Those of you (most, by the looks of things) who don't care about classical music...

Gah! And you call yourself a Rachmaninov fan!
Shine is based on the true story of pianist David Helfgott who went mad while learning the Rach 3. Among other things, he'd always forget to wear pants.

That's a bummer about movie scores, although I believe it. Imo, the best soundtracks are the ones that use preexisting material: Amadeus (Mozart), Nosferatu (Wagner), 2001 (Strauss) & Rollerball! (Albioni & Bach baby!). You're right; everything else sounds sorta cookie cutter. And yeah, Star Wars... Darth Vader's theme is from "Greensleeves: In the Hall of the Mountain King" lol!

 

hang on, i HAVE seen that film! haha....aww that was so touching that! i was thinking of the shining...*blush* hehe...

 

Hans Zimmer is a joke. He steals from his pupils and gets loads of people in to orchestrate for him. A bit like Lloyd Webber in that respect, the difference being that Zimmmer is a composer. Also, whilst on the subject of film music, it's only recently struck me how much Wagner influenced John Williams.

 

i have to agree with you there on the zimmer thing

 

I love classical music.

 

I also love Trans-Siberian Orchestra's stuff... I love Beethoven's Last Night.

 

Here we go. This is what I was hoping to avoid.

 

There are only two kinds of music:


Good and Bad.

If you choose to go through life without hearing the 1812 overture or Miles Davis, because you can't put down the Green Day long enough to see what else is out there..

You live a poor existance.

 

Oh come on, the 1812 is really cheesy and naff. Why listen to the 1812 when you can have symphonies 4,5 and 6? And that's just Tchaik!

 

What are you talking about?

 

Oh, this is what you're going on about....

Well, from the original post, I had no idea that was your intent, seeing as how you only addressed it to people that didn't like classical music:

Next time, be a little more clear before you start complaining.

 

I didn't mean to get at you personally, but everyone should really think before they post. What I really hate seeing personally is threads full of yes/no replies with nothing else to go with them.

 

Inspiration is all that really matters.

I once knew this guy, a rock and roll musician, who "discovered" jazz. Like many people, he found jazz to be a revelation, a wonder, a window into another world. He marvelled at the spontaneous creativity, the virtuosity, the expansive inspiration, the living, breathing, aural landscape inhabited by such brilliant names as Miles, Bird, 'Trane, Satch, Monk, Diz, Duke, Ella, Benny, and of course, Billie.

I thought, "Wow, this is good, you are connecting to an important part of the Western Musical Tradition, you are expanding your horizons and providing for the healthy growth of your musical vocabulary, and finding an extensive treasure trove of inspiration which will only add vitality to your own music. Good for you. I am happy for you."

Then he told me he had given away all of his Rock records. He didn't need them anymore, it's as if they were no longer worthy of his attention. In an abstract kind of way, it seemed unnecessarily destructive. Imagine, no more Beatles, no more Led Zeppelin, no more Jimi Hendrix, no more Pink Floyd, King Crimson, The Clash, The Stones, U2, The Replacements . . . no more Yes. How sad. I felt sorry for him.

You see, his jazz epiphany deafened him to other forms of musical inspiration. His mind-expanding "awakening" to jazz actually disguised an erroneous narrowing of consciousness. It was like fireworks at the muse's funeral, pretty and exciting but still sad nonetheless.

I have seen this same thing happen to other people who have discovered something really good, or, at least, something that has captured their attention. The error, of course, is mistaking the form for the inspiration.
Whether one's "good thing" is wealth, fame and power, or sex, drugs and rock and roll, or even art, science, or religion, the error lies in abandoning the inspiration in order to keep the form. It seems that people who love classical music, exclusively, are especially prone to this. They are missing out on so much. How sad.

So, why not appreciate all inspiration? It seems to me that when one can see the identical inspiration expressed in widely varying forms, then one rises above mere technicianship. When you can recognize the familiarity of inspiration between Green Day's American Idiot and Beethoven's Third (Eroica) Symphony, between The Beatles' A Day In The Life and J.S. Bach's St. Matthew's Passion, between Stravinsky's Rite of Spring and XTC's Skylarking, then you are ready to embrace your own inspiration and really create something original, maybe even some new, revolutionary kind of form.

Peace and Love

 

Most classical music just doesn't touch me.. It's that simple.

 

Ok, a couple of things.

First of all, what is it that bothers you about not needing drugs for inspiration?


