Any Bach/Beethoven "Equals" In The Here And Now?

[Quasimodem]

As in the 21st century.

As I write, I am listening to "Pandora", my on-line Bach/Beethoven/Mozart/Lizst/Shubert/Strauss/Tchaikovsky (and yes) Wagner-created "radio stations" and was just wondering this.

Does anyone know, or are these masters all we're going to get?

"The De-Composing Composers"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkRXTT-15WM

Thanks!

Quasi

[fusoya]

Things just ain't the same in the 21st century. Back in B, B & B's days, you couldn't just put on a CD or ipod if you wanted to listen to music. You actually had to go out and see it performed live. Since there was no at-home alternative (and if there was, it was renting out a chamber orchestra for parties, or else playing your OWN music if you were a competent performer), people were more apt to go out and see music performed, thus a demand for this music to be performed. For Bach especially, who was always being sponsored by various churches which had a built in audience each Sunday.

And of course, at least until Franz Liszt came along, the concept of a "rock concert" (or even the rock genre) had not been invented yet, so composers either wrote for the styles which were big at the time, or tried to create their own sub-genres. Now that Rock/Rap/Techno/etc are bigger in the 21st century, THOSE are the genres where the artists/composers are making it big, and it's really hard to compare the likes of Lady GaGa or Coldplay to the masters who existed in another time period, but they also don't have to work QUITE as hard to make it big either.

Really, the only close comparison you have are movie composers, like Howard Shore & John Williams. But while I enjoy their music, I still couldn't compare them to the likes of the "classical masters"

[Saintly Loser]

I'm not so sure about fusoya's claim that movie composers are the only comparison. There are 21st century classical composers, plenty of them, and their music is being performed. They're not being heard by as wide an audience as the movie score composers, but then Bach's music wasn't either -- most people listed to what we'd call folk music today, rather than concerts of Bach's music.

How about John Adams, Elliott Carter, Steve Reich, Lucas Foss (OK, he died earlier this year), Gyorgy Ligeti (also recently deceased), Charles Wuorinen, Bright Sheng? Not to mention Pierre Boulez. All twenty-first century composers. Those are just the ones who come to mind immediately. There are plenty more, and if I were to extend the list to late twentieth-century composers, it would go on for pages. Time will tell if any of them are remembered like Bach or Beethoven. Ligeti might, although his music isn't as accessible. Adams has considerable popular sucess (by the standards of classical music). For sure some will be remembered like Schubert or Strauss (either Strauss).

[Eugene of Sandwich]

As to the OP, I've had this exact same thought before. I'm sure there are people out there composing great music. Maybe Yo Yo or Edwin could help us. For that matter, who are the great concert pianists of our day?

All the best, Gene.

[MacSpon]

I've often suspected that the orchestral music from this period that will still be played 200 years from now, will be film music.

[infinitii]

Terry Riley is one major name missing from Saintly Loser's list. I would also include John Zorn, but some would argue with me.

I'm a big fan of the Kronos Quartet, and they play stuff from modern composers all the time. Even though they only play string quartets, it is helpful to look at people that have composed for them and explore those composers further.

By the by Eugene, Stephen Drury is a big name in piano.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I think the enduring composers are not going to come from the classical forms, but from jazz, pop and rock.

I think the single most enduring modern composers will end up being Lennon/McCartney. Those are the songs that will still have the same familiarity in 200 years that "Ode to Joy" has to us now.

[fjs1fs]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I think the enduring composers are not going to come from the classical forms, but from jazz, pop and rock.

I think the single most enduring modern composers will end up being Lennon/McCartney. Those are the songs that will still have the same familiarity in 200 years that "Ode to Joy" has to us now.

I thought this was the obvious answer too, Diogenes. In fact, 400 years from now, Lennon/Mccartney will be the "classical composers," ahead of Beethoven, Bach et al.

[BrotherCadfael]

This quote is unfortunately all to apt:

Kirk: You mean the profanity? That's simply the way they talk here. Nobody pays attention to you unless you swear every other word. You'll find it in all the literature of the period.

