GMG Classical Music Forum

Considering Harry's recent thread on the role of classical music in our lives, I thought I might try and get at our listening habits of other forms of music.

I fall into the 4th Catagory (Some).

I had to go with 1-50, but I only have two and doubt I'll be getting more in the future.

QuotePopular Music

Is gay. The end...

Yes, perhaps I shall reconfigure the options a bit. Perhaps add an option for those with maybe (1-10) albums, splitting the 4th catagory up.

I too am in the low end of that catagory. (Around 10 for me).

I owe about 3000. It includes everything from metal, punk, jazz, world music (one of my favourite genres nowadays together with classical music), country, electronica, pop, psychedelic rock, garage rock, americana, soul, funk, reggae, indie rock, 70s disco, club music+++.

I enjoy almost every genre as long as the music has some quality. For some reason I don't listen much to blues, and the worst music I hear is marching bands music!!!

Large collection.

Non-classical music is not the same thing as popular music. Most of my non-classical music is so called underground music. That kind of music has less listeners than classical music so compared to it classical music is popular music!  ;D

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 01, 2007, 01:11:18 PM
Is gay. The end...

I don't think that popular music is gay; it's the consumers of the stuff.

Quote from: 71 dB on May 01, 2007, 01:17:33 PM
Large collection.

Non-classical music is not the same thing as popular music. Most of my non-classical music is so called underground music. That kind of music has less listeners than classical music so compared to it classical music is popular music!  ;D

My that's quite the collection. I find it amazing how people can have such eclectic tastes. Metal and Classical? Interesting.

Quote from: 71 dB on May 01, 2007, 01:17:33 PM
Large collection.

Non-classical music is not the same thing as popular music. Most of my non-classical music is so called underground music. That kind of music has less listeners than classical music so compared to it classical music is popular music!  ;D

Very well then. Bog down my humble poll with such technicality...  ;)

Quote from: rubio on May 01, 2007, 01:16:03 PM
I owe about 3000. It includes everything from metal, punk, jazz, world music (one of my favourite genres nowadays together with classical music), country, electronica, pop, psychedelic rock, garage rock, americana, soul, funk, reggae, indie rock, 70s disco, club music+++.

I enjoy almost every genre as long as the music has some quality. For some reason I don't listen much to blues, and the worst music I hear is marching bands music!!!

You seem to have even wider taste than me! Congratulations!  ;)

I'm in the high end (although not nearly as many as what rubio just posted  :o) with probably right at 500 or so, mostly jazz, rock, and vocals of all kinds. 

PS, speaking of fans of metal and classical, Steve Smith (Classical Editor of Time Out New York and blogger on Night After Night) regularly posts on both.  Sometimes I wonder if my love of Xenakis is somehow a sort of ersatz metal interest... ;D

--Bruce

Quote from: 71 dB on May 01, 2007, 01:20:24 PM
You seem to have even wider taste than me! Congratulations!  ;)

I'm easily triggered for all sorts of art - especially music, movies and literature. There is so much to listen to, read and watch that is of high quality. And so little time!! :)

Quote from: bhodges on May 01, 2007, 01:22:11 PM
I'm in the high end (although not nearly as many as what rubio just posted  :o) with probably right at 500 or so, mostly jazz, rock, and vocals of all kinds. 

PS, speaking of fans of metal and classical, Steve Smith (Classical Editor of Time Out New York and blogger on Night After Night) regularly posts on both.  Sometimes I wonder if my love of Xenakis is somehow a sort of ersatz metal interest... ;D

--Bruce

The contents of my non-classical collection are almost entirely Jazz-oriented. I know many classical devotees with interests in other vocal music and jazz, but none with an avid interest in metal. I might explain this by pointing out the similarities between related popular genres and classical. As for Metal..Rap...Other Heavy Rock I see almost no real similarities.

Quite a bit for me.

None I voted, because it is none! :)

Quote from: Harry on May 01, 2007, 01:33:35 PM
None I voted, because it is none! :)

:o

Quote from: Harry on May 01, 2007, 01:33:35 PM
None I voted, because it is none! :)

Yes, about half of my 10 were gifts, and the other half failed experiments in diversity.  :)

Quote from: Danny on May 01, 2007, 01:35:15 PM
:o

Is that a look of awe or dismay?  0:)

Quote from: Steve on May 01, 2007, 01:44:42 PM
Is that a look of awe or dismay?  0:)

Danny is in two minds about that I think! :)

Quote from: Harry on May 01, 2007, 01:33:35 PM
None I voted, because it is none! :)

One can only imagine Harry's CD collection if he were equally interested in popular music as classical . . . . . . Lucky for him, he's not . . . . . .

Quote from: Harry on May 01, 2007, 01:57:40 PM
Danny is in two minds about that I think! :)

One could never presume to understand the workings of you, Harry  :)

Where on this poll might I find your vote, D Minor?

Quote from: Steve on May 01, 2007, 02:04:21 PM
One could never presume to understand the workings of you, Harry  :)

Well..........ehhh ;D

Quote from: Steve on May 01, 2007, 02:05:23 PM
Where on this poll might I find your vote, D Minor?

D minor is pondering about his key I think. :)

Quote from: Harry on May 01, 2007, 02:06:16 PM
Well..........ehhh ;D

;)

Quote from: Steve on May 01, 2007, 02:05:23 PM
Where on this poll might I find your vote, D Minor?

I have around 60 popular CD's, but I rounded down to 50 . . . . . .

Quote from: D Minor on May 01, 2007, 02:08:38 PM
I have around 60 popular CD's, but I rounded down to 50 . . . . . .

Any favourites?

Quote from: rubio on May 01, 2007, 01:16:03 PM
I owe about 3000. It includes everything from metal, punk, jazz, world music (one of my favourite genres nowadays together with classical music), country, electronica, pop, psychedelic rock, garage rock, americana, soul, funk, reggae, indie rock, 70s disco, club music+++.

Me too. I like a lot of non-classical music. I'll listen to anything that has some soul put into it, and I can even enjoy some shamelessly cheesy music, mostly because it holds sentimental, fun memories from childhood and my uni days etc. You're as likely to hear Boogie Wonderland coming from my bathroom in the morning as you are whistled excerpts from Prokofiev's 1st symphony.  ;D

About half of my large collection is non-classical.  Some of it is popular music from before c. 1970, and a lot of it is "world" music.  "World" music is really a catch-all category of music from (mostly) regions besides the U.S. and western Europe, and it would best be divided into numerous categories, generally related to the region where it originates.  Many cultures have rich classical traditions of their own, and a great deal of complexity can be found in their music.  An obvious example is India, but others include Iran, the Arab countries, Thailand, Indonesia, China, and Japan.  I also like a lot of the pop and folk music from non-western countries.  Perhaps it is the appeal of the exotic, or perhaps I like how much of this music is complex in ways not so often seen in western popular music (i.e. rhythmic complexity).

I have always liked variety, so it is likely that non-classical music will always be a substantial portion of my collection.

Heather

Quote from: Heather Harrison on May 01, 2007, 02:43:44 PM
Perhaps it is the appeal of the exotic, or perhaps I like how much of this music is complex in ways not so often seen in western popular music (i.e. rhythmic complexity).

I have always liked variety, so it is likely that non-classical music will always be a substantial portion of my collection.

Heather

I wonder if you have the Teldec disc of Ligeti's etudes with short pieces of African Pygmy poly-rhythmic music sandwiched between? It is a revelation. Fantastically complex music, and with no written tradition, it is  mostly improvised. It's a really captivating disc.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 01, 2007, 01:11:18 PM
Is gay. The end...

Actually, I've heard some sad popular music too...

I have about 50 CDs but before I collected CDs the ratio was different (I'd say I had about 200-250 popular music cassettes and 400-500 classical).

Jazz is usually listed under pop music and I still have my collection of classic rock from college.  I also love early rock n roll from the fifties (especially from Sun Records) as well as the Motown classics and even some folk.  I have almost every recording by Frank Sinatra and I do have everything done by Billie Holliday and roy Orbison.  I have Glenn Miller, Benny Goodman, Tommy Dorsey, Buddy Rich, Harry James, but haven't been able to find an Eddy Duchin record. Right now I'm expecting a Barbara Cooke cd, so I guess I'm still buying pop music. Btw, I also collect Broadway Musical soundtracks, so yes I have a considerable pop music collection as well.  ;)

Quote from: Bunny on May 01, 2007, 03:50:36 PM
Jazz is usually listed under pop music and I still have my collection of classic rock from college.  I also love early rock n roll from the fifties (especially from Sun Records) as well as the Motown classics and even some folk.  I have almost every recording by Frank Sinatra and I do have everything done by Billie Holliday and roy Orbison.  I have Glenn Miller, Benny Goodman, Tommy Dorsey, Buddy Rich, Harry James, but haven't been able to find an Eddy Duchin record. Right now I'm expecting a Barbara Cooke cd, so I guess I'm still buying pop music. Btw, I also collect Broadway Musical soundtracks, so yes I have a considerable pop music collection as well.  ;)

Of the little popular music that I do enjoy, Jazz certainly has its merits.  :)

Most "popular" music I don't buy, but I have tons of jazz. I've always collected jazz as much as classical, though now I've put the jazz on hold and am trying to increase my classical collection. Everything from blues, funk, soul, big band, bop I love it all.  ;D Especially Latin music/Latin jazz. The other large part of my collection is orchestral film music, another genre I equally love.

Count the number of albums by George Harrison, John Lennon, and Bob Dylan, and that's my number.

"Jazz is usually listed under pop music..."

???

Quote from: hornteacher on May 01, 2007, 05:14:15 PM
Count the number of albums by George Harrison, John Lennon, and Bob Dylan, and that's my number.

8)

I fall into the 'quite a bit' category, but then I fall there for classical as well.

The beginning of my CD collection runs by artist: Argerich, Asian Dub Foundation, Bach, Bartok, The Beatles, Bernstein, David Bowie, Brahms.

Miles Davis once said 'There are two kinds of music: good and bad', and I think it's important to listen to good music, regardless of genre.

Lately my enjoyment for pop music has dropped to such a low I can hardly stand to listen to it anymore.

But classical's not on the hook for this downslide.

No, it's jazz.

And principally...jazz drumming!

I've reached the point that I'm so hypnotized by the singing beauty of complex drum patterns/rhythms that I can barely tolerate the monotony of the metronome-like, nondescript, time-beating emptiness of pop beats. 1-2, 1-2, 1-2...

Ugh.

But not limited to the subtle jazz beat, of course! There's nothing like a drummer in full fury throwing off the bedazzling solo. Nor of the creativeness of a drummer keeping 'beat' by way of excursions into the kaleidoscopic.

Sure beats simple time-beating, anyway.

Quote from: Greta on May 01, 2007, 04:14:44 PM
Most "popular" music I don't buy, but I have tons of jazz. I've always collected jazz as much as classical, though now I've put the jazz on hold and am trying to increase my classical collection.

Same here. I have 3000 or so jazz cds\lps in my collection. Have been buying all classical for a couple of months.

Quote from: Steve on May 01, 2007, 01:18:30 PM
My that's quite the collection. I find it amazing how people can have such eclectic tastes. Metal and Classical? Interesting.

Metal and classical are natural musical partners, I've found. The parallels are sometimes striking, and metal also has a well-known "neo-classical" streak explicitly influenced by classical composers and composition techniques, particularly of the Baroque era.

***

I have nearly as many jazz CD's as classical, though that hasn't really been "popular music" in any sense since the 1940's. I don't have many rock/pop CD's anymore but used to have a bunch. I still listen to that sometimes.

Quote from: donwyn on May 01, 2007, 09:37:28 PM
Lately my enjoyment for pop music has dropped to such a low I can hardly stand to listen to it anymore.

But classical's not on the hook for this downslide.

No, it's jazz.

And principally...jazz drumming!

I've reached the point that I'm so hypnotized by the singing beauty of complex drum patterns/rhythms that I can barely tolerate the monotony of the metronome-like, nondescript, time-beating emptiness of pop beats. 1-2, 1-2, 1-2...

Ugh.

But not limited to the subtle jazz beat, of course! There's nothing like a drummer in full fury throwing off the bedazzling solo. Nor of the creativeness of a drummer keeping 'beat' by way of excursions into the kaleidoscopic.

Sure beats simple time-beating, anyway.

As an ardent jazz fan, I know what you mean, though in fairness, there's a decent amount of rock with complex drumming and unusual or shifting meters: try some prog rock or metal. That said, much of it is in simple straight 4/4.

Quote from: Grazioso on May 02, 2007, 03:26:05 AM
As an ardent jazz fan, I know what you mean, though in fairness, there's a decent amount of rock with complex drumming and unusual or shifting meters: try some prog rock or metal. That said, much of it is in simple straight 4/4.

Indeed, Aenima and Lateralus by Tool are two great examples.

Quote from: Harry on May 01, 2007, 01:33:35 PM
None I voted, because it is none! :)

Has anyone here heard Dutch pop music? I have...unfortunately. I can attest that is the reason for Harry's aversion. ;D

Sarge

Quote from: Harry on May 01, 2007, 01:33:35 PM
None I voted, because it is none! :)

What about . . . Oleg?

Decidedly in the "Some" category, myself.

Quote from: Steve on May 01, 2007, 01:30:18 PM
The contents of my non-classical collection are almost entirely Jazz-oriented. I know many classical devotees with interests in other vocal music and jazz, but none with an avid interest in metal. I might explain this by pointing out the similarities between related popular genres and classical. As for Metal..Rap...Other Heavy Rock I see almost no real similarities.

There are similarites actually. If Haffner (Andy) were still here he would explain that it was his interest in metal that got him into classical music. Yngwie Malmsteen, for example, was influenced by Paganini's Caprices.