Secondly, about this business of taking your musical inspiration from jazz leading you to abandon rock. There's a very good reason for this. Some forms of music are mainly about the notes, and others are about finding a vehicle for lyrics. Apologies for the generalisation, but in rock music the lyrics are what makes an ok song into a really good one. In jazz they actually hold you back. Vocal Jazz as far as I am concerned is an oxymoron. It's not until you get into hip-hop and see what the best rappers and MCs can do spontaneously that you find a way of making words and improvisation work, and even then it's not something that most jazz fans would go for - or that most fans of vocal music are into. Most forms of music actually lead you to completely different ways of thinking. Jazz and classical music are compatible with each other from many musician's points of view because they have a lot in common, both being instrumental forms of music that share a lot of common instruments as well. Rock and other genres don't quite have that. It's comparatively easy to pick up because it all evolved in the last 50 years as opposed to the last 100 for jazz or 300 (or more depending on how far you want to go) with classical music. To get into classical or jazz you've got to know your stuff. You've got to learn it all, your technique your theory, you're reading and your history. Of course once you've acquired all that, you can easily learn the history of popular genres of music (in fact most of it is implicit in the recordings thanks to all the topical lyrics - all you've really got to do is listen, and that's not hard because the repertoire is widely available and you're bound to already know a good deal of it without even trying) and apply the instrumental and musical techniques you've already acquired to modern genres of music. MUCH more difficult to go the other way so really, credit to the fella who's made the transition.

If he's decided he doesn't want anything more to do with rock music then well good for him. There's no easy way of saying this, but basically jazz and classical music are far more sophisticated than most popular forms of music. That's what makes them popular - because they're easy to understand and get into. That doesn't make them bad. Quite the opposite, in fact, as it takes a lot of skill and imagination to create something amazingly simple that hits home immediately, but the end product, while inspired, is not inspiring, because musically it doesn't tell you anything new. Lyrics wise, well yes that's where all the real creativity lies, but if you're getting into instrumental music and concerning yourself with the complexities of that, then Lyrics are going to go over your head anyway.

From a creative point of view the phrase Jack of All Trades very much applies for most people. If you really want to do something well, then it's got to be all that you do.

 

where the hell did you get that from?

why is that good for him? all he did was confine himself to one style of music, and closed the doors to many creative possibilities. I recall a time when you said to me "why in the world would you want to limit yourself to one style of music", though you had grossly misinterpreted what I said

maybe thats because all the "popular" music that you know is shit. instead of comparing Mozart to simple plan, maybe try Steve Vai or Joe Satriani.

and if you think that any idiot can pick up a guitar and play Hendrix, then you havent tried. much sooner would one be able to understand the structure of a classical piece than of something that Hendrix has done

 

I loooove the Swan Lake, I keep listening it over and over again and I would love to see a performance once. I'm not really into Mozart but sometimes I listen to his requiem...bit of a weird thing to do, but it's such a beautiful piece of music.

 

I can't stand mozart. He had the second biggest musical intellect known to man, but all he produced was a load of scales and arpeggios (a bit like Vivaldi really) for the most part. His harmonies were so simple and yet his textures so full. It's just STODGE! Having said that, it does seem to work with choral music. People say how beautiful his music is. Well it's just a little bit TOO clean for me. It lacks colour. Also he didn't seem able to really test the boundries of the traditions of Viennese Classicism. We had to wait until Beethoven was halfway through his life for that. Mozart definitely had the ability but didn't really use it in my opinion. He had everything worked out to the finest detail, but it was as if he was gearing everything towards sounding like nothing at the end.

And the other thing that Mozart is ESPECIALLY guilty of. Using the same bloody keys far too often. Don't know about you lot but I really get tired of the sound of C Major.

 

I like a little classical music, but before I say anything more I should mention that my favorite work is William/Wendy Carlos Williams' "Switched-On Bach", because it may indicate that I don't know what I'm talking about. Nevertheless, just like everyone else in the world, I digress.

I like Mozart. I don't study music, except in that I play it, but I like Mozart. I like Beethoven, too. Pretty much any good sounding classical music is okay with me, and I would not object to hearing it. On the other hand I find that I go more out of my way to listen to music with lyrics. Of course I am neglecting opera here, because I can't understand the lyrics and don't feel the immediate impact of songs about magical flutes and such.

I don't think it's completely possible to grasp the weight of compositions written hundreds of years ago. Times change and the music does not change along with it; and any arguments made as to the value/lack thereof of certain styles of music is also relevant only to the timeframe during which it occured.

I can't blame Mozart for not living up to his alleged potential. For one, having such an amazing intellect, don't you think he probably had mixed emotions regarding his duty to the public? To put oneself completely into one's art has to be an act of altruism, and you have to wonder if your audience is worth it. "Here we are now, entertain us..." as someone once poignantly noted.

Also, I can't blame Mozart for not living up to his alleged potential, because maybe he did! Maybe his music was the perfect music for that timeframe. We don't exist in that time, so we'll never know. Not that it's wrong to criticize music, just that you probably shouldn't take your own opinion too seriously because you can't know what you're talking about, really.

 

i have a great deal of respect for classical music. it sounds great too. matter of fact, i'm planning on going to college and major in classical guitar.