i am not quite sure i understand how it is still considered a limit... It's like saying metal is still limited by power chords because that's what i was learning when i picked up guitar... Either way, everything that has been written (in terms of harmonics) can be explained using the theory derived from classical. Everything in metal, everything in rock, everything! It's more used as a way of explaining what is going on rather than writing music to fit in with certain modes/progressions.

I'm not trying to be your arch nemesis here, even if it seems that way, and i DON'T consider classical to be the "best" music (i don't consider any music the best, as each style has something unique to offer that is exclusive to that genre and it would be foolish not to recognize this, and thus, use that genre for that specific thing), but i definitely understand why there is this elitism about it.
 
Well yeah, I can understand why there is an elitism about it, for sure, I just don't find that those reasons actually justify the attitude.

As for harmony, that was part of what I was getting at. Many musical traditions of cultures around the world have developed without harmony/polyphony/euphony for thousands of years. Maybe all music that incorporates these notions can be understood in terms of classical music, but that doesn't say much for music in which harmonic interplay isn't valued. To a rigid classicist, lack of harmony might be seen as a sign of inferiority because its been one of the foundations of the development of European classical/art-music for hundreds of years. That's the thing I'd like to get away from. Essentially, I want a completely free musical enviornment where there's no glorification of certain compositional techniques (euphonic harmony for example) and dismissal of others. Maybe this isn't as much of a problem as I percieve it to be, in which case I might have wasted some time writing this stuff out. But it's all just food for thought in the end.
 
I was reading alllllllllll the post here, some intersting stuff. Alot of good points . Interestingly we were talking about Schoenberg in my music appreciation today. Personally I love classical music, particularly the Romantic Era. I am a big fan of Opera too. And I LOVE Metal!!!....and combing all 3 would be awsome in my opinion. :) But its a matter of preferance when it comes to certain music....or anything else in life.