I've got a large collection of music, around 10,000 LPs, CDs, cassettes and singles, roughly split 60/40 (60 percent classical). Like Rubio I enjoy almost every "popular" genre (yes, even metal, rap and hardcore punk), popular being defined as anything non-classical. In fact, many "popular" forms of music are even less popular than classical as dB has pointed out. Fewer jazz, blues, bluegrass, folk and techno CDs are sold worldwide than classical. A genre like alt country is an extremely small niche; it doesn't even get played on commercial broadcast radio.

Sarge

Quote from: MrOsa on May 01, 2007, 03:40:10 PM
Actually, I've heard some sad popular music too...

;D :D ;D

Sarge

Quote from: MrOsa on May 01, 2007, 03:40:10 PM
Actually, I've heard some sad popular music too...

Some reading to accompany that:

(http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/51dul4uX5JL._SS500_.jpg)

Quote from: donwyn on May 01, 2007, 09:37:28 PM
But not limited to the subtle jazz beat, of course! There's nothing like a drummer in full fury throwing off the bedazzling solo. Nor of the creativeness of a drummer keeping 'beat' by way of excursions into the kaleidoscopic.

Sure beats simple time-beating, anyway.

Don, you should hear the Grateful Dead's twin drummers in concert. A feature of nearly every show in the second set was a ten to twenty minute segment called "Drums" where they showed their amazing skills, their music influenced by jazz, classical and "world" drumming. Drums would segue into "Space" when the other members of the Dead returned to the stage. While the drummers took a break the band would play some incredibly complex improvisations influenced by Phil Lesh's classical background (he once had a chance to study with Berio in Italy...Berio was highly impressed by his compositional skills...but Phil chose the Dead instead).

Sarge

Quote from: dtwilbanks on May 01, 2007, 05:21:21 PM
"Jazz is usually listed under pop music..."

???

More correctly you might say jazz is usually listed under popular music..."pop" being it's own genre under popular. But as I pointed out already, popular doesn't necessarily mean popular; it's just a term to differentiate it from classical music. Jazz is not popular today although it's a popular form of music. Once upon a time (20s, 30s, 40s) it was both popular and popular ;D

Sarge

Quote from: karlhenning on May 02, 2007, 04:32:52 AM
What about . . . Oleg?

Well that is religious acoustic music, so certainly not pop huh

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 01, 2007, 01:11:18 PM
Is gay. The end...

That's what some people I know say about classical.  ;D

  I have about 20 Pop cds that are stashed somewhere at my parents place. I have not heard these cds for over 2 and 1/2 years now, I suspect my sister has them by now.   As I mentioned before on another thread  I walked into HMV recently and DID NOT recognize ANY of the current pop/rock/jazz/blues artists etc.  I am running into problems with freinds and colleagues, most are between the ages of 25-35, and all they talk about is this pop singer and that. All I can do is nod my head and keep silent.  If they only knew how much I liked opera and Mozart and Bach and Beethoven........better keep that to myself n'est pas?  :-\

 marvin

Quote from: Steve on May 01, 2007, 03:53:17 PM
Of the little popular music that I do enjoy, Jazz certainly has its merits.  :)

News flash. Jazz is not popular. Oh maybe in the '40s...

Quote from: Sergeant Rock on May 02, 2007, 04:56:48 AM
More correctly you might say jazz is usually listed under popular music..."pop" being it's own genre under popular. But as I pointed out already, popular doesn't necessarily mean popular; it's just a term to differentiate it from classical music. Jazz is not popular today although it's a popular form of music. Once upon a time (20s, 30s, 40s) it was both popular and popular ;D

Sarge

I've NEVER seen it listed under "popular." I'm not sure about the crazy record stores in Germany.  ;D

Quote from: marvinbrown on May 02, 2007, 05:28:14 AM
  I have about 20 Pop cds that are stashed somewhere at my parents place. I have not heard these cds for over 2 and 1/2 years now, I suspect my sister has them by now.   As I mentioned before on another thread  I walked into HMV recently and DID NOT recognize ANY of the current pop/rock/jazz/blues artists etc.  I am running into problems with freinds and colleagues, most are between the ages of 25-35, and all they talk about is this pop singer and that. All I can do is nod my head and keep silent.  If they only knew how much I liked opera and Mozart and Bach and Beethoven........better keep that to myself n'est pas?  :-\

 marvin

Yes, better! ;D

Quote from: dtwilbanks on May 02, 2007, 05:31:11 AM
I've NEVER seen it listed under "popular." I'm not sure about the crazy record stores in Germany.  ;D

I say again, it's just a convenient term to differentiate western classical music from every other type of music. And I'm sure that's exactly what the OP had in mind when he made the poll. If he means, strictly speaking, only POP music, then I have very little. But I'm sure that's not what he means. He means: who has records of Sinatra, Joni Mitchell, Britney Spears, Miles Davis, Jimi Hendrix, Tool, Moby, the Carter Family, Shania Twain, Mingus, Glen Miller, Don Ho, the Beatles, Yes, Blondie, Tom Waits, Emmylou Harris, Louis Armstrong, Robert Johnson, etc, etc, etc...all popular artists; not a classical artist among them.

Sarge

Quote from: Sergeant Rock on May 02, 2007, 06:06:21 AM
I say again, it's just a convenient term to differentiate western classical music from every other type of music. And I'm sure that's exactly what the OP had in mind when he made the poll. If he means, strictly speaking, only POP music, then I have very little. But I'm sure that's not what he means. He means: who has records of Sinatra, Joni Mitchell, Britney Spears, Miles Davis, Jimi Hendrix, Tool, Moby, the Carter Family, Shania Twain, Mingus, Glen Miller, Don Ho, the Beatles, Yes, Blondie, Tom Waits, Emmylou Harris, Louis Armstrong, Robert Johnson, etc, etc, etc...all popular artists; not a classical artist among them.

Sarge

"Non-classical" makes more sense, but now I see what you were saying. I thought you were implying that jazz in general is listed under "popular." Ever hear Ornette Coleman on a pop station? I think not. ;)

Quote from: dtwilbanks on May 02, 2007, 06:09:40 AM
"Non-classical" makes more sense, but now I see what you were saying. I thought you were implying that jazz in general is listed under "popular." Ever hear Ornette Coleman on a pop station? I think not. ;)

For example, Amazon has only two (?!?) main categories, classical and popular. Jazz isn't in the former.

Quote from: 71 dB on May 02, 2007, 06:19:42 AM
For example, Amazon has only two (?!?) main categories, classical and popular. Jazz isn't in the former.

I get the point now. It takes me a while sometimes. I still don't like it though. It's probably separate because it's catalogued differently: composer rather than artist.

Probably around 200 or so. Mostly Rock, Hard Rock, Alternative and quite a bit of Brazilian music CD's. My wife is very much  into Led Zeppelin and the like so we have quite a bit of CD's of that sort.  I was very big in to Brazilian (both eclectic and modern) music for a while so there is some kind of collection in that department that I still love to listen to.

One of my favorite weekend moments is having breakfast with Stan Getz and Joao Gilberto playing in the background  0:)

Quote from: dtwilbanks on May 02, 2007, 06:22:15 AM
I get the point now. It takes me a while sometimes. I still don't like it though. It's probably separate because it's catalogued differently: composer rather than artist.

Who likes it? Popular music is in fact a small thing, it just sells "millions of copies" and is played everywhere 15 times a day for three months.

You are right, different system of cataloging is the reason. Amazon uses the simplest possible system.

On a side note I'd just like to point out that many 20th century "classical" composers did compose "popular" music from time to time (usually for the money ;D), and many still do that today. In Poland, Witold Lutoslawski is a very notable example (numerous songs written under the pseudonym Derwid). But there are others - Krzysztof Knittel, one of the most uncompromising avantgarde composers happens to be the author of a true hit (Koncert jesienny as sung by Magda Umer). The recently deceased Andrzej Kurylewicz was not only a contemporary "classical" composer (including works for tape) but one of Poland's foremost jazz musicians, and author of numerous songs. Lucjan Marian Kaszycki and Edward Pałłasz are 2 more names that come to mind (I think Edward Sielicki has written some popular music too but may be misremembering...). And I'm sure there are many more that I forgot or don't know about. I'm not even going to start the subject of film and theatre music (even Penderecki wrote soundtracks!).

Quote from: MrOsa on May 02, 2007, 10:47:59 AM
On a side note I'd just like to point out that many 20th century "classical" composers did compose "popular" music from time to time (usually for the money ;D), and many still do that today. In Poland, Witold Lutoslawski is a very notable example (numerous songs written under the pseudonym Derwid). But there are others - Krzysztof Knittel, one of the most uncompromising avantgarde composers happens to be the author of a true hit (Koncert jesienny as sung by Magda Umer). The recently deceased Andrzej Kurylewicz was not only a contemporary "classical" composer (including works for tape) but one of Poland's foremost jazz musicians, and author of numerous songs. Lucjan Marian Kaszycki and Edward Pałłasz are 2 more names that come to mind (I think Edward Sielicki has written some popular music too but may be misremembering...). And I'm sure there are many more that I forgot or don't know about. I'm not even going to start the subject of film and theatre music (even Penderecki wrote soundtracks!).

Dave Brubeck might be best known for his jazz, but he's a classical composer, too, and studied with Milhaud.

Quote from: Sergeant Rock on May 02, 2007, 04:47:31 AM
Don, you should hear the Grateful Dead's twin drummers in concert. A feature of nearly every show in the second set was a ten to twenty minute segment called "Drums" where they showed their amazing skills, their music influenced by jazz, classical and "world" drumming. Drums would segue into "Space" when the other members of the Dead returned to the stage. While the drummers took a break the band would play some incredibly complex improvisations influenced by Phil Lesh's classical background (he once had a chance to study with Berio in Italy...Berio was highly impressed by his compositional skills...but Phil chose the Dead instead).

Sarge

Sounds incredible, Sarge!

What a dazzling show they must have put on.

Makes me wish I'd caught a Dead show or two.

How about a DVD? Can you rec one, Sarge?

Under 50 for me.
I have albums by Joe Satriani, Yngwie Malmsteen (my 2 favorites, of course), Vinnie Moore, Jeff Beck, Michael Angelo Batio, Theodore Ziras, Dream Theater- those are all guitarists, and none of them are totally mainstream. Some are well-known but get no radio time, others are pretty obscure in comparison. My dad has a nice collection, too, which I listen to sometimes, which includes Hendrix, Soundgarden, and this excellent guitarist named Dave Atherton who is very overlooked. I also have a video game sountrack, though I don't think that counts.

I am not sure how we are defining "popular" music. (sorry I am too lazy to sift through the thread) But I have a lot of Rock records, as well as a lot of other things. If you think Rock and other simpler forms of music has no influence on music as a whole, and on composers, you are a fool.

Case in point: the Beatles.

There is a lot that happens in the most simple music. There seems often around here to be this assumption that popular music lacks interesting music developments and innovations, and that composed music is always more complex than popular music. Perhaps if all you listen to is the radio, you might believe this, though even a quick surf through radio stations would prove this false too. And now-a-days with internet radio, satelite radio, etc. you have no excuse in being ignorant of the complex "popular" music  that is out there.

Careful with music snobbery. It can bite you on the arse.

BTW, I own thousands of albums and CDs that would probably fit under the "popular" category. Though Classical and Jazz music outweighs Rock pretty heavily.

I have about 150 to 180 cds ranging from death metal to indie rock to everything in between. Some of it I still really enjoy, but a lot of it is from my college years.

Quote from: sonic1 on May 03, 2007, 02:48:40 PM
I am not sure how we are defining "popular" music. (sorry I am too lazy to sift through the thread) But I have a lot of Rock records, as well as a lot of other things. If you think Rock and other simpler forms of music has no influence on music as a whole, and on composers, you are a fool.

Case in point: the Beatles.

There is a lot that happens in the most simple music. There seems often around here to be this assumption that popular music lacks interesting music developments and innovations, and that composed music is always more complex than popular music. Perhaps if all you listen to is the radio, you might believe this, though even a quick surf through radio stations would prove this false too. And now-a-days with internet radio, satelite radio, etc. you have no excuse in being ignorant of the complex "popular" music  that is out there.

Careful with music snobbery. It can bite you on the arse.

BTW, I own thousands of albums and CDs that would probably fit under the "popular" category. Though Classical and Jazz music outweighs Rock pretty heavily.

I never implied that classical music escaped any influence of the popular artists in my original post. However I dont see how popular music was any more of an influence than other aspects of culture - Art, Literature... Take for example, Mahler's powerful Das Lied von der Erde, which was directly influened by his reading of an ancient Chinese book of poetry. I would never deny the influence of culture upon the composers of classical music, in fact if that claim had any bit of validity, how could we refer to composers as voices of their respective generations?

However, it is possible to overstate the influence of any single artist upon the classical repotoire. I don't really believe the Beatles had any discernable impact on Glass for example. It is rather the culture in which these works are created which collectively provide influence to the composers of classical works.

As to your comment about the complexity of popular music- I will not disagree here either. All I can say, is that I have never been seriously intellectually aroused by any piece of popular music. I will not deny its complexity, I just dont find it to be , (IMO), to be worthy of study, in the same way that I do with classical. That of course is reflected in the number of popular recordings that I own (less than 10). I know many here, and obviously many composers do, and I would never debate the influence of that music on their works, but I simply am not stimulated in any shape or form by it.

It may have complexity, but it lacks the sort of infinite imaintative power of classical music, as far as I'm concerned. You, I'm sure will instantly disagree. That, however, is a statement of taste, and not one of fact.

The only statement of fact that I can offer, is to the complexity of some popular music. Obviously I will not contest you there.

Personally, classical music is wonderful, but sometimes takes itself too seriously. Humor is rare in music and when it DOES occur, it is too self aware, at best. I listen to a lot of indie garage rock which uses the same three or four chords, uses the same licks used by chuck berry and the like, yet somehow it satisfies a very important need to shake that self-important bullshit which is really the bane of western civilization-historically at least.

And some of it I would consider smarter than many composers' works.

I see you are giving popular music no more importance than other aspects of culture. I think this is a gross judgment, lacking the infiltration of all those melody lines which are everywhere.

Usually it takes me some work to remember melodic lines from a classical piece of music. But there is a lot of popular music, which I don't even like, that is embedded in my memory. And I know that when I write music, it comes out. The influence is there very strongly, musically (not just culturally as you imply).

Kurt Vonnegut's Cat's Cradle might compel you to write an opera. But it won't suggest melodic bits. Popular music almost certainly does.

And all the great composers give hommage to their country's or peoples' popular music. Now-a-days we (educated music lovers, composers, whatever) like to think ourselves above that. I think it is dishonest though.

Quote from: sonic1 on May 03, 2007, 07:11:27 PM
Personally, classical music is wonderful, but sometimes takes itself too seriously. Humor is rare in music and when it DOES occur, it is too self aware, at best. I listen to a lot of indie garage rock which uses the same three or four chords, uses the same licks used by chuck berry and the like, yet somehow it satisfies a very important need to shake that self-important bullshit which is really the bane of western civilization-historically at least.

And some of it I would consider smarter than many composers' works.

I see you are giving popular music no more importance than other aspects of culture. I think this is a gross judgment, lacking the infiltration of all those melody lines which are everywhere.

Usually it takes me some work to remember melodic lines from a classical piece of music. But there is a lot of popular music, which I don't even like, that is embedded in my memory. And I know that when I write music, it comes out. The influence is there very strongly, musically (not just culturally as you imply).

Kurt Vonnegut's Cat's Cradle might compel you to write an opera. But it won't suggest melodic bits. Popular music almost certainly does.

And all the great composers give hommage to their country's or peoples' popular music. Now-a-days we (educated music lovers, composers, whatever) like to think ourselves above that. I think it is dishonest though.

As for assigning degrees of influence to different elements of culture, it is impossible to avoid a over-generalization. Obviously, the motivations/inspirations for composers vary, and so does the degree of that influence. I do agree that many composers have been inspired by different forms of popular music-but I don't believe that it is nessecarily a greater influence than other elements of an artist's culture. Perhaps not Vonnegut, but imagine how the readings Tennyson might inspire great romantic ballads with sweeping nationalistic influence. Or how Goethe's Poem, is translated so magnificently into Schubert's Composition; the list is endless. Elements of culture- be they literature, or popular music can and provide inspiration for composers. The melodies of popular music aren't simply transposed into orchestral music, nor are the words poets fused into symphonic poems. Together they form a well of culture that the composer draws from, for direction and inspiration.

As for the influence being non-musical, I did not imply such; its just that generally direct musical influence for composers comes from other composers, and not popular musicicans. The reason being that they writing for the symphony, or solo piano, or violin, and not for popular instruments. Just as a poet's work more closely testifies to the another poet, a classical composers musical inspiration generally comes from the repotoire of the instrument/ensemble that he is scoring.

Classical Music and popular music are two distinct entities with many bonds between them, but it is a bond of no greater influence than that of the written word or of art, or perhaps of nature. Assigning degrees of influence just isn't possible. Composers look everwhere for inspiration, but when it comes to understanding how to score a particular instrument, they have to engage the composers of the past, to come to an understanding of that instrument.

Both last posts Steve are very well written. :)

Quote from: sonic1 on May 03, 2007, 07:11:27 PM
Personally, classical music is wonderful, but sometimes takes itself too seriously. Humor is rare in music and when it DOES occur, it is too self aware, at best.

Carl Nielsen gives you plenty of humour in the form of classical music!  ;)

Quote from: Steve on May 03, 2007, 08:02:58 PM
As for assigning degrees of influence to different elements of culture, it is impossible to avoid a over-generalization. Obviously, the motivations/inspirations for composers vary, and so does the degree of that influence. I do agree that many composers have been inspired by different forms of popular music-but I don't believe that it is nessecarily a greater influence than other elements of an artist's culture. Perhaps not Vonnegut, but imagine how the readings Tennyson might inspire great romantic ballads with sweeping nationalistic influence. Or how Goethe's Poem, is translated so magnificently into Schubert's Composition; the list is endless. Elements of culture- be they literature, or popular music can and provide inspiration for composers. The melodies of popular music aren't simply transposed into orchestral music, nor are the words poets fused into symphonic poems. Together they form a well of culture that the composer draws from, for direction and inspiration.

As for the influence being non-musical, I did not imply such; its just that generally direct musical influence for composers comes from other composers, and not popular musicicans. The reason being that they writing for the symphony, or solo piano, or violin, and not for popular instruments. Just as a poet's work more closely testifies to the another poet, a classical composers musical inspiration generally comes from the repotoire of the instrument/ensemble that he is scoring.

Classical Music and popular music are two distinct entities with many bonds between them, but it is a bond of no greater influence than that of the written word or of art, or perhaps of nature. Assigning degrees of influence just isn't possible. Composers look everwhere for inspiration, but when it comes to understanding how to score a particular instrument, they have to engage the composers of the past, to come to an understanding of that instrument.

I think we are talking about different things here. If I get what you are saying, you are speaking more abstractly. I am speaking more literally. Ever since at LEAST the romantic period popular hymns and songs (the melodies) were quite literally translated into music. In the modern era this is even more true. I think you greatly underestimate the influence of popular music, especially in the modern era, if you overlook that.

Yes, it is true they also derive inspiration from literature and art, but INSPIRATION is a wholly different thing than INFLUENCE. Want an example? How about Bartok's influence from his home country's music? How about Ives and his influence from american folk musics?

All you need to do to get an understanding of this is to see how composers from various regions of the world have a distinct flavor (not always). Even during the greatest time of globalism, there is still a distinct national sound from many composers. Takemitsu sounds totally Japanese (because he derives influence from japanese folk musics), and all those Hungarians always have that distinct hungarian sound (Ligeti). The spanish composers have been heavily influenced by music. Albeniz admits totally being influenced by honky-tonk bar music (which he played as a kid).

This is a much closer bond than you are suggesting. Unless of course you are talking about Bach, and composers of the earlier period. Then, maybe it is true, that composers did not get influenced by popular music. Though I find it hard to really believe, I don't know enough about the popular music of the time to suggest otherwise.

Jazz is a popular music, and it has infiltrated classical music wholesale. Jazz brought many many many innovations to music that was borrowed (stolen), particularly the rhythms as they occur in the melodies.

QuoteYes, it is true they also derive inspiration from literature and art, but INSPIRATION is a wholly different thing than INFLUENCE. Want an example? How about Bartok's influence from his home country's music? How about Ives and his influence from american folk musics?

Yes, inspiration is a different concept than influence, but I did not intend to make the distinction here. I contend that literature influenced composers in the same way that popular musicians did. Take, for example, the Bible. Consider the sheer number of sacred compositions created from close readings of it. Do you think we would have Mozart's Requiem in D, if there were no Bible? Many of its passages, have clearly influenced the writing of music. It's not coincidence that the period in musical history that we term romantic, also happens to be the name given to that time in Art History and Literature.

Composers were influenced by artists, authors, and yes, popular musicians. You say that many popular lines were transposed into classical compositions, and that is true. At the same time musicans have turned to great texts for the same sort of musical ammo. Instead of validating the link between popular music and classical, I would rather speak to the entire cutural influence upon composers. Seperating elements of culture according to degree of influence doesn't seem to be feasible. You might say that German anthems sound similar to certain German classical composition, but they also recreate for us images that conjure up German Art and Literature. While it is tempting to allow a greater influence to popular musicians because their medium is more similar to the composer's, I won't. While a composer might borrow a melody from a popular piece of music, it is not directly incorperated into his piece, the way it might be into another popular song. They are different genres of music.

When I see Beethoven's Eroica, I see immediately, other classical composers, and then with effort, the contributions of artists, authours, and sometimes other popular musicians. Its a matter of cultural influence.

To me there is a distinctive difference between the abstract influence of art and culture, and the literal influence popular music has on classical music. You are going to great efforts to amputate popular music from "serious" music, and if this works for you, great. But it seems a little bit of a stretch to me. Music is music. Art and literature are not music.

Quote from: sonic1 on May 04, 2007, 10:42:16 AM
To me there is a distinctive difference between the abstract influence of art and culture, and the literal influence popular music has on classical music. You are going to great efforts to amputate popular music from "serious" music, and if this works for you, great. But it seems a little bit of a stretch to me. Music is music. Art and literature are not music.

I am not trying to sever the links between the two realms of music - just to clarify that they are two seperate entities with many links and ties. I don't see how Beethoven's Wellington's Victory was based on some abstract influence of the historical event; it was created in response to that historic battle. The influences of popular musicians on classical composers no more tangeble and literal than other cultural artisans.

The greatest literal influence of course comes from other composers. Here musical structure, artistic stylings, and even entire works themselves are borrowed and incorperated, often in the form of a homage to another. Beethoven's admiration of Mozart or Handel, for example. After that other areas of culture can have an impact, but as they are different mediums, the implact can never be as distinctive of another composer. A composer cannot, in my opinion, write successfully without engaging the repotoire and the composers who created it. As for how popular influences; those are also needed, but in a far less tangeable sense.

I agree with a lot of what you are saying. But something about how you use your logic is not sitting well with me, and not convincing me. I cannot see from all you said why popular music is not hugely influential, and being the same art more important to composers, WHETHER THEY PAY ATTENTION TO IT OR NOT. But I am out of gas, or rather I have no time left to fight this one out. Maybe I will come back to this tomorrow.

j

Quote from: sonic1 on May 04, 2007, 05:03:36 PM
I agree with a lot of what you are saying. But something about how you use your logic is not sitting well with me, and not convincing me. I cannot see from all you said why popular music is not hugely influential, and being the same art more important to composers, WHETHER THEY PAY ATTENTION TO IT OR NOT. But I am out of gas, or rather I have no time left to fight this one out. Maybe I will come back to this tomorrow.

j

Well, I suppose this was a reaction to you comment about the sort of snobbery among people who seperate the two worlds of music. See, I feel as though I can experience and understand the music in my collection without being familiar with much popular music. When I read of a connection between, perhaps a folk song and a tone poem, I look into the connection. This is very much the way I go about researching other influences on the music I so regularily enjoy.

Coming across Eroica, one cannot help from wanting to learn more of the man who inspiried Beethoven to write it. Hence, whether it be researching literature or popular music which inspired a piece of classical music, I consider that as the sort of external knowledge that a method actor might seek when reaching a role. Interesting side information, but nothing critical to my musical appreciation. For that, I seek out the composers other repotiore influences. For Schumann, I might look into his relationship with Brahms, or his later influence on later composers.

That knowledge is critical to my understanding of the work, musically. I just want to make it clear, that I do not deny the influence of popular music on classical composers, but I don't find that being aware of those influeces is anymore helpful to my understanding of the piece as a composition than perhaps being aware of the powerful connection between Clara Schumann and Brahms.

Quote from: Steve on May 04, 2007, 07:31:07 PM
Well, I suppose this was a reaction to you comment about the sort of snobbery among people who seperate the two worlds of music. See, I feel as though I can experience and understand the music in my collection without being familiar with much popular music. When I read of a connection between, perhaps a folk song and a tone poem, I look into the connection. This is very much the way I go about researching other influences on the music I so regularily enjoy.

Coming across Eroica, one cannot help from wanting to learn more of the man who inspiried Beethoven to write it. Hence, whether it be researching literature or popular music which inspired a piece of classical music, I consider that as the sort of external knowledge that a method actor might seek when reaching a role. Interesting side information, but nothing critical to my musical appreciation. For that, I seek out the composers other repotiore influences. For Schumann, I might look into his relationship with Brahms, or his later influence on later composers.

That knowledge is critical to my understanding of the work, musically. I just want to make it clear, that I do not deny the influence of popular music on classical composers, but I don't find that being aware of those influeces is anymore helpful to my understanding of the piece as a composition than perhaps being aware of the powerful connection between Clara Schumann and Brahms.

I guess I can respect this perspective.

From my perspective however, as a person who was certainly shaped by popular music (actually I cringe using such a term) I see a lot more of the influence and crossovers than maybe someone who would need to do a lot of research because of their lack of familiarity. I grew up listening to a lot A LOT of jazz, and lots of rock as well, with a focus on some of the less common sub-genres (hardly "popular" music). I have listened to a wide range of music in general and don't have a hierarchal placement for each genre necessarily. I know a lot of work goes into classical music, and a lot of genius. But then again, I have heard incredibly talented jazz musicians who can compose on a moments notice stuff that someone sitting down at a desk couldn't do over the course of a week.

I digress, but I get a little bitchy when people hold classical music as some sort of pinnacle of genius. It really is not necessarily true. Especially considering jazz, especially considering where jazz came from (a very undervalued, dehumanized class of people during a terrible time in our history, somehow creating the most interesting music of the 20th century by far).

And I think jazz DID have a major impact on composers. And there is a lot of crossover too, lots of composers who got into jazz, and vice versa. Leonard Bernstein was a big jazz fan, and at that he loved the avant-guard jazz (he was one of the first to champion Ornette Coleman).

You can hear a major jazz influence in Bernstein's own music.

I could go on, but I need to go to bed, cause I have 18 miles to run at 5 in the morning...

Quote from: sonic1 on May 04, 2007, 09:16:19 PM
I guess I can respect this perspective.

From my perspective however, as a person who was certainly shaped by popular music (actually I cringe using such a term) I see a lot more of the influence and crossovers than maybe someone who would need to do a lot of research because of their lack of familiarity. I grew up listening to a lot A LOT of jazz, and lots of rock as well, with a focus on some of the less common sub-genres (hardly "popular" music). I have listened to a wide range of music in general and don't have a hierarchal placement for each genre necessarily. I know a lot of work goes into classical music, and a lot of genius. But then again, I have heard incredibly talented jazz musicians who can compose on a moments notice stuff that someone sitting down at a desk couldn't do over the course of a week.

I digress, but I get a little bitchy when people hold classical music as some sort of pinnacle of genius. It really is not necessarily true. Especially considering jazz, especially considering where jazz came from (a very undervalued, dehumanized class of people during a terrible time in our history, somehow creating the most interesting music of the 20th century by far).

And I think jazz DID have a major impact on composers. And there is a lot of crossover too, lots of composers who got into jazz, and vice versa. Leonard Bernstein was a big jazz fan, and at that he loved the avant-guard jazz (he was one of the first to champion Ornette Coleman).

You can hear a major jazz influence in Bernstein's own music.

I could go on, but I need to go to bed, cause I have 18 miles to run at 5 in the morning...

I see it rather from the same perspective. Classical music may generally be more sophisticated or complex than much popular music, but to place it at the pinnacle of some musical hierarchy misses a number of points, such as the incredible sophistication in modern jazz, to use your example, and the fact that music serves multiple functions and is enjoyed on different levels. I've heard rock songs that are musically nowhere near as complex as your average symphony yet hit me in the gut emotionally and capture my imagination more. Many people enjoy dancing or singing along to music, and from that perspective classical is a dismal failure, not some acme of musical achievement. How many people dance minuets these days? How many untrained singers can keep up with Bach or Wagner?

I agree, too, that of Western musical developments of the last century, the birth and evolution of jazz is more exciting and interesting (both musically and culturally) than the concurrent developments in the classical music world.

Quote from: Grazioso on May 05, 2007, 03:59:07 AM
I see it rather from the same perspective. Classical music may generally be more sophisticated or complex than much popular music, but to place it at the pinnacle of some musical hierarchy misses a number of points, such as the incredible sophistication in modern jazz, to use your example, and the fact that music serves multiple functions and is enjoyed on different levels. I've heard rock songs that are musically nowhere near as complex as your average symphony yet hit me in the gut emotionally and capture my imagination more. Many people enjoy dancing or singing along to music, and from that perspective classical is a dismal failure, not some acme of musical achievement. How many people dance minuets these days? How many untrained singers can keep up with Bach or Wagner?

I agree, too, that of Western musical developments of the last century, the birth and evolution of jazz is more exciting and interesting (both musically and culturally) than the concurrent developments in the classical music world.

There's much to agree with in that post, Grazioso. However, I believe sonic1 has misinterpreted my post. I ever indicated that classical music was nessecarily above popular music in some sort of hierarchy- now that would be snobbery. I've just tried to demonstrate that people like myself, who don't find much pleasure in popular music can still appreciate classical music because the two are more or less seperate spheres of influence. While I won't deny that popular music has had its influence, I don't believe that famililarizing myself with it is as important/crucial as being familiar with other classical composers writing in that style. I wouldn't deny the merits of another genre of music, but I just haven't found anything there thats really suited me.

Quote from: Steve on May 05, 2007, 06:43:03 AM
There's much to agree with in that post, Grazioso. However, I believe sonic1 has misinterpreted my post. I ever indicated that classical music was necessarily above popular music in some sort of hierarchy- now that would be snobbery. I've just tried to demonstrate that people like myself, who don't find much pleasure in popular music can still appreciate classical music because the two are more or less separate spheres of influence. While I won't deny that popular music has had its influence, I don't believe that familiarizing myself with it is as important/crucial as being familiar with other classical composers writing in that style. I wouldn't deny the merits of another genre of music, but I just haven't found anything there thats really suited me.

I never argued that you had to enjoy or even understand popular music. I was just arguing that it was important, and more so than just other elements of art and culture, because it IS music. And the beginning of the thread did smack of a bit of classical snobbery, which got me to posting contrary. And this coming from someone who has a collection that spans the entire history of classical music-not just someone who has skimmed the genre.

I guess also that someone making such a strong argument about the importance of popular music to classical composers, who admits to not having much experience with it, is a bit presumptive. Not to sound snobbish myself, but before one makes statements about popular music one should familiarize his or herself with it.

I don't mean that to come off as snippity as it sounds BTW.

As I have indicated elswhere, I do have significant experience with popular music. I have looked into a great deal of it, but not discovered much to my liking. I also contend that you are exaggerating the influence of popular music on classical. Just because popular music is a form of music, that does not demonstrate that it has head any more effect on composition than literature or the arts. I've argued that popular music, like other aspects of culture simply frame the environment that the composer wrote. While that information, much like background knowledge to a method actor, is non-essential to appreciating the work. When I encounter a piece of music, be it Brahms, Haydn, Mozart-- I can immediately see the tangeble influence of other composers. Its not very often, unless I'm listening to someone like Grieg, that I can detect the influence of popular music. I do not believe then, speaking as someone who is relatively familar with popular music, that experience with this genre of music is nessecary to be able to more fully appreciate the classical which I love.

Much of the reason that I have not been drawn to popular music, has been that I have never found it to be intellectually stimulating in the profound sense that classical is. Perhaps composers sometimes dip into simpler genres of music, but I don't imagine Beethoven would bend his knee to a folk musician as he would to Handel.

oh...I think we just need to agree to disagree. Of all the popular music out there, just considering jazz alone would ignore one of the hugest musical innovations of the century. How can such a huge movement in music not have an impact on composers. I just don't believe it.

Quote from: sonic1 on May 05, 2007, 07:33:53 PM
How can such a huge movement in music not have an impact on composers. I just don't believe it.

Petitio principii.

Quote from: sonic1 on May 05, 2007, 07:33:53 PM
oh...I think we just need to agree to disagree. Of all the popular music out there, just considering jazz alone would ignore one of the hugest musical innovations of the century. How can such a huge movement in music not have an impact on composers. I just don't believe it.

(My emphasis above.)

Believe it, at least in part.

Because Jazz offered something new, it was absorbed into the classical tradition by those who found something inspiring in it.

Rock offers very little for the modern "classical" composer, except electrical amplification: Hendrix, Lennon, and company all offer major and minor chords, and not much else for expanding the vocabulary.  You occasionally have e.g. an electric bass guitar being used in classical works (e.g. in Penderecki's Utrenja but the way it is used is not idiomatic to rock music at all).

You can talk to me about the rhythmic drive and beats of rock music, and how original they are, and I will send you back to the early 1900's to be spanked by Ives (Sym. #4), Stravinsky (Le Sacre), Schoenberg (Erwartung changes rhythm an average of every 4 seconds), Bartok (!!!), Varese (!!!!!), etc.  As far as electrification of music is concerned, that is a reason why Stockhausen appears on the Beatles' album cover for Sgt. Pepper.  Otto Luening should not be forgotten in this area.

So the influence would seem to be in the opposite direction, with rock composers/performers wanting to be accepted as classical ones (e.g. Billy Joel, Paul McCartney, Stewart Copeland), but so far their efforts are not impressive.

Quote from: Cato on May 06, 2007, 01:59:00 PM
Rock offers very little for the modern "classical" composer, except electrical amplification: Hendrix, Lennon, and company all offer major and minor chords, and not much else for expanding the vocabulary. 

You will hear far more than just major and minor triads in rock. One thing that rock offers that you won't find in classical (with perhaps a few odd exceptions), is a certain combination of tone colors. Just as classical music, jazz, etc. are marked by the predominant use of a certain group of instruments, so is rock. I've yet to hear any classical music that sounds like an extreme metal band playing full bore, cranked up to 11.

Similarly, even Stravinsky or Bartok sound rather restrained compared to the full-on aggression and speed of some rock music.

Quote from: Steve on May 05, 2007, 03:24:58 PM
Much of the reason that I have not been drawn to popular music, has been that I have never found it to be intellectually stimulating in the profound sense that classical is. Perhaps composers sometimes dip into simpler genres of music, but I don't imagine Beethoven would

Understandable, but I'd wager you're part of a small minority in seeking intellectual stimulation in music. It seems the great majority of people listen to music for emotional stimulation alone.

Cato: I could type a long rant bringing up the names Brian Eno, Radiohead, Keith Jarrett and/or Tom Waits, but I'm far too tired and stressed at the moment for it to make a great deal of sense if I do. Suffice it to say that if you can't find something in these musicians to appeal to you, then you're listening to them wrong.

There is much more to music than suggested in the posts above, even technically. Miles Davis played lines in his music that is not even very easy to chart on staff because of its rhythmic complexities (same with Coltrane, Eric Dolphy, Charles Mingus, etc). The rhythms of jazz ARE quite original. Every time someone tells me to listen to this or that piece of classical music as an example of rhythms that date before the jazz era, and supposedly the "source" of the rhythms I find myself some comical relief. It is never even close.

Jazz stemmed originally from poor blacks who has some influence from the classical tradition (and popular folk traditions including french, american, and others), but took it to a very new and different place. Yes, jazz musicians were incredibly influenced by composers, the relationship is reciprocal. But the point is not that jazz musicians came out of nowhere and gave music a charge. The point is that many innovations in music of the 20th century DID indeed stem from jazz. Classical composers did NOT originate every innovation, ESPECIALLY in the 20th century.

One of the great things about jazz is that you can play whatever you want without anything in front of you to dictate. Composers dictate on paper what the players are to play leaving very little up to interpretation. The major limitation here is the fact you are confined to what you can communicate on paper from composer to musician (yes there are exceptions but not for the most part).

Jazz uses "charts" or "fake sheets" which are guides, but often allow soloists to play whatever their heart desires, which does not limit them to what is on paper, or even what is possible to put on paper. Believe it or not, there is music outside the (notice the wording here) convenient possibilities of charting. I mean, yes, one can try to chart one of the more complicated lines from Miles Davis but the staff would get so ridiculous as to probably cause more confusion than not. This is especially true the more "out" jazz gets (Davis being just a doorway).

Many many composers attribute high praise for jazz, including Bernstein. Anyone who knows anything about Bernstein knows he was a major jazz nut, and that his music is highly influenced by jazz, and Bernstein is arguably one of the giants in 20th century music. And yes, Bernstein heavily influenced jazz too, but I am not arguing otherwise. I think this goes much farther than "cultural" inspiration. Especially in the 20th century where many of the best musicians were jazz musicians. In Europe, today, you especially see this trend.

Just as it would be ridiculous to imagine popular music without the influence of "serious" music, the reciprocal is also true. You can't just make out all popular music to be Brittney Spears.

Amen, brother!

Quote from: sonic1 on May 07, 2007, 07:46:27 AM
Classical composers did NOT originate every innovation, ESPECIALLY in the 20th century.

No argument there, whatsoever.

Oh, and I have not even breeched the subjects of chords and tonality. Particularly in the 60, in jazz, we saw some pretty unique combinations. This did inspire the music tradition at large.

Another important thing about popular music, is that it dictates, like it or not, what the average listener is going to accept. You may try to argue that this is not important to a composer, but you'd be an absolute fool. And this is coming from someone who loves the boundaries pushed-who loves the avant-guard. Most composers are very very aware and influenced by what people will accept. And popular music is what primes most people. 20th century music got very complex and people took large chances, probably largely because jazz pushed the popular ear to new places. That made a lot more people willing to listen to more complex music. This HAD to give a lot of composers a lot more freedom than previous.

I realize that culture plays this same role (allowing composers to go to certain places). But if one is to argue that popular music is no more important than any other cultural element, than one can also argue that ALL music is not more important than cultural influence, including classical music itself.

Quote from: The Mad Hatter on May 07, 2007, 07:34:05 AM
Cato: I could type a long rant bringing up the names Brian Eno, Radiohead, Keith Jarrett and/or Tom Waits, but I'm far too tired and stressed at the moment for it to make a great deal of sense if I do. Suffice it to say that if you can't find something in these musicians to appeal to you, then you're listening to them wrong.

Thanks for not typing a rant!   ;D

No, I am rather acquainted with them, through my kids, and remain unimpressed.

As far as "tone colors" in rock, and speed, again, I am not impressed by combining 2-4 guitars.  In the later 70's and 80's synthesizers do help to improve the pallet, but that again comes out of the electronic experiments of the 1950's, and was not invented by a rock group, vid. "Switched on Bach."

Speed?  Aggression?  See Liszt, Paganini, Prokofiev, Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Bartok (Miraculous Mandarin outdoes Rob    >:D   Zombie any day!) 

Quote from: sonic1 on May 05, 2007, 07:33:53 PM
oh...I think we just need to agree to disagree. Of all the popular music out there, just considering jazz alone would ignore one of the hugest musical innovations of the century. How can such a huge movement in music not have an impact on composers. I just don't believe it.

Easy. Jazz is not popular music.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 07, 2007, 09:26:48 AM
Easy. Jazz is not popular music.

It is not now, but it was particularly during its most influential period.

Quote from: sonic1 on May 07, 2007, 07:46:27 AM
There is much more to music than suggested in the posts above, even technically. Miles Davis played lines in his music that is not even very easy to chart on staff because of its rhythmic complexities (same with Coltrane, Eric Dolphy, Charles Mingus, etc). The rhythms of jazz ARE quite original. Every time someone tells me to listen to this or that piece of classical music as an example of rhythms that date before the jazz era, and supposedly the "source" of the rhythms I find myself some comical relief. It is never even close.

Jazz stemmed originally from poor blacks who has some influence from the classical tradition (and popular folk traditions including french, american, and others), but took it to a very new and different place. Yes, jazz musicians were incredibly influenced by composers, the relationship is reciprocal. But the point is not that jazz musicians came out of nowhere and gave music a charge. The point is that many innovations in music of the 20th century DID indeed stem from jazz. Classical composers did NOT originate every innovation, ESPECIALLY in the 20th century.

One of the great things about jazz is that you can play whatever you want without anything in front of you to dictate. Composers dictate on paper what the players are to play leaving very little up to interpretation. The major limitation here is the fact you are confined to what you can communicate on paper from composer to musician (yes there are exceptions but not for the most part).

Jazz uses "charts" or "fake sheets" which are guides, but often allow soloists to play whatever their heart desires, which does not limit them to what is on paper, or even what is possible to put on paper. Believe it or not, there is music outside the (notice the wording here) convenient possibilities of charting. I mean, yes, one can try to chart one of the more complicated lines from Miles Davis but the staff would get so ridiculous as to probably cause more confusion than not. This is especially true the more "out" jazz gets (Davis being just a doorway).

Many many composers attribute high praise for jazz, including Bernstein. Anyone who knows anything about Bernstein knows he was a major jazz nut, and that his music is highly influenced by jazz, and Bernstein is arguably one of the giants in 20th century music. And yes, Bernstein heavily influenced jazz too, but I am not arguing otherwise. I think this goes much farther than "cultural" inspiration. Especially in the 20th century where many of the best musicians were jazz musicians. In Europe, today, you especially see this trend.

Just as it would be ridiculous to imagine popular music without the influence of "serious" music, the reciprocal is also true. You can't just make out all popular music to be Brittney Spears.

Once again, I do not deny the merits of jazz, but in your posts you still don't escape the charge of petitio principii. That is your conclusion is suggested by the premises. Yes, jazz was influential on 20th Century culture- you will find no challenge that statement. But in order to successfully refute my posts, you will have to provide evidenciary support to the claim that jazz, and other forms of popular music, had such a significant impact on composers. I really don't see it.

As to this notion that popular music can gauge what the average listener will accept; I don't see the validity of this statement. Certain mediocre artisans may have to adjust their craft so that it might appeal to the masses, but I don't believe that composers are among them. Classical composers, like most great artists, do not subject their creativity to the fickle tastes of society. Perhaps, composers writing for Hollywood scores, or reruns of Broadway Musicals, need to be worried about this sort of thing, but the great composer, does, and should not. While he might be inspired by such inventiveness, the Jazz does not influence the composer in such a profound sense that other composers from the clasical tradition do. While on occassion I can see a more tangeable influence of popular music on comosers I enjoy, it pales in comparision to the powerful, direct influence of the other composers.

Jazz was an artistic phenonomenon of the 20th century- you will find no argument there. But, to say that it's influence was as direct and significant as composers from prior times, you will need to cite evidence for that. Simply stating that Jazz was a huge movement, which a great deal to offer society, does not demonstrate that it had a particularily important impact on the classical tradition. For that you either present evidence, or open your self to a charge petitio principii.

And there's the sort of mixed signals provided by a composer such as Stravinsky, e.g.  His various jazz/pop enthusiasms tended to be ephemeral and not to run at all deep, it seems to me.  Mostly, he remained himself throughout his career, and in all the twists and stylistic turns of his life.  Apart from creation of the odd minor work (the delightfully quirky Rag-time for Eleven Instruments, e.g.), I think it was no more a matter of jazz/pop influencing Stravinsky, than of Stravinsky finding a mirror of a small fragment of his musical self in this cultural 'artifact'.  (And, to be sure, genuine delight at something musically new to him.)

Quote from: sonic1 on May 07, 2007, 09:34:15 AM
It is not now, but it was particularly during its most influential period.

No, it wasn't. You are confusing popularity with what is generally referred to as popular music. The two aren't symptomatic of each other, much like you don't need to belong to a 'classic' period to be considered a classical composer. Those terms are only relative and their semantic connotations are only partially correlated to the styles and genres they are trying to express.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 07, 2007, 10:15:26 AM
No, it wasn't. You are confusing popularity with what is generally referred to as popular music. The two aren't symptomatic of each other, much like you don't need to belong to a 'classic' period to be considered a classical composer. Those terms are only relative and their semantic connotations are only partially correlated to the styles and genres they are trying to express.

Agreed.

Quote from: Cato on May 07, 2007, 08:21:15 AM
Thanks for not typing a rant!   ;D

No, I am rather acquainted with them, through my kids, and remain unimpressed.

As far as "tone colors" in rock, and speed, again, I am not impressed by combining 2-4 guitars.  In the later 70's and 80's synthesizers do help to improve the pallet, but that again comes out of the electronic experiments of the 1950's, and was not invented by a rock group, vid. "Switched on Bach."

Speed?  Aggression?  See Liszt, Paganini, Prokofiev, Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Bartok (Miraculous Mandarin outdoes Rob    >:D   Zombie any day!) 

But, you're actually missing the music here - a combination of two or three guitars, a bass and drums is no more or less complex than two violins, a viola and a 'cello. Between technical innovation (yes, it does exist in rock as elsewhere) and electronic manipulation, there is a wealth of tone colour to be found in these combinations.

Apart from which, the musicians I mentioned aren't really guitar based: Brian Eno only uses it as a background instrument; Keith Jarrett is a pianist; Radiohead have done some great stuff with guitars, but since 2001 have been far more interested in electronic music; and Tom Waits can make it sound (as he seemingly can with any instrument) like the guitar itself is a heavy smoker.

Josquin: jazz wasn't always complex, and was certainly popular when it began. How would you define 'popular' music?

I'm also curious as to what people on this forum - particularly those arguing against popular music - think of the traditional world musics.

Either I don't understand your definition of popular music, or you don't understand the history of jazz, which was the popular music of its day before it got too squirley for the average person and before the Beatles/Elvis/etc came along.

I have more to say to the above but I have to go to work.

more later.

I think the whole argument with which is more innovative- popular music or classical, is not really an argument you can prove one way or the other.
It depends on who you're comparing..... it's true much of rock uses just power chords, or minor or major triads almost all the time, but then you have a lot of rock that doesn't. Sonic Youth, for example, where very discordant and used all sorts of guitar effects. Steve Vai and Joe Satriani often have atonal solos, which is always fun. This one song by Joe Satriani, Woodstock Jam is made up of a repeating oddly-timed bass figure that repeats for 15 minutes while all he does is solo with melodic fragments and uses different spaceship noises that remind me a lot of Stockhausen, then it culminates into a gloriously demonic, atonal ending.

Most of the rock stuff nowadays is pretty simple, and not original at all, or only a little. There's guitarists and bands out there who ARE pretty creative, but they aren't recognized because of course, most people people don't want something interesting, only something accessible.

Quote from: The Mad Hatter on May 07, 2007, 11:03:42 AM
But, you're actually missing the music here - a combination of two or three guitars, a bass and drums is no more or less complex than two violins, a viola and a 'cello. Between technical innovation (yes, it does exist in rock as elsewhere) and electronic manipulation, there is a wealth of tone colour to be found in these combinations.

Apart from which, the musicians I mentioned aren't really guitar based: Brian Eno only uses it as a background instrument; Keith Jarrett is a pianist; Radiohead have done some great stuff with guitars, but since 2001 have been far more interested in electronic music; and Tom Waits can make it sound (as he seemingly can with any instrument) like the guitar itself is a heavy smoker.

Josquin: jazz wasn't always complex, and was certainly popular when it began. How would you define 'popular' music?

I'm also curious as to what people on this forum - particularly those arguing against popular music - think of the traditional world musics.

As I mentioned earlier -    8)   -  I am acquainted with your triumvirate and am not impressed, regardless of the instrumentation.

I have already mentioned Jazz as quite fine, and there are all kinds of it, simple to complex: certainly Bartok was impressed by Art Tatum, as I am.

Sonic1 is correct, except for the use of the definite article in calling Jazz "the popular music of its day" as it co-existed with other popular styles.  Certainly it came to dominate in the long run.

But you are forgetting the main point of my post some days ago: the influence of rock music on contemporary classical seems to be nil, unlike what happened with Jazz in the 1920's and beyond.

When Elliot Carter in his dotage sees fit to somehow incorporate Brian Eno, etc. into his music, when Penderecki transmogrifies Mr. Waits, when Rautavaara or Saariaho start to sound like the Go-Go's or the Wilson sisters of Heart, then one can accurately claim that Rock has influenced contemporary classical composers.

The evidence so far shows an influence in the other direction, as I wrote earlier:  STOCKHAUSEN and Glass came before Joe Satriani.  Greg proves my point here with more evidence.

And pop music is fun stuff: but it ain't Bruckner, buster!     ;D

I think we are having a problem with definitions here. When I think of popular music, I am thinking of music that is made by people who are not necessarily classically trained, at least as composers are, and the music is listened to by a the culture at large. Jazz at one time was largely listened to by a lot of people. It may be that some of the audience had to have white players to listen to it, but none-the-less jazz was the popular music for a little while. I mean, come on guys, swing??? It dominated for a while.

And then there are all the different periods way before jazz, the popular folk musics of each region which effected composers greatly. Can we imagine a lot of Bartok without his hungarian folk music influence? I realize there is probably a difference between folk music and popular music, but talking about all these different periods in one conversation makes definitions difficult, because before radio, and recorded music, what exactly would you CALL popular music? I would say the folk music of each region was generally the popular music of the day, and that popular music was more regional than before.

Anyway, that is a digression. But there seems to be an effort to amputate Jazz from popular music, and I don't understand why. You will have to work harder than just TELLING me that it isn't.

It had the majority of radio play at one time, it dominated the recording industry at one time, most people when they went dancing, danced to swing at one time....what about that ISN'T popular??

Regarding rock music:

I will admit that rock music has a relative minor influence on classical music. Of course that also depends on who you are talking about. Brian Eno's influence on the minimalists for example cannot be overlooked.

Someone mentioned sonic youth: they used a lot of very innovative techniques, like microtonal drone strings, and such. But I won't argue that Rock had a huge influence on composers musically.

Quote from: Cato on May 07, 2007, 03:12:41 PM
As I mentioned earlier -    8)   -  I am acquainted with your triumvirate and am not impressed, regardless of the instrumentation.

I have already mentioned Jazz as quite fine, and there are all kinds of it, simple to complex: certainly Bartok was impressed by Art Tatum, as I am.

Sonic1 is correct, except for the use of the definite article in calling Jazz "the popular music of its day" as it co-existed with other popular styles.  Certainly it came to dominate in the long run.

But you are forgetting the main point of my post some days ago: the influence of rock music on contemporary classical seems to be nil, unlike what happened with Jazz in the 1920's and beyond.

When Elliot Carter in his dotage sees fit to somehow incorporate Brian Eno, etc. into his music, when Penderecki transmogrifies Mr. Waits, when Rautavaara or Saariaho start to sound like the Go-Go's or the Wilson sisters of Heart, then one can accurately claim that Rock has influenced contemporary classical composers.

The evidence so far shows an influence in the other direction, as I wrote earlier:  STOCKHAUSEN and Glass came before Joe Satriani.  Greg proves my point here with more evidence.

And pop music is fun stuff: but it ain't Bruckner, buster!     ;D

European composers, probably not. But many American and Australian composers will freely admit an influence of The Beatles or others. But you must bear in mind that the music itself is still young - it's only been here for fifty or so years - and many of the people who will be influenced by it haven't established themselves internationally yet. Most of the composers you named are rather beyond the stage of absorbing influences at this stage - except for Glass, who did in fact write two symphonies based on the music of David Bowie.

Also, when did this become a debate as to which music had the greater influence on the other? Is that important? Or is it about the worth of the music alone? And what makes music valuable? We could talk about extended techniques (Mozart had no use for these) or expressiveness (not an idea Stravinsky was fond of), or beauty (Boulez can be described as a lot of things, but this isn't one of them), or complexity (which doesn't really allow for Mahler leading to Copland).

Can you answer two things for me, by the way? Firstly, what do you think of 'World' music? That is, the various traditional musics? And secondly, when you were listening - specifically to Eno and Radiohead (as the other two are considerably more conventional, I may deal with them later) - what were you actually listening for?

Mad Hatter wrote:

[i

Quote]Firstly, what do you think of 'World' music? That is, the various traditional musics? And secondly, when you were listening - specifically to Eno and Radiohead (as the other two are considerably more conventional, I may deal with them later) - what were you actually listening for?

[/i]

1. World music is the wrong term: that is the synthesized Madison Avenueized stuff.  Traditional folk music has some things which interest me, but I will admit to liking Dvorak e.g. and what he does under the influence, rather than just hearing a Czech folk tune unadorned.

2. Anything of interest.

"Many American and Australian composers will freely admit an influence..."

Many?  Start naming names!   8)

Quote from: Cato on May 07, 2007, 05:30:52 PM
Mad Hatter wrote:

[i[/i]

1. World music is the wrong term: that is the synthesized Madison Avenueized stuff.  Traditional folk music has some things which interest me, but I will admit to liking Dvorak e.g. and what he does under the influence, rather than just hearing a Czech folk tune unadorned.

2. Anything of interest.

"Many American and Australian composers will freely admit an influence..."

Many?  Start naming names!   8)

Wish I could (though Gavin Bryars and Philip Glass come to mind) - I'm trying to recall a lecture I attended three years ago...until I find my notes at least, I'll concede this point to you.

World music may be the wrong term for 'traditional folk music' - that's just a semantic point, no more than throwing two artists like Radiohead and Britney Spears into the same category. I don't really listen to much of either - I used the term 'world music' to differentiate from the specific tradition of one country or another.

Fair enough if you don't like popular music - I just don't understand how such a vast array of different styles can be written off so completely.

Quote from: The Mad Hatter on May 07, 2007, 11:03:42 AM
But, you're actually missing the music here - a combination of two or three guitars, a bass and drums is no more or less complex than two violins, a viola and a 'cello. Between technical innovation (yes, it does exist in rock as elsewhere) and electronic manipulation, there is a wealth of tone colour to be found in these combinations.

Actually, you can wring far more varied tone colors out of that typical rock combination of instruments than a string quartet. The guitar alone, when electrified, can sound like just about anything thanks to electronic effects and synthesis.

Quote from: sonic1 on May 07, 2007, 03:55:37 PM
It had the majority of radio play at one time, it dominated the recording industry at one time, most people when they went dancing, danced to swing at one time....what about that ISN'T popular??

Of course jazz was popular music during swing's heyday, but with certain socio-economic shifts and the birth of "modern jazz" with bebop and all the various post-bop styles--when the music's complexity and intellectualism started to rise exponentially--it ceased to be popular in either sense.

Quote from: The Mad Hatter on May 08, 2007, 03:39:22 AM
Wish I could (though Gavin Bryars and Philip Glass come to mind) - I'm trying to recall a lecture I attended three years ago...until I find my notes at least, I'll concede this point to you.

World music may be the wrong term for 'traditional folk music' - that's just a semantic point, no more than throwing two artists like Radiohead and Britney Spears into the same category. I don't really listen to much of either - I used the term 'world music' to differentiate from the specific tradition of one country or another.

Fair enough if you don't like popular music - I just don't understand how such a vast array of different styles can be written off so completely.

(My emphasis!)

Please read carefully!  I DO like popular music!!!  Haven't you noticed all the groups I mentioned?  I will admit - in public -to liking The Monkees and the The Beach Boys!  I am not "writing them off"!

What I am disputing is the contention that Rock 'n' Roll has been somehow influential on contemporary classical composers: it is just the opposite, as mentioned earlier.

Quote from: Cato on May 08, 2007, 04:11:19 AM
(My emphasis!)

Please read carefully!  I DO like popular music!!!  Haven't you noticed all the groups I mentioned?  I will admit - in public -to liking The Monkees and the The Beach Boys!  I am not "writing them off"!

What I am disputing is the contention that Rock 'n' Roll has been somehow influential on contemporary classical composers: it is just the opposite, as mentioned earlier.

Sorry, I was speaking more generally, rather than just of you. But please don't tell me that you think influence can only work in one direction - surely I don't need to cite examples to dispute this? No, rock, pop, electronica, dance, etc., etc., have not had a great influence on classical yet. But that neither takes from its value as music, nor suggests that it will never happen.

Grazioso: that's actually what I was getting at.

Quote from: The Mad Hatter on May 08, 2007, 04:18:20 AM
Sorry, I was speaking more generally, rather than just of you. But please don't tell me that you think influence can only work in one direction - surely I don't need to cite examples to dispute this? No, rock, pop, electronica, dance, etc., etc., have not had a great influence on classical yet. But that neither takes from its value as music, nor suggests that it will never happen.

Agreed!  But after 50 years, if Rock 'n' Roll ain't had an influence yet, I'd say it ain't gonna never!   ;D

But who knows?  Maybe somebody will produce an incredible Variations on a Theme of Kathy Valentine and then...!

Quote from: Cato on May 08, 2007, 04:11:19 AM
Please read carefully!  I DO like popular music!!!  Haven't you noticed all the groups I mentioned?  I will admit - in public -to liking The Monkees and the The Beach Boys!  I am not "writing them off"!

A few months ago I read, not so much a curious book, but a book curiously then to be found at the museum bookshop, wherein I learnt that "The Archies" as a studio fiction were something of a spite move by the producer of the Monkees when the latter tried too hard to have some say in what they were doing . . . .

What do we mean by influence?  My impression is, all right, the influence flows in both directions, but it is not quite an "equal but opposite flow."

So:  what are the influences of the classics upon rock 'n' roll?

What are the influences of rock 'n' roll upon (for want of a less loaded term) 'serious music'?

Quote from: Grazioso on May 08, 2007, 04:05:55 AM


Of course jazz was popular music during swing's heyday, but with certain socio-economic shifts and the birth of "modern jazz" with bebop and all the various post-bop styles--when the music's complexity and intellectualism started to rise exponentially--it ceased to be popular in either sense.

But the point is, it WAS popular music at one time. And many of the innovations i am speaking of didn't come out of modern jazz-though modern jazz certainly innovated music to a high degree. Most of the hugest innovations came out of jazz from its very beginning.

Quote from: karlhenning on May 08, 2007, 04:41:02 AM
A few months ago I read, not so much a curious book, but a book curiously then to be found at the museum bookshop, wherein I learnt that "The Archies" as a studio fiction were something of a spite move by the producer of the Monkees when the latter tried too hard to have some say in what they were doing . . . .

What do we mean by influence?  My impression is, all right, the influence flows in both directions, but it is not quite an "equal but opposite flow."

So:  what are the influences of the classics upon rock 'n' roll?

What are the influences of rock 'n' roll upon (for want of a less loaded term) 'serious music'?

Yes, that's the story on The Monkees I have always heard too.  My brother and I recently caught their strange movie Head which featured Jack Nicholson as co-screenwriter: yes, the one and only!  Completely plotless, the movie is a forerunner of the stream-of-consciousness music videos found on MTV, parallel with some of the Beatles' movies.

I have heard melodies from Praetorius to Rachmaninoff abducted by various rock groups/singers.  Zappa and Robert Lamm of Chicago (and a host of others) have said a great influence on their musical thinking came from the experimental music of Edgar Varese.

Quote from: Cato on May 08, 2007, 05:00:13 AM
Yes, that's the story on The Monkees I have always heard too.  My brother and I recently caught their strange movie Head which featured Jack Nicholson as co-screenwriter: yes, the one and only!

And, peculiarly, the first I knew of this cinematic endeavor (which I have not yet seen, naturally) was one of the photos illustrating this volume:

(http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/51HABB54Y3L._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA240_SH20_.jpg)

The picture is on the set, and Zappa holds some livestock on a tether.  Poignant synergy with the Läther album:

(http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/41TT0AE337L._AA240_.jpg)

I am out of this if we are just discussing rock music. My idea of popular music is more general, and I think popular music of modern times (right now) poses a number of huge exceptions to all the rules that came before. I also think it is way to early to tell with Rock music. I think Jazz is the weird exception in being a popular music that has already made its impact because of recording technology-so it is very different than any popular music that came before.

And with Rock, it comes during a time when people are the LEAST educated about music than they have ever been about music.

But, for those of us who are relatively young, whose ears were primed with Rock music wherever we go, it is hard to imagine it not having a significant influence or impact on us, and I mean in a musical way. And when I say that, I am actually a little dismayed by the thought, because in my opinion most rock music of the last few decades has been s**t music. The radio is a dismal place to find music, though...THANK GOD FOR INTERNET RADIO-that will probably save us all.

The musical influence will probably be somewhat more of a structural influence (structure of music) and also it, if not already, will influence the tone colors chosen. It is hard to say what other ways it will influence music (in probably more of a subtle manner).

I think the influences are also hard to list off-some are much less obvious than others and it would take some serious work, research, to look into how rock music will, and already has, influenced classical music.

But with rock music dominating all that we hear around us, and having such a huge impact on the recording industry, it is hard to imagine it NOT having an impact. But I am not prepared necessarily to make a great argument about popular music effecting composers if we are narrowing down to rock music. I just think, in general, popular music does influence classical composers. Even if choice of techniques are not innovative: if rock music influenced more usage of diatonic methods, that IS an influence, whether or not it is innovative.


Totally off the subject: does anyone know of any classical pieces that are about teenage angst?

There are numerous examples of rock musicians expressing their classical influences, but I would like to hear more about composers talking about their rock influences. I know I have read about this somewhere and will have to try to dig it up. It may not be an obviously reciprocal relationship. One thing: classical composers are often a little snobbish about music, and don't necessarily want to admit they are influenced by rock music-just look at the reaction here already. It is almost cool amongst classical folk to say, " ah rock? Boring. Haven't listened to it since I was a teenager" or whatever. But I think there is more to the story.

Quote from: sonic1 on May 07, 2007, 03:57:55 PM

Someone mentioned sonic youth: they used a lot of very innovative techniques, like microtonal drone strings, and such. But I won't argue that Rock had a huge influence on composers musically.

The reason they didn't have an influence is because hardly any composers ever use electric guitars, and obviously you can't get those types of sounds on the violin. But........ hey, there's always Glenn Branca, the only guy I can think of who combines avant-garde rock with avant-garde classical to make something completely original.

QuoteThere are numerous examples of rock musicians expressing their classical influences, but I would like to hear more about composers talking about their rock influences. I know I have read about this somewhere and will have to try to dig it up. It may not be an obviously reciprocal relationship. One thing: classical composers are often a little snobbish about music, and don't necessarily want to admit they are influenced by rock music-just look at the reaction here already. It is almost cool amongst classical folk to say, " ah rock? Boring. Haven't listened to it since I was a teenager" or whatever. But I think there is more to the story.

Well, you might be happy to know that I'll be one of the first to have rock influences in my classical music- when I write electric guitar concertos. That'll be a while off, though.

Also, on the Finale, Sibelius, and Noteworthy websites, a LOT of the amateur compositions on those sites sound like music from people who listen to more rock than classical, even though it might be a classical piece for orchestra. The only thing is, all of them sucked- if you were to use rock influences in classical, it'd have to be done a different way, or by composers who are better.

Quote from: The Mad Hatter on May 07, 2007, 04:38:33 PM
But many American and Australian composers will freely admit an influence of The Beatles or others.

But, what is the influence?  If it boils down to "I like listening to this at times, so it's got to be somewhere in the mix," I don't know that it really rises to the status of influence.

Quote from: sonic1 on May 08, 2007, 05:19:38 AM
There are numerous examples of rock musicians expressing their classical influences, but I would like to hear more about composers talking about their rock influences. I know I have read about this somewhere and will have to try to dig it up. It may not be an obviously reciprocal relationship. One thing: classical composers are often a little snobbish about music, and don't necessarily want to admit they are influenced by rock music-just look at the reaction here already. It is almost cool amongst classical folk to say, " ah rock? Boring. Haven't listened to it since I was a teenager" or whatever. But I think there is more to the story.

Points well taken, though if there has been snobbishness here, I've largely missed it.

Quote from: sonic1 on May 08, 2007, 05:10:43 AM
I am out of this if we are just discussing rock music. My idea of popular music is more general, and I think popular music of modern times (right now) poses a number of huge exceptions to all the rules that came before. I also think it is way to early to tell with Rock music. I think Jazz is the weird exception in being a popular music that has already made its impact because of recording technology-so it is very different than any popular music that came before.

I agree.  Seems to me though that there's been a bit of a tussle here . . . you and I seem to share the idea that jazz falls under the broad category of popular music (and if it does not entirely fit into that category, I wonder if it will ever cease to straddle it).

Quote from: greg on May 08, 2007, 05:25:23 AM
The reason they didn't have an influence is because hardly any composers ever use electric guitars, and obviously you can't get those types of sounds on the violin. But........ hey, there's always Glenn Branca, the only guy I can think of who combines avant-garde rock with avant-garde classical to make something completely original.

Ah, I just realized that Sonic Youth has used tonal colors probably not heard before in music. Whether or not that has an impact on composers is unknown to me. But yes, it would be difficult to reproduce them with acoustic instruments. The clanging metalsmith sounding textures, combined with chords (and accompanying microtonal drone strings) is hugely innovative. They use distortion pedals that were made for them, and the chords they used probably came from experiment rather than premeditation. Even to this day they probably don't know exactly all the notes in the chords they use (and what do you call chords with microtones??).

(I am a big SY fan btw, despite their predictability as of late)

Quote from: sonic1 on May 08, 2007, 05:48:12 AM
(and what do you call chords with microtones??)

"Out of tune"

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Just kidding!  ;)

Quote from: sonic1 on May 08, 2007, 05:48:12 AM
Ah, I just realized that Sonic Youth has used tonal colors probably not heard before in music. Whether or not that has an impact on composers is unknown to me. But yes, it would be difficult to reproduce them with acoustic instruments. The clanging metalsmith sounding textures, combined with chords (and accompanying microtonal drone strings) is hugely innovative. They use distortion pedals that were made for them, and the chords they used probably came from experiment rather than premeditation. Even to this day they probably don't know exactly all the notes in the chords they use (and what do you call chords with microtones??).

(I am a big SY fan btw, despite their predictability as of late)

"Xenharmonic" is the term you are looking for to refer to chords using microtones.

Again, here we see the influence of classical on rock: microtonal experiments go back to the early 1900's.

I will send Sonic1 to experience Alois Haba, Ivan Wyschnegradsky, Julian Carrillo, Ben Johnston, Easley Blackwood, Johnny Reinhard,

and of course Harry Partch !!!

~
Anthony Storr in his book, Music and the Mind (1992), has this to say:

"It is only since the 1950s that the gap between classical and popular music has widened into a canyon which is nearly unbridgeable."

I generally agree with this; however, I am not intending to put down 50s/60s rock and roll. I was attracted to this music as a teenager. Having lived through this period, I realize the impact this new music had, and is still having, on our culture. I have to say, however, that I have no attraction for current popular music. I'm not knocking it, I just don't understand it.

I know these composers (I have a lot more music experience than you are giving me credit for). I know full well microtones are not new to music. It is HOW they are used that was original with Sonic Youth. Actually the closest I can think of to how Sonic Youth uses microtones comes from jazz: Don Ellis. He used microtones in a similar manner with albums like his Live in 3 2/3/ 4 Time, released in 1966.

The way microtones were used with the above composers were mostly in the melodic lines, or added into a chord played at once, not sustained and shifting. Maybe the closest I can think of in classical music is Giacinto Scelsi, but his music was very minimalist and sustained long chords over a period of time-the presence of microtones in SY's music was done by downtuning or uptuning drone strings, but the chords were changing in a similar speed as you normally see in popular music. The chord choices were also original. Very dissonant, though often resolving to some slightly altered major chord. The resolution chords came off sounding resonant, with a slight tension from those microtonal down or uptuned strinds. Don ellis accomplished this with the creation of his four-valved trumpet. Harry Parch's music was very clunky, and much more percussive than anything (I have just about everything I know he recorded). Alois Haba (funny you should mention HIM) derived his inspiration from from folk singers who would get into dispute with people playing tempered instruments. Very great to bring him up, because he is quoted as saying he got his inspiration for using microtonal melody lines from those very folk singers.

Ivan Wyschnegradsky invented that quarter-tone piano. Carrillo differed by demonstrating the possibility of writing for sixteenth of tones (rather than just quarter or third tones). Yada yada...the methods with SY were generally a bit different. Many of the composers you mentioned derived their influence of using these tones from Indian music, African music, and other world musics which date far back before ANY western composer even thought of using such tones-for it was the consonant sound for them (our consonant sound developed much later).





I may not be communicating this well, forgive me if I am not. I just ran 8 miles (with lots of hills, so the blood is not all in my brain at the moment).

jared

Quote from: Cato on May 08, 2007, 06:29:12 AM
"Xenharmonic" is the term you are looking for to refer to chords using microtones.

I meant each chord individually, not the general terminology.

(currently playing "Cross the Breeze" on my Ibanez)  8)

Quote from: James on May 08, 2007, 01:44:49 PM
jazz is a form of popular music imo, mainly dabblers....it often uses simple song forms based on legacy changes (yawn), most of it features junk composition and indulgent pointless homophonic block chord fumbling (i.e. Keith Jarrett). it's musical backwater and the players just seem to be in it for themselves. it is very narrow musically speaking compared to the art music tradition, then again it's been around for a lot less too. jazzers are typically very tribalistic and narrow i have found. little do they realize that there is more music to be heard elsewhere...i hear more music in 3 bars of good writing then 30,000 bars of meandering self absorbed noodling that jazz often presents...

for me, popular music is good for a blast of joy or an adrenalin rush but that's about the full extent of it...its nowhere near as rich and profound as the art music tradition. most serious artists found in popular music (including jazz) stand in awe of classical music and would be very ill at ease trying to play it, and the ones that have tried can attest to this.

wow. Who have you been hanging out with? Most jazz musicians I know double as symphonic players, or have extensive classical collections. I have read a bit of jazz history and biography, so hearing these kinds of uneducated statements kind of bugs me. Most of the great jazz composers, especially the modern ones, were great fans of composers, and they all had their favorites. And this is despite great class/race issues to overcome.

There is a lot of shit jazz out there, don't get me wrong. And a lot of cop-out composing techniques, like using old changes, or modal styles. But there is a lot of jazz out there that does more than that.

you know, I am really suprised to see people write stuff like this. I would think one would try not to come off so...I don't know. But what I was saying about before about music snobbery is displayed well here.

I mean, it would kind of be like me talking about most classical music players being geeky dull and ignorant of most of the music they play, which is a stereotype that exists out there, but would be rude, and terribly overlooking a lot of talented interesting people. The way you talk about "jazzers" is a little offensive.

Quote from: James on May 08, 2007, 01:44:49 PM
jazz is a form of popular music imo, mainly dabblers....it often uses simple song forms based on legacy changes (yawn), most of it features junk composition and indulgent pointless homophonic block chord fumbling (i.e. Keith Jarrett). it's musical backwater and the players just seem to be in it for themselves. it is very narrow musically speaking compared to the art music tradition, then again it's been around for a lot less too. jazzers are typically very tribalistic and narrow i have found. little do they realize that there is more music to be heard elsewhere...i hear more music in 3 bars of good writing then 30,000 bars of meandering self absorbed noodling that jazz often presents...

Strange; that's not what I've found since I started playing jazz again...

Quote from: karlhenning on May 08, 2007, 05:30:40 AM
But, what is the influence?  If it boils down to "I like listening to this at times, so it's got to be somewhere in the mix," I don't know that it really rises to the status of influence.

Ah! I found one of the quotes:

Quote from: Michael GordonStrawberry Fields Forever ends with a false fadeout - when the music returns its turned upside down - nothing is as it was - and toward the real end John Lennon says "I buried Paul." When the record came out people in America went crazy trying to find other clues that Paul McCartney was really dead. DJs played Beatles records backwards on the radio, and as a result some very strange music - and a lot of noise got broadcast. This piece is about that noise.

I think that qualifies, for a start... And, as I think I mentioned before, Philip Glass has collaborated with David Bowie, and Gavin Bryars with both Brian Eno and Tom Waits.

It's more generally found its way more into jazz than classical, though. I've heard a considerable number of excellent jazz arrangements of songs by The Beatles and Radiohead.

Quote from: The Mad Hatter on May 09, 2007, 02:07:56 AM
Ah! I found one of the quotes:
I think that qualifies, for a start... And, as I think I mentioned before, Philip Glass has collaborated with David Bowie, and Gavin Bryars with both Brian Eno and Tom Waits.

It's more generally found its way more into jazz than classical, though. I've heard a considerable number of excellent jazz arrangements of songs by The Beatles and Radiohead.

Yes, I love what Brad Meldau does with some of those Radiohead songs. Then there's the classical piano versions of Radiohead songs by O'Reilly, which I enjoy but don't think come off as well as a whole. 

Quote from: James on May 08, 2007, 01:44:49 PM
jazz is a form of popular music imo, mainly dabblers....it often uses simple song forms based on legacy changes (yawn), most of it features junk composition and indulgent pointless homophonic block chord fumbling (i.e. Keith Jarrett). it's musical backwater and the players just seem to be in it for themselves. it is very narrow musically speaking compared to the art music tradition, then again it's been around for a lot less too. jazzers are typically very tribalistic and narrow i have found. little do they realize that there is more music to be heard elsewhere...i hear more music in 3 bars of good writing then 30,000 bars of meandering self absorbed noodling that jazz often presents...

for me, popular music is good for a blast of joy or an adrenalin rush but that's about the full extent of it...its nowhere near as rich and profound as the art music tradition. most serious artists found in popular music (including jazz) stand in awe of classical music and would be very ill at ease trying to play it, and the ones that have tried can attest to this.

That's either a well-executed bit of trolling or a loud display of ignorance. I can only recommend broader and deeper listening to and studying of jazz to gain a more accurate, informed picture of what it's about and how it functions (including its hallmark openness to and adoption of musical ideas from outside its putative boundaries).

As for meandering, self-absorbed noodling, you can find plenty of that in classical music, too. If you want to compare genres as a whole, then you need to consider both the best and the worst of each, which means not just "Beethoven's masterpieces versus a third-rate jazz artist on an off day". But trying to perform an X vs. Y comparison of two disparate things is rather futile.

To call jazz "very narrow musically speaking" is quite shocking: Try Ellington, Zorn, Braxton, Sun Ra, Taylor, etc. You can go from Louis Armstrong's Hot 5 recordings to three-hour melodramas to third-stream symphonic/jazz hybrids to free jazz that barely sounds like jazz as it's typically construed. Jazz boasts huge range of instrumentation, piece lengths, styles, moods, etc. It's nothing if not varied. And like classical, it's just as willing to stretch or break accepted forms and norms as to adhere to them. In fact, it's probably more willing to set aside rules when need be.

Quote from: The Mad Hatter on May 09, 2007, 02:07:56 AM
It's more generally found its way more into jazz than classical, though. I've heard a considerable number of excellent jazz arrangements of songs by The Beatles and Radiohead.

That is one of the jazz traditions, of course:  the "standards" which are to some degree or other personalized in a cabaret(-ish) act.

Quote from: James on May 08, 2007, 01:44:49 PM
jazz is a form of popular music imo, mainly dabblers....it often uses simple song forms based on legacy changes (yawn), most of it features junk composition and indulgent pointless homophonic block chord fumbling (i.e. Keith Jarrett). it's musical backwater and the players just seem to be in it for themselves. it is very narrow musically speaking compared to the art music tradition, then again it's been around for a lot less too. jazzers are typically very tribalistic and narrow i have found. little do they realize that there is more music to be heard elsewhere...i hear more music in 3 bars of good writing then 30,000 bars of meandering self absorbed noodling that jazz often presents...

for me, popular music is good for a blast of joy or an adrenalin rush but that's about the full extent of it...its nowhere near as rich and profound as the art music tradition. most serious artists found in popular music (including jazz) stand in awe of classical music and would be very ill at ease trying to play it, and the ones that have tried can attest to this.

Although I like some jazz in small doses, I generally agree with your opinion of jazz and popular music.

JS

Quote from: sonic1 on May 08, 2007, 02:55:14 PM
wow. Who have you been hanging out with? Most jazz musicians I know double as symphonic players, or have extensive classical collections. I have read a bit of jazz history and biography, so hearing these kinds of uneducated statements kind of bugs me. Most of the great jazz composers, especially the modern ones, were great fans of composers, and they all had their favorites. And this is despite great class/race issues to overcome.

There is a lot of shit jazz out there, don't get me wrong. And a lot of cop-out composing techniques, like using old changes, or modal styles. But there is a lot of jazz out there that does more than that.

you know, I am really suprised to see people write stuff like this. I would think one would try not to come off so...I don't know. But what I was saying about before about music snobbery is displayed well here.

I mean, it would kind of be like me talking about most classical music players being geeky dull and ignorant of most of the music they play, which is a stereotype that exists out there, but would be rude, and terribly overlooking a lot of talented interesting people. The way you talk about "jazzers" is a little offensive.

I too, have my qualms with what James had to say about the Jazz tradition. Certainly lumping together all Jazz musicians as narrowminded and lacking in skill would be a hasty generalization fallacy, and so, of course, a statemtn without validity. The statements of James that I have problems with involve the attributes of the musicians themselves, and not of their music.

I don't happend to be very fond of Jazz, or think much of its merits with respect to classical, but I can refrain from atacking the musicians themselves. This senseless rhetoric has no place among educated people.

How many classical musicians could improvise something coherent over the Giant Steps changes?

How many can phrase like Miles or Louis?

Jazz is by no means inferior to classical.  It is just different, fully composed and improvised music offer different things - its apples and oranges.

Quote from: bwv 1080 on May 09, 2007, 11:30:57 AM
How many classical musicians could improvise something coherent over the Giant Steps changes?

How many can phrase like Miles or Louis?

Jazz is by no means inferior to classical.  It is just different, fully composed and improvised music offer different things - its apples and oranges.

Well, they are of course very different entities, indeed, but equal.....  ;D

Quote from: James on May 09, 2007, 12:26:04 PM
i have heard all of the artists you have listed and way way more on top of that, and i still stand by what i said, you take the most enduring and greatest composers found in jazz, like Monk, Ellington, Joplin, Mingus or Corea for instance, or the best chordal improvisers like say Trane or Bird, and all of them are fine talents with their 'moments', but in a broad sense it?s rather earthbound and narrow in comparison to whats found in art music....

and i do like bits of jazz dont get me wrong, but overall when you take into account the fractured bits that are great, it doesnt quite compare to the content, focus and results presented in the very best of art music. you don't hear musical results of the same level and depth.

but as i said earlier, jazz has been around for a lot less, so your comparing roughly 100yrs of jazz history with close to 1000 of art music history and all it's evolution. so yes, musically it is quite narrow compared to art music, lots of jazz is merely homophonic. Solo-based with patchy results, which often amounts to some 'great moments' and loads forgetable compositions, that when the jazz dust settles aren't really worth listening to, certainly nowhere near compositionally to whats found in classical.

in terms of popular music, sure, jazz has contributed but compared with art music? Nah, you must be dreaming, it doesn?t offer much new at all and is rather crude in comparison....and just because some classical composers take inspiration or even graft certain stylistic surface-oriented things from certain elements of what's popular doesnt mean much. most of jazz's practitioners essentially dabble and sure, many have classical recordings for sure (you wouldn't be much of a serious musician to overlook it, it's a goldmine with the highest possible levels found in music period!), some of them have played and even recorded works also, took classical lessons in youth etc but overall it really doesn't come close at all, and there isn?t really a serious manifestation of it in the music, dabbling in otherwords.

jazz, by the very nature of it's process (trying to make music on the spot via improv) is just not really built to last like art music is, and its hard to apply the same level of rigour, thought and care under those circumstances, where each note has the utmost musical value, because you dont know whats going to happen next when its done on the fly. and improvising in and of it self isn?t anything special, all of the great classical composers where master improvisors too (ie Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Chopin, Liszt, Messiaen etc) its a piece of cake to noodle thru harmonic sequences when you have all of that musical knowledge and tools available like they all did, so improvising is nothing new nor a jazz invention, it has existed since the earliest music was made, back in the day Bach used to improvise multi-voiced fugues for fun...anyway if you want to hear more modern and cutting edge music with richer and more profound content? dont listen to jazz (or any popular music) but go about 100 yrs back and listen to prokofiev, sibelius, mahler, messiaen, webern, bartok, boulez etc and those 'cats'....you'll soon discover that pretty much everything was covered far far earlier than jazz's inception.

Excellent response, James.

Quote from: bwv 1080 on May 09, 2007, 11:30:57 AM
How many classical musicians could improvise something coherent over the Giant Steps changes?

How many can phrase like Miles or Louis?

Jazz is by no means inferior to classical.  It is just different, fully composed and improvised music offer different things - its apples and oranges.

Totally agree.  Also, I've never thought of jazz as popular music if for no other reason than its lack of popularity.

Quote from: bwv 1080 on May 09, 2007, 11:30:57 AM
How many classical musicians could improvise something coherent over the Giant Steps changes?

Horowitz?

Quote from: bwv 1080 on May 09, 2007, 11:30:57 AM
How many classical musicians could improvise something coherent over the Giant Steps changes?

Camille Saint-Saëns
Sergei Prokofiev (maybe)
Rued Langgaard
Olivier Messiaen

My answer is speculative in the extreme, of course.

How many jazz musicians could improvise something coherent over the Giant Steps changes?

Quote from: James on May 09, 2007, 01:03:44 PM
the end result is the music, that's the bottomline. whether it's improvised or composed, or labelled as such - is immaterial. the great composers were also stellar improvisors they weren't just mere interpretors but masters of not only their instruments but of music first and foremost....and with the knowledge and genius those guys had of composition, harmony, melody, rhythm, orchestration, timbre etc. Noodling through some chords sequences would be a piece of cake. All you have to do is listen and examine their own compositions to see how jazz dwarfs in comparison.

with regards to phrasing etc...no contest...Most jazzers that swing playing fiery passages of virtuosity, making the impossible sound easy with their jazz buddies would still feel very much ill-at-ease surrounded my classical musicians and playing that music. Most don't have the technical equipment to handle the music in the first place. Plenty who have tried to cross-over can attest to that verbally themselves.

And I read somewhere, I think it was Branford Marsalis who said that the changes for Trane's Giant Steps were in fact heavily based on something that a european composer quickly jotted down and gave to him as a challenge for his soloing. I'll see if I can dig up the source...

Does this mean you wouldn't take kindly to jazz being played on the harpsichord? :D

Quote from: karlhenning on May 09, 2007, 12:52:55 PM
Camille Saint-Saëns
Sergei Prokofiev (maybe)
Rued Langgaard
Olivier Messiaen

My answer is speculative in the extreme, of course.

How many jazz musicians could improvise something coherent over the Giant Steps changes?

My point exactly.  It is a small list of composers.  Your typical 1st chair violinist would be lost.  Of course if people want to compare Mozart to some lounge player, classical comes off very well.  What if we compare Monk to Meyerbeer, or Shorter to Salieri?

And to James point, how much of the classical repetoire is " some 'great moments' and loads forgetable compositions"?  I would venture 90% of what has been published over the last 1000 years falls into this category.

Both Jazz and Classical qualify as "Art" music by any reasonable sense of the term.  

Quote from: bwv 1080 on May 09, 2007, 01:08:53 PM
My point exactly.  It is a small list of composers.  Your typical 1st chair violinist would be lost.  Of course if people want to compare Mozart to some lounge player, classical comes off very well.  What if we compare Monk to Meyerbeer, or Shorter to Salieri?

Yes, but how large is the list of jazzmen who can improvise to "Giant Steps" at a level of excellence?  (I ask for rough information, I'm not being rhetorical.)

Sure, comparing any classical musician to Kenny G is shooting fish in a barrel . . . .

Quote from: bwv 1080 on May 09, 2007, 01:08:53 PM
My point exactly.  It is a small list of composers.  Your typical 1st chair violinist would be lost.  Of course if people want to compare Mozart to some lounge player, classical comes off very well.  What if we compare Monk to Meyerbeer, or Shorter to Salieri?

And to James point, how much of the classical repetoire is " some 'great moments' and loads forgetable compositions"?  I would venture 90% of what has been published over the last 1000 years falls into this category.

Both Jazz and Classical qualify as "Art" music by any reasonable sense of the term. 

Cecil Taylor  8)

Quote from: James on May 09, 2007, 01:03:44 PM
the end result is the music, that's the bottomline. whether it's improvised or composed, or labelled as such - is immaterial. the great composers were also stellar improvisors they weren't just mere interpretors but masters of not only their instruments but of music first and foremost....and with the knowledge and genius those guys had of composition, harmony, melody, rhythm, orchestration, timbre etc. Noodling through some chords sequences would be a piece of cake. All you have to do is listen and examine their own compositions to see how jazz dwarfs in comparison.

You can say the same thing about the development section of any classical sonata - it is just noodling over chord changes with lots of stock licks and arpeggios.  Classical music by and large does not meet the standards you are setting for it.   Here's a challenge: name a real composer or classical musician who has expressed the same contempt for Jazz that you express here.

Quotewith regards to phrasing etc...no contest...Most jazzers that swing playing fiery passages of virtuosity, making the impossible sound easy with their jazz buddies would still feel very much ill-at-ease surrounded my classical musicians and playing that music. Most don't have the technical equipment to handle the music in the first place. Plenty who have tried to cross-over can attest to that verbally themselves.

The same is true in reverse, most classical musicians struggle trying to crossover.  There are different emphasis in the training.

QuoteAnd I read somewhere, I think it was Branford Marsalis who said that the changes for Trane's Giant Steps were in fact heavily based on something that a european composer quickly jotted down and gave to him as a challenge for his soloing. I'll see if I can dig up the source...

There is precedent in the Classical repertoire for most any jazz harmony.  By moving keys by thirds, he was retreading ground largely broke by Beethoven, but that is beside the point.

Quote from: James on May 09, 2007, 01:23:14 PM
Most music isn't that good i agree but... certainly nowhere near the same amount, as time has already proven, art (read: classical) music is built to last...and i dont think much jazz will be resurrected & serviced quite so well in terms of recordings.

Time has proven every great Jazz musician.  Louis Armstrong is lasting just as well, if not better than any Classical composer from the 20's or 30's.  You also have no basis for your contention that somehow the percentage of quality classical music is higher than the percentage of quality jazz

Quote from: James on May 09, 2007, 01:24:53 PM
see: Arnold Schoenberg. (for starts)

you might have something there but, I have been listening to Schoenberg a long time and Taylor never popped into my mind..ASMF the only time classical pops into my mind when listening to Jazz is when I listen to MJQ.

Quote from: Robert on May 09, 2007, 01:30:30 PM
you might have something there but, I have been listening to Schoenberg a long time and Taylor never popped into my mind..ASMF the only time classical pops into my mind when listening to Jazz is when I listen to MJQ.

But Schoenberg used atonality before Taylor, therefore Taylor is a merely a second rate imitation.  See the logic?  The existence of a classical precedent automatically trenders any Jazz composition as derivative crap.  

Quote from: James on May 09, 2007, 01:33:41 PM
hahaha...not really my friend its a little more thought out than mere estimation or guess work, those composers knew what they were doing...

As do good Jazz players.

Quote from: James on May 09, 2007, 01:38:04 PM
sure, within the narrow constraints of what they do but i have yet to hear similar musical results, sorry...

Well I do and who is to say that your judgement is superior to mine?

Quote from: James on May 09, 2007, 01:40:28 PM
yeah, well name me some of these things? i must hear them...

Sure   ::)

How about naming those real classical musicians and composers who think Jazz is inferior crap? And then rebuting every counter example I can provide?

Quote from: James on May 09, 2007, 01:49:13 PM
name me some of that great music found in jazz you were referring to. i'd like to hear it please.

Whats the point?  You claim to have heard it all, so the only purpose for the requests seems to be for meaningless argumentation.

Quote from: James on May 09, 2007, 02:05:03 PM
No, i wanted to hear and see where you are coming from.

I didn't think it would have been such an issue, in fact, i was expecting you to just easily list things, surprisingly not the case though... :-\

Heck, jazz lists are easy to find. Just google. :)

Quote from: James on May 09, 2007, 02:05:03 PM
No, i wanted to hear and see where you are coming from.

I didn't think it would have been such an issue, in fact, i was expecting you to just easily list things, surprisingly not the case though... :-\

OK here are a few, not an attempt at an authoritative list, just personal favorites:

Louis Armstrong: Hot Fives and Sevens
Coltrane: A Love Supreme
Wayne Shorter: Speak no Evil
Miles Davis: In a Silent Way / Bitches Brew (shh / peaceful really has a quite sophisticated development well outside traditional song forms)
John Zorn: Naked City (although Zorn is also widely recognized as a classical composer)
John Scofield: UberJam
Sonny Sharrock: Sieze the Rainbow
Pat Metheny / Ornette Coleman: Song X
Weather Report: Sweetnighter (again Boogie Woogie Waltz, aside from likely being the only 3/4 funk tune in existence, has a sophisticated long development)
Thelonius Monk: Underground

I have it on good authority that it don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing.

Quote from: dtwilbanks on May 09, 2007, 02:54:42 PM
I have it on good authority that it don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing.

chill baby chill

Quote from: bwv 1080 on May 09, 2007, 01:33:44 PM
But Schoenberg used atonality before Taylor, therefore Taylor is a merely a second rate imitation.  See the logic?  The existence of a classical precedent automatically trenders any Jazz composition as derivative crap. 

:o :o ??? ??? ???  OH    8) 8) 8) 8)

Quote from: bwv 1080 on May 09, 2007, 02:32:14 PM
OK here are a few, not an attempt at an authoritative list, just personal favorites:

Louis Armstrong: Hot Fives and Sevens
Coltrane: A Love Supreme
Wayne Shorter: Speak no Evil
Miles Davis: In a Silent Way / Bitches Brew (shh / peaceful really has a quite sophisticated development well outside traditional song forms)
John Zorn: Naked City (although Zorn is also widely recognized as a classical composer)
John Scofield: UberJam
Sonny Sharrock: Sieze the Rainbow
Pat Metheny / Ornette Coleman: Song X
Weather Report: Sweetnighter (again Boogie Woogie Waltz, aside from likely being the only 3/4 funk tune in existence, has a sophisticated long development)
Thelonius Monk: Underground

nice list...in terms of this discussion Waynes da man.......

All the criticisms I see made of jazz so far can definately be said of classical music, or really any type of muisc. Really it is just the sound we are going for right.

Someone once said to me that music was a product of boredom. I think there is some strange truth to that.

Sometimes I am sick of everything I have heard and I just hate music.

Quote from: sonic1 on May 09, 2007, 05:44:06 PM
Sometimes I am sick of everything I have heard and I just hate music.

me 2.

I may steal that for my signature.

Quote from: George on May 09, 2007, 07:37:31 PM
me 2.

I may steal that for my signature.

The Replacements' "I Hate Music":

"I hate music

Sometimes I don't

I hate music

It's got too many notes"

:)

Quote from: sonic1 on May 09, 2007, 05:44:06 PM
All the criticisms I see made of jazz so far can definately be said of classical music, or really any type of muisc. Really it is just the sound we are going for right.

Someone once said to me that music was a product of boredom. I think there is some strange truth to that.

Sometimes I am sick of everything I have heard and I just hate music.

I can emphathize with that statement. Most often, that effect comes about from listening to a narrow variety of music for a couple of days, of so. Sometimes, when I'm wrapped up in a new sonata for my violin, I overplay the music of that composer. I go a day or so without listening to anything, and then I play something entirely new, and just like that, my interest returns.  :)

Quote from: Steve on May 09, 2007, 08:00:30 PM
I can emphathize with that statement. Most often, that effect comes about from listening to a narrow variety of music for a couple of days, of so. Sometimes, when I'm wrapped up in a new sonata for my violin, I overplay the music of that composer. I go a day or so without listening to anything, and then I play something entirely new, and just like that, my interest returns.  :)
[/quote


   They say Familiarity Breeds Contempt and Variety is the Spice of Life....I think that applies here.

   marvin

Quote from: James on May 09, 2007, 12:26:04 PM
jazz, by the very nature of it's process (trying to make music on the spot via improv) is just not really built to last like art music is, and its hard to apply the same level of rigour, thought and care under those circumstances, where each note has the utmost musical value, because you dont know whats going to happen next when its done on the fly. and improvising in and of it self isn't anything special, all of the great classical composers where master improvisors too (ie Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Chopin, Liszt, Messiaen etc) its a piece of cake to noodle thru harmonic sequences when you have all of that musical knowledge and tools available like they all did, so improvising is nothing new nor a jazz invention, it has existed since the earliest music was made, back in the day Bach used to improvise multi-voiced fugues for fun...anyway if you want to hear more modern and cutting edge music with richer and more profound content? dont listen to jazz (or any popular music) but go about 100 yrs back and listen to prokofiev, sibelius, mahler, messiaen, webern, bartok, boulez etc and those 'cats'....you'll soon discover that pretty much everything was covered far far earlier than jazz's inception.

To accuse jazz of not being built to last like classical music ignores some important points. Thanks to recordings, jazz has lasted quite well, as any fan knows. Classical music may be built to last, so to speak, but how much of it has been forgotten, rediscovered, forgotten again, or, in our day, largely ignored in a culture that doesn't give a darn about high art? How has Messiaen, for example, "lasted" when only a fraction of classical listeners have heard him, and when classical music is just a minute blip on our culture's musical radar? (And how much classical music deserves to last? Being part of the classical music tradition certainly doesn't guarantee quality or interest.)

And to say that jazz isn't built to last like "art music" (jazz is of course art music, too, with serious expressive aims and a high level of craft) is true insofar as jazz is built in part on improvisation, spontaneity, and the electricity of connecting artist and audience in the moment. But there you're applying a classical music criterion to an art form with partially different aims and modus operandi. You could turn that around and use the standards of jazz to point out how four-square, stiff, straight-laced, and over-intellectualized classical music can sound. You could damn classical music for largely jettisoning improvisation over the centuries and limiting itself to slavish cookie-cutter performances of written scores.

Apples and oranges. At the end of the day, both musical streams sound different, work differently, and--for me at least--elicit different emotions and listening experiences. How many of the composers you listed sound like Trane or Monk or Miles and vice versa?

I have a large collection of popular music, