I should add that to me, no other piece of music has the emotional or spiritual significance as “A Love Supreme” by John Coltrane. I think that would stand up to any classical composer.
Yeah, maybe to “snob” and “snarky” you should add “inexplicable.” Would be cool to actually discuss why you have your opinion, seeing as how this a discussion forum and all.
What makes Bethovan or Mozart so much better than say, some random musical score for the summer action movie composed by Hans Zimmer? If we spent 200 years telling people that the score to Gladiator is “high art” I’m sure most people wouldn’t know the diference.
For popular music, most of it, if not outright sucking, has a very short shelf life. Some band produces a hit, it gets played to death on MTV and the radio until everone is sick of it, disappears for a few years, and then becomes a nostalgic staple for twenty and thirty somethings to listen to in the background of the local bar duri. If they are really lucky, it becomes the next “Sweet Caroline” or “Margarittaville” where generation after generation of sorority girls drunkenly scream some variation of the words at college mixers.
Wait around: in a hundred years, there will be stuff from this era that has stood the test of time. I don’t think you mean great works that parallel the styles of the artists you mention–there’s no going backward, especially by truly great artists–but, though time may prove me wrong, I believe Gehry’s Guggenheim in Bilbao will stand the test of time, like Penn Station. The Taj Mahals will be fewer and farther between: it was built by a megalomaniacal and impassioned monarch with unlimited resources and slave labor.
[QUOTE=msmith537]
What makes Bethovan or Mozart so much better than say, some random musical score for the summer action movie composed by Hans Zimmer? If we spent 200 years telling people that the score to Gladiator is “high art” I’m sure most people wouldn’t know the diference.
[QUOTE]
I was just about to add a related comment: some art forms just die out; or we lose the interest/ability.
Sculpting in marble: the Greeks were good at it, then it went dormant for 1000 years; came back in the Renaissance, then died out again.
Portrait painting: has anybody improved on the Dutch masters?
Composing for orchestra: been going downhill for 150 years. People still try it, but no one (relatively speaking) will pay to hear a modern symphony unless there’s something classical also on the bill. But it can be said that the best orhcestral compositions are being done for movie scores. Just a different form of the same medium.
To hell with music, it’s this blatant slur on video gaming that’s got my dander up!
Seriously, video gaming is possibly the only narrative-based artform where sequels routinely exceed the originals in terms of quality. And there are a hell of a lot of great games still coming out. It’s just that, almost over night, the market demand for video games exploded, and supply still hasn’t quite caught up, so along with all the great games which have consistently been coming out all along, there’s a double helping of total crap on the shelves along with it.
Well, okay 
Keeping in mind that I actually do like Yoko Kanno, Therion, Opeth etc. - I just don’t think they represent a particularly “high” form of art, so to speak. But then, I don’t think that they’re intended to be art, but rather they’re intended to be entertainment, and in that aim I think they can succeed marvelously. In the same way, in my college days I often found myself defending A.L. Webber’s work, whose music my profs delighted in ridiculing as saccharine and derivative. And while I don’t actually disagree with that assessment, I find it somewhat unfair insofar as Webber was an entertainer first and foremost and so wasn’t necessarily trying to create artistic musical statements, but rather entertaining ones. But, anyway…
Yoko Kanno, (keeping in mind that I’m only really familiar with her Escaflowne, Gundam, videogame, Song to Fly and some of her Cowboy Bebep work), has never struck me as more than the work of a talented craftsman. Her compositions can be fun, but they’re often of little musical consequence; she largely relies upon conventional orchestrations and her pieces (like the work of most film composers) contain many pleasant ideas which are rarely expanded on or developed. The concept of a “musical essay” on a particular thematic idea is largely absent from Kanno’s work, and the result is that her pieces can be somewhat shallow with little to offer in repeat listenings. And like many composers for media her work has a tendancy to be a bit derivative- Dance of Curse from the Escaflowne soundtrack is a good example of this, a very thinly veiled “O Fortuna” clone to say the least. Song to fly can be delightfully quirky though.
Therion was the other band I mentioned. My experience with them is Vovin, Deggial and Secret of the Runes. For one thing, the overall composition is often very simplistic. The choirs only rarely have something other than unison voicings, the harmonies tend to be basic circle of fifths progressions, and the “classical” parts (for instance the opening to Raven of Dispersion) rarely rise above the level of cliche. Their works are can be repetitive (such as The Rise of Sodom and Gomorrah, which has the same plodding guitar riff going for most of the song) or formally incoherent (such as Via Nocturna). And like Yoko Kanno, development of musical ideas is a concept seemingly foreign to them.