Spock: For example?

Kirk: Oh the neglected works of Jacqueline Susan. The novels of Harold Robbins...

Spock: Ah. The Giants.

[Sage Rat]

Yamashiro Shoji

[Quasimodem]

Excellent comments from everyone, thanks!

I had not given any thought to Lennon-McCartney, but yes, I agree, they will be the "classical composers" 200 years hence, fjs1fs!

And thanks for typing quotes around those two words!

Quasi

(who absolutely loves symphonic tone poems!)

[thirdname]

There's one episode of Futurama where Fry is living in a historical 20th-century style apartment listening to Baby Got Back by Sir Mix-a-Lot.

Leela: "Fry, you cant just sit around all day in your underwear listening to classical music!"

[Saintly Loser]

Originally Posted by infinitii

Terry Riley is one major name missing from Saintly Loser's list. I would also include John Zorn, but some would argue with me.

I'm a big fan of the Kronos Quartet, and they play stuff from modern composers all the time. Even though they only play string quartets, it is helpful to look at people that have composed for them and explore those composers further.

By the by Eugene, Stephen Drury is a big name in piano.

I'm a big fan of Kronos too, although once in a while they delve a little too deep into the pop catalogue. With their technical chops, it seems like shooting fish in a barrel -- a bit of a waste.

I don't know Terry Riley's music -- I'll have to look into that. Thanks for the tip!

As to Zorn, sorry, I'm one of those who'd argue with you.

[Saintly Loser]

Originally Posted by Quasimodem

I had not given any thought to Lennon-McCartney, but yes, I agree, they will be the "classical composers" 200 years hence, fjs1fs!

They won't be the "classical composers" 200 years from now. They will be remembered (and listened to) as great pop composers, much as Lerner and Lowe and Rogers and Hammerstein and Stephen Sondheim are listened to now. And there's no shame in that. Pop is not something lesser than classical music, it's just a different genre. Parallel tracks. Once in a blue moon you get someone who works both sides of the street (Mark O'Connor comes to mind, although he won't be remembered as a great classical composer), but it's rare. Eric Satie, maybe. Leonard Bernstein, certainly.

[II Gyan II]

Originally Posted by fjs1fs

I thought this was the obvious answer too, Diogenes. In fact, 400 years from now, Lennon/Mccartney will be the "classical composers," ahead of Beethoven, Bach et al.

Are you saying there will be no greater composers in the interim? After all, Monteverdi or Palestrina aren't the most popular classical composers today. And if you're suggesting that Lennon's better than Beethoven, I'll... refrains self. I think the Beatles owe their contemporary endurance to a greater extent to their recency and being a phenomena in living history; that and the whole mass media/television thing, and also my bias that vocal music that relies even partly on the lyrics for their appeal, needs extra timeless oomph to retain favor. 400 years hence, the playing field will be a lot more leveled out (although not completely, there'll still be video archives of the Beatles vs. none for classical composers, apocalypse(s) notwithstanding). Contemporary popularity is a tenuous thing: Rossini was more popular than Beethoven during their common lifetime. Today, not even close.

P.S. This reminds me, on Star Trek TNG, whenever they showed an on-screen musical performance, it was always classical music. I used to wonder, did that civilization lose all memory of music post-1800? No reference to the great songwriters of the 2100s? No contemporary music? I know, royalties & licensing & lack of imagination..etc

[Diogenes the Cynic]

If anything is remembered of 20th century popular music in 400 years, it will be the Beatles. No modern classical composers will be remembered. It's an anachronistic and used up genre. Some Jazz composers could survive (Duke Ellington, maybe), or semi-classical/pop hybrids like Gerschwin. It's going to be the rock that really endures, though.

[Saintly Loser]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

If anything is remembered of 20th century popular music in 400 years, it will be the Beatles. No modern classical composers will be remembered. It's an anachronistic and used up genre. Some Jazz composers could survive (Duke Ellington, maybe), or semi-classical/pop hybrids like Gerschwin. It's going to be the rock that really endures, though.

Classical music is an anachronistic and used-up genre? You're simply wrong. If your only knowledge of the classical music scene wherever you live is yet more performances of the standard repertoire (Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms, Mahler, etc.), I can see why you might think that, but there is a live, active scene of new music being composed and performed, and it has quite a following. Not like pop music, of course, but then classical music never had the following that pop (or folk, or whatever) did in its day. Most people in the 18th century weren't lining up for performances of Bach's music, they were listening to the popular music of their time, at home, performed by friends and relatives. Now, with recording technology, pop has become the dominant form of music, but the other stuff hasn't exactly gone away.

And reputations come and go. For a while after his death, Bach's (by whom I'm assuming everyone here means J.S. Bach) reputation was eclipsed by that of his son, J.C. Bach. Nobody thought he'd be remembered much either, except maybe as the father of J.C. Bach and perhaps as a performer, but not as a composer. It wasn't until maybe 80 years after his death that his music was revived and his greatness was appreciated, eclipsing in turn (unfortunately) J.C. Bach's reputation.

Pierre Boulez's concerts of modern classical music can still fill Avery Fisher Hall (and presumably others around the world). John Adams' operas (especially Nixon in China) pack opera houses. David Del Tredici's neo-romantic style wins him regular commissions from major orchestras, and his accessible, tonal style makes him quite popular among those who reject "academic" music. While Gyorgy Ligeti's work isn't quite as accessible, or popular, he will be remembered as a great innovator, like Schoeberg or Webern.

Classical music isn't anachronistic or used up, not by a long shot.

[WordMan]

I like all the names cited for modern composers working in the classical instrumentation palate and agree that they illustrate how the medium is still moving forward. By the way, if you haven't read Hallelujah Junction by John Adams - a memoir of his work and life as a composer - I would recommend it.

I also agree with posters who assert that the Beatles will endure - I would add Louis Armstrong, Sinatra, Miles Davis, Elvis, Dylan and a few others, but agree on the basics. And yeah, Rock will be a chapter in the classical music canon in due time...(link to previous thread)


Here's the question, to me: classical music, in the classic Back-to-Beethoven sense, was about setting up and exploring the deep harmonic structures available with complex instrumentation. Bach's work defined the basic harmonic structure - his Well-Tempered Clavier was an assertion that Well Tempering was the standard all Western music should adopt. We ended up with Even Tempering but the beginning of this was Bach. His WTC was written to show the how contrapuntal melodic lines could interweave to create deeper harmonic structures - especially if a standard tempering was adopted and keyboards didn't have to be tuned to specific keys.

Beethoven took deep, complex harmonic structures to a Golden Age extreme. He works the different voices within a symphony the way a master chef combines spices. The fact that the individual voices are so finely wrought within the whole is amazing - each instrument is a fine thread but the full work is a complex tapestry that he controls.

So - in today's era, what exactly is a deep harmonic structure? I humbly, and provocatively, offer an illustrative counterpoint: The Ramones. The Wall of Sound distortion coming out of Johnny Ramone's guitar - and I use Wall of Sound consciouslyy, since Tommy Ramone who co-produced their first album was trying to emulate a Phil Spector sound - well, it *has* deep, harmonic structures. They were using layers of harmonic distortion, not layers of individual instrumentation, but the effect is there. And that is just an extreme example - look at the studio work of the Beatles, again, or Pink Floyd - there's tons of deep harmonic structure in there.

Or another key musician who stands up to the classics: James Brown. If you don't appreciate what the Godfather of Soul, the Progenitor of Funk, the Hardest Working Man in Show Business, etc., brings to rhythmic and harmonic complexity, well...

So - what are new and interesting ways to explore music structures and complexity? What about Beck - his mash-up, paste-up songs done with the production team The Dust Brothers are really interesting, too...

Just thinking out loud...

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

Originally Posted by WordMan

Beethoven took deep, complex harmonic structures to a Golden Age extreme.

So - in today's era, what exactly is a deep harmonic structure? I humbly, and provocatively, offer an illustrative counterpoint: The Ramones.

Are you deliberately paraphrasing the music teacher from 'Rock n Roll High School'?

[WordMan]

Originally Posted by Le Ministre de l'au-delà

Are you deliberately paraphrasing the music teacher from 'Rock n Roll High School'?

Nah - I haven't see that movie in 25 years - PJ Soules never did anything for me... Remind me, what did he say?

And, more importantly, because you are a "music guy" (that's the technical phrase, btw) whaddya think about my post? Any issues with my trying to connect different approaches to obtaining harmonic richness?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally Posted by WordMan

Nah - I haven't see that movie in 25 years - PJ Soules never did anything for me... Remind me, what did he say?

And, more importantly, because you are a "music guy" (that's the technical phrase, btw) whaddya think about my post? Any issues with my trying to connect different approaches to obtaining harmonic richness?

It might sound off the wall, but listen to the intro on Metallica's "Battery." Tell me it doesn't sound like Beethoven when the electrics kick in. Cliff Burton contributed an ingenious harmonic sensibility (largely intuitive, I think, but he was the only member of the band with any formal training in theory, so he knew what he was doing) to Metallica's songwriting that they never got back after he died ("Orion" is another great example).

[WordMan]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

It might sound off the wall, but listen to the intro on Metallica's "Battery." Tell me it doesn't sound like Beethoven when the electrics kick in. Cliff Burton contributed an ingenious harmonic sophistication to Metallica's songwriting that they never got back after he died ("Orion" is another great example).

I believe it - hafta go back to my copy of MoP and give it a listen...

There's a guy named Mark Kozelek who was in a band called the Red House Painters and is now working as Sun Kil Moon - he has a CD called Ghosts of the Great Highway. Real Neil Young-ish, Americana-alt-country type stuff. Well, he has a couple of tracks where the distortion off the guitar is used as a color wash underneath the sound and it just sounds....dreamy, atmospheric and harmonically rich. There's a link here to the Amazon listing, but tracks 3 and 8, where I think this effect is used, don't really showcase that sound on the samples...but when I think about how distortion can be used as harmonic thickness, I think of those songs and actually Nirvana's track Territorial Pissings....

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

Originally Posted by Eugene of Sandwich

For that matter, who are the great concert pianists of our day?

Lang Lang is the first name that comes to mind.

[Saintly Loser]

Originally Posted by WordMan

So - in today's era, what exactly is a deep harmonic structure? I humbly, and provocatively, offer an illustrative counterpoint: The Ramones. The Wall of Sound distortion coming out of Johnny Ramone's guitar - and I use Wall of Sound consciouslyy, since Tommy Ramone who co-produced their first album was trying to emulate a Phil Spector sound - well, it *has* deep, harmonic structures. They were using layers of harmonic distortion, not layers of individual instrumentation, but the effect is there. And that is just an extreme example - look at the studio work of the Beatles, again, or Pink Floyd - there's tons of deep harmonic structure in there.

I'm a huge fan of the Ramones. I loved the Ramones. I'm old enough to have seen them regularly at CBGBs thirty years ago. But "deep harmonic structures?" None of them could have told you the first thing about harmony. Pushing a guitar and amp into distortion and seeing which harmonics are emphasized by the amp more or less at random isn't exactly the same as exploring harmonic structures in the way that, say, Stravinsky or Webern or Reich or Wuorinen (to name a few who do, to my mind, really interesting things with harmony) did.

Like I said above, parallel tracks. Pop composers and performers are doing one thing (and sometimes it's sheer genius, as was the case with the Ramones), and classical composers are doing another thing altogether. And very rarely do the two meet.

Classical music is not dead. It's alive and well. And pop composers, like Lennon and McCartney, or the Ramones, are not successors to Beethoven or Bach. I suppose one could make an argument that some (Lennon and McCartney, maybe) are successors to, for example, Dowling, or even Schubert, at least as far as his lieder stuff goes, but that's about it.

[E-Sabbath]

What about Trent Reznor or Radiohead? They are, technically, pop, but they _are_ composers.
Reznor's 'Ghosts' is a heck of a thing.
http://ghosts.nin.com/main/home

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

Originally Posted by WordMan

Nah - I haven't see that movie in 25 years - PJ Soules never did anything for me... Remind me, what did he say?

I saw this film at least 30 years ago at the drive in, but one of the sub-plots was the music teacher was insisting that the class listen to Beethoven all the time. They would all fall asleep and groan, or be bored. Then the music teacher was forced to listen to The Ramones because one of the students played it over the school's PA. He had an epiphany of Pauline proportions, and at the end of the movie, he said to the tall, cadaverous one (Joey?) "You, sir, are truly the Beethovens of today." to which the Ramone in question mumbled "Thanks, man."

This was the first time I had heard the Ramones at all, and my aesthetic was firmly rooted in the ELP, Yes, Genesis, Mahavishnu school. I distinctly remember an entire car full of Prog Rock boys simultaneously retching in their mouths at that line because we had spent the entire movie loathing the soundtrack.

I've come to have an appreciation of The Ramones, but I wouldn't say much more than that about them.

And, more importantly, because you are a "music guy" (that's the technical phrase, btw) whaddya think about my post? Any issues with my trying to connect different approaches to obtaining harmonic richness?

Oh, my God, does this ever have 'Big Can of Worms' written all over it in letters a dog could read, and on the weekend of Hallowe'en!! I'll try to post something later, but I make no guarantees until the weekend is over...

Everyone reading this thread ought to check out Nicholas Slonimsky's "The Lexicon of Musical Invective", by the way. It is a collection of reviews from Beethoven's time up to the date of publication, and it is fascinating to see how composers who were at one time trashed by the musical cognoscenti were later held up as examples of how it should sound.

Some excerpts from the Beethoven section -

"Beethoven's Second Symphony is a crass monster, a hideously writhing wounded dragon, that refuses to expire, and though bleeding in the Finale, furiously beets about with its tail erect." Zeitung fuer die Elegente Welt, Vienna, May 1804

"Beethoven's compositions more and more assume the character of studied eccentricity. He does not write much now, but most of what he produces is so impenetrably obscure in design and so full of unaccountable and often repulsive harmonies, that he puzzles the critic as much as he perplexes the performer." The Harmonicon, London, April 1824

"I confess freely that I could never get any enjoyment out of Beethoven's last works. Yes, I must include among them even the much-admired Ninth Symphony, the fourth movement of which seems to me so ugly, in such bad taste, and in the conception of Schiller's Ode so cheap that I cannot even now understand how such a genius as Beethoven could write it down. I find in it another corroboration of what I had noticed already in Vienna, that Beethoven was deficient in esthetic imagery and lacked the sense of beauty." Louis Spohr, Selbstbiographie, Cassel, 1861

So even in his day, and not long after, Beethoven was not universally as highly as we regard him today.

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

P. D. Q. Bach - Beethoven's 5th.

[II Gyan II]

Originally Posted by Le Ministre de l'au-delà

So even in his day, and not long after, Beethoven was not universally as highly as we regard him today.

Beethoven was never universally revered. And that 4th movement of the 9th has divided musicologists from ever, and which hasn't changed. So your quotes don't really indicate your point. Besides, if you read encyclopedic entries on him from editions within the last 100 years, you'll see a toning down of reverence rather than the other way around, although I suspect that has a lot to do with evolution of prose guidelines in (pseudo-)academic works.

[panache45]

The question could be asked . . . and variously answered . . . about any art form. Who is today's Michelangelo or Rodin? Who is today's Rembrandt or Van Gogh? Who is today's Shakespeare or Ibsen? Who is today's Byron or Whitman?

Art forms evolve, and the measure of greatness evolves as well. We cannot judge the present by the standards of the past. And the standards of the present are too new to have any validity.

[Quasimodem]

Who is today's Tom Sawyer?

SORRY, panache45!!!!!!

I just couldn't resist!

Quasi

[WordMan]

Originally Posted by panache45

The question could be asked . . . and variously answered . . . about any art form. Who is today's Michelangelo or Rodin? Who is today's Rembrandt or Van Gogh? Who is today's Shakespeare or Ibsen? Who is today's Byron or Whitman?

Art forms evolve, and the measure of greatness evolves as well. We cannot judge the present by the standards of the past. And the standards of the present are too new to have any validity.

I think this is at the heart of it. But Saintly Loser - while I agree with your basic point - the deep harmonic structures of classical music are far more intentionally and intricately wrought, but a cloud of harmonic distortion coming out of an amp, regardless of how it was created, is no less...valid...as a form of harmonic richness. Jackson Pollack flung paint and folks still argue that their kid could do it but by now most critics agree that there is an artistic statement happening...

And Le Ministre - too funny; I didn't recall that, but I sure get your first post now...

[tavalla]

I will sneak in here and give my plug for Henryk Gorecki, who is an absolutely magnificent symphonic composer. Listen to his Miserere - it is stunning and every time I listen to it, it moves me.

[Saintly Loser]

Originally Posted by WordMan

I think this is at the heart of it. But Saintly Loser - while I agree with your basic point - the deep harmonic structures of classical music are far more intentionally and intricately wrought, but a cloud of harmonic distortion coming out of an amp, regardless of how it was created, is no less...valid...as a form of harmonic richness. Jackson Pollack flung paint and folks still argue that their kid could do it but by now most critics agree that there is an artistic statement happening...

And Le Ministre - too funny; I didn't recall that, but I sure get your first post now...

The cloud of harmonic distortion coming out of an amp is indeed a form of harmonic richness, and perfectly valid as such. But it can only be judged on its own terms. It's a mistake, I think, to judge pop by the same standards by which we judge classical music. Or jazz. As I said above, I think the Ramones were fantastic. Absolute genius. They wedded '60s pop of the Phil Spector variety to New York's punk scene in an absolutely unique way.

That said, it's not the same thing that classical (modern classical) composers are doing. I think there's a tendency, sometimes, to say of our musical heros that they are just as great, just as complex, etc., as someone from some other, purportedly more respected genre. And that does them a disservice. Joey and Johnny could never do what Ligeti did. But then can you imagine Ligeti on the stage at 3:00 AM at CBGB's blasting out 90-second tunes about glue-sniffing and sedation to a pogoing crowd? Nope. Like I said, parallel tracks, and not comparable. The comparison doesn't do either genre justice.

I mean, probably my favorite accoustic guitarist is Mississippi John Hurt. He had little, if any, grasp of musical theory. His technical ability was limited. And yet he was a genius. His playing moves me more than that of just about any other guitarist I can think of. And yet, to compare him to, say, David Starobin, would demean both of them. We don't expect Starobin to be able to deliver the emotional gut punch in three or four minutes that Hurt could. And we wouldn't expect Hurt to be able to work through a rhythmically and harmonically complex, technically extremely difficult, composition. Apples and oranges. One is not less than the other.

[WordMan]

Originally Posted by Saintly Loser

The cloud of harmonic distortion coming out of an amp is indeed a form of harmonic richness, and perfectly valid as such. But it can only be judged on its own terms. It's a mistake, I think, to judge pop by the same standards by which we judge classical music. Or jazz. As I said above, I think the Ramones were fantastic. Absolute genius. They wedded '60s pop of the Phil Spector variety to New York's punk scene in an absolutely unique way.

That said, it's not the same thing that classical (modern classical) composers are doing. I think there's a tendency, sometimes, to say of our musical heros that they are just as great, just as complex, etc., as someone from some other, purportedly more respected genre. And that does them a disservice. Joey and Johnny could never do what Ligeti did. But then can you imagine Ligeti on the stage at 3:00 AM at CBGB's blasting out 90-second tunes about glue-sniffing and sedation to a pogoing crowd? Nope. Like I said, parallel tracks, and not comparable. The comparison doesn't do either genre justice.

I mean, probably my favorite accoustic guitarist is Mississippi John Hurt. He had little, if any, grasp of musical theory. His technical ability was limited. And yet he was a genius. His playing moves me more than that of just about any other guitarist I can think of. And yet, to compare him to, say, David Starobin, would demean both of them. We don't expect Starobin to be able to deliver the emotional gut punch in three or four minutes that Hurt could. And we wouldn't expect Hurt to be able to work through a rhythmically and harmonically complex, technically extremely difficult, composition. Apples and oranges. One is not less than the other.

All good - no arguments. There are completely different criteria used when processing classical, technique-based ways to deliver music goodness vs. from-the-gut emotional wallop via music. Kinda makes it hard to compare anything. And yet it all moves us. Cool.

[mlees]

Originally Posted by II Gyan II

P.S. This reminds me, on Star Trek TNG, whenever they showed an on-screen musical performance, it was always classical music. I used to wonder, did that civilization lose all memory of music post-1800? No reference to the great songwriters of the 2100s? No contemporary music? I know, royalties & licensing & lack of imagination..etc

Riker played the sax. Occasionally they show some '40's Big Band style stuff. Data sang something from Irving Berlin at Riker/Troi's wedding.

I don't recall if they ever showed what Tom Paris listened to, but with his fixation on speed (fast cars, fast spaceships), he might prefer something more "manic" than classical.

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

If anything is remembered of 20th century popular music in 400 years, it will be the Beatles. No modern classical composers will be remembered. It's an anachronistic and used up genre. Some Jazz composers could survive (Duke Ellington, maybe), or semi-classical/pop hybrids like Gerschwin. It's going to be the rock that really endures, though.

Do you think Big Band music might be remembered 400 years from now?

[mlees]

Sorry, DtC. I now see Duke Ellington in your reply.

Did he straddle the fence between Jazz and BB? Is BB a subset of jazz?

(I am musically uneducated.)

[WordMan]

Originally Posted by mlees

Riker played the sax.

[minor nit]

Riker's a 'boner
(i.e., plays trombone, not sax...)

[/minor nit]

[mlees]

Originally Posted by WordMan

[minor nit]

Riker's a 'boner
(i.e., plays trombone, not sax...)

[/minor nit]

Thanks for the correction.

[Saintly Loser]

Originally Posted by mlees

Sorry, DtC. I now see Duke Ellington in your reply.

Did he straddle the fence between Jazz and BB? Is BB a subset of jazz?

(I am musically uneducated.)

I'd say big band music is a subset of jazz (maybe with more pop in it than, say, bop).

So yes, Ellington straddled that particular fence. Some would say that he also straddled, in his later years, the fence between classical and jazz, with his Sacred Concerts. I had the pleasure, some years ago, of seeing some of this music performed at the Cathedral of St. John the Divine, in New York, along with other modern classical music, including some of Lucas Foss' work. Mr. Foss himself played piano for his piece (if I remember right, it was Time Cycle).

[mlees]

Ok, thanks. For some reason, I assumed Big Band and Jazz were classified as more discrete than similar styles.

[Saintly Loser]

Originally Posted by Saintly Loser

I'd say big band music is a subset of jazz (maybe with more pop in it than, say, bop).

I want to elaborate on this a bit. There's a lot of variety in big band music. There was Glenn Miller, for example, who was on the pop side (and String of Pearls is one of my favorite tunes). Ellington, a bit less so. The Goodman band could play pop stuff with the best of them, but the subsets of the Goodman band were pretty hardcore jazz, especially when Charlie Christian was included. And Goodman himself could play classical music quite well when he wanted to (I believe he recorded Haydn's Trumpet Concerto, as did Wynton Marsalis).