But like I said, I do enjoy listening to both at times. Likewise, I’m rather partial to those nifty “party pizzas”, but I don’t think they represent high cuisine. So, you know, YMMV- just because I don’t think they’re capital “A” art doesn’t mean that they’re not.
hehe, oops :smack: One of many mistakes, I’m sure.
Because the good old songs keep getting replay, over decades. The really lousy ones are blissfully forgotten. So, from where we sit, it all seems to have been so wonderful, so long ago. And most of this new stuff is crap.
Most of the old stuff was crap, too. But we don’t think about that.
Tris
Threads like this one are the reason I not only don’t read Cafe Society, but deliberately avoid it. Unfortunately the thread titles under the “last post” column draw me in from time to time.
If this thread were about art, I don’t think we would have anybody saying, “My six-year-old niece’s scribblings are the most poignant thing I’ve ever seen. Some people may prefer Renoir, and that’s fine, but really, it’s just a matter of personal preference.”
No one says this, because people naturally respect the great works of art. Unfortunately the same respect is hard to find toward other fields, such as literature and music.
The notion that anyone who considers classical music “better” than pop, rock, etc. is a “snob” is as well-founded as the notion that anyone who reads a lot is a “geek”. Classical music is not just superior to pop and rock; it is a completely different world, with different ends and different means.
Here’s an amazing fact for ya. Did you know that people actually write books and essays on classical music? I don’t just mean a book about “The life and works of W. A. Mozart” or some discussion about the stylistic trends of the late eighteenth century, though those do exist. I mean works that take a piece of music and analyze it. A writer may dwell on a three-line passage for five pages, observing all its subtleties and intricacies. Or he may outline the tonal structure of a work, and discuss various passages in support of some broader thesis. They really do this.
But here’s an even more amazing fact. Did you know that people actually buy these books? And read them? For pleasure?? It really happens. Because for some people, music is more than just an instrument for manipulating the emotions. It is an intellectual pursuit, absorbing the mind as well as the emotions.
To quote one writer whose name I’ve forgotten: Just “knowing the tune” to Eine Kleine Nachtmusik tells you no more about Mozart than knowing the line “we all live in a yellow submarine” tells you anything worth a damn about the Beatles.
Now some of you may object to this, and understandably so, because the emotional side of music is all you’ve ever known. But rather than acknowledge that there are elements beyond your understanding, you resort to the old fallacy that “what I do not understand is not worth understanding.”
Get some humility and learn to acknowledge things that are beyond your erudition, whether it be music or literature or science or philosophy.
And Claire de Lune sucks.
And no one who had any understanding of art would claim that it ceased with Renoir, or that everything since Michaelangelo has been strictly downhill. Nor would anyone who could read claim that nothing significant’s been written since Shakespeare. I don’t know why you’d make a similar claim about music. Or are you trying to counteract someone’s argument that their neice’s bangings on a xylophone were superior to Beethoven? I haven’t seen that notion advanced in this thread; could you find the quote?
Yes, it’s different. I wouldn’t call anyone who considered it superior to all other forms of music to be a snob; I’d consider them to have revealed their own ignorance, and rather stunningly so.
Again, but perhaps you’re unaware that the same can be said for other forms of music? Although I pity the pale, friendless sort who would rather read about Mozart or Coltrane rather than listen to them.
If music is purely an intellectual exercise for you, again, I pity you, and again I point out your ignorance. Intellectual, purposeful music didn’t stop with classical, and (as someone who listens to virtually every genre except classical) I’d like to point out that classical music is rather simplistic in comparison to later work. That’s not to say it’s inferior - but just as modern literature tends to require more effort to read than Shakespeare, modern music requires a greater understanding of music to appreciate. And personally, I appreciate Shakespeare for his genius, and above all for the beauty of his writing, but his works are simple compared to James Joyce or Thomas Pynchon. The complexity and intellectual challenge of the latter two authors make the Bard look like a child’s reader.
That said, I enjoy both older literature and modern a great deal, and I get different things out of every author. But I wouldn’t be so bold as to assume my own personal preferences were equivalent to objective judgments of quality.
(emphasis mine)
The irony is breathtaking.
I suppose you’ll probably never be able to appreciate Sun Ra or John Zorn, then. No doubt they’re beyond your erudition.
Zing!
What do you mean by “classical”? Do you literally mean the Classical period, or do you mean serious orchestral music in general? Because I think there’s some pretty great stuff from the Romantic period, and from the 20th Century period as well. And there will no doubt be great composers remembered from the 21st Century; we just haven’t had the benefit of hindsight to put things into perspective yet.
There’s nothing to say film music can’t be great music, and some of it is, but a lot of that stuff is pretty derivative. It sounds nice, but when you really analyze it, it’s just a bunch of stuff imitated from past great composers and strung together, and doesn’t really stand on its own as great music. IMO, at least.
They do this with jazz, too. They do this with pop, too. Hell, Northwestern University had a full credit class in the School of Music on dissecting the Beatles’ canon while I was there… from the theory of their music, instrumentation, lyrical content, etc. The approach was similar to what you’ve outlined above.
Intellectualizing something doesn’t automatically make it a higher art form, or somehow superior.
Don’t get me wrong – I do love classical music, and have been raised on it. But – since you seem to be interested in the intellectual aspect of music as well – there are a lot of interesting melodic and harmonic tricks in jazz and rock music. I mean, come on, listen to Coltrane, listen to M83 or My Bloody Valentine, or Can and Neu!, and tell me there isn’t some really smart and innovative going on there.
Downhill for 150 years? So that obscure period includes such little-known unpopular composers as Bruckner, Mahler, Strauss, Stravinsky, Bartok, Shostakovich, Copland, … ?
I’m not.
I don’t think classical music is necessarily superior to everything else. It’s a vague term anyway.
Never said it was. Read closer.
Great, so you admit you don’t listen to any classical music, and then say it’s all simplistic. How exactly do you know this?
Here’s a few pieces you might enjoy:
- Beethoven’s Op. 106 sonata
- Mozart’s “Jupiter” symphony, particularly the last movement
- Bach’s A minor fugue from the WTC, book I
If you can listen to any of those pieces and say it’s simplistic in comparison to anything, you either are lying, or don’t know how to listen. Neither of which is at all unlikely.
Jazz sure, some of it, but pop? Good god, what can there possibly be to “dissect”? “Listen to the masterful way IV changes to I!” I just don’t see it. I’m sure it’s very simplistic.
I don’t think anyone can possibly have a respectable understanding of music without developing a curiosity toward the “intellectual” side of it. A healthy mind needs to be challenged, or it loses interest.
No, but you may very well have someone in here touting Kandinsky over Rembrandt, or Picasso over Michaelangelo. Because it is, after all, just a matter of personal preference.
I don’t think this is an entirely accurate generalization.
I think you will be very hard pressed to find more than a handful of people on the SDMB who hold that opinion. Although you certainly aren’t helping things.
You are aware that criticism is a cumulative process, right? You know why there’s so much written about “classical” music? Because it’s been around for so damn long, that’s why. The body of critical literature has had centuries to build up, with each critic not only adding his or her own interpretation, but building on (or against) the interpretations of all the preceeding critics. Sure, there’s a lot more being written about Listz than Lennon. So what? Lennon’s only been dead for twenty four years. Come back in another century or two, and let’s see where the critical consensus stands.
Jesus, that’s an asinine comparison. If your mystery writer wanted to make a cogent point, and not just score a few cheap rhetorical poitns, he could perhaps chosen something a little more substantial from the Beatles repository than “Yellow Submarine.”
I think the fallacy in play here is “If you don’t agree with me, it must be because you’re not as smart/educated as I am.” IMO, a far more toxic fallacy than the one you’ve hallucinated.
I think you’ve got no business telling anyone else to be humble.
I commend you on your insightful analysis. You have certainly swayed my opinion on the piece of music in question. Your erudition is indeed admirable.
“Personal preference” is overrated.
That’s a valid point. Remember, though, I’m not touting “old” music as necessarily superior to “new.” There’s good music today and there was bad music then. My statement about classical music being “a completely different world” was a bit of a hyperbole, I admit, considering how poorly defined “classical music” is.
Lennon? You mean John Lennon?
Sure. Let’s.
You’re listening to the wrong pop music. There’s complex, highly structured, intellectually-challenging pop music out there. But you won’t find it in the top 40, any more than the “best classical album ever vol 3” will have the greatest classical music on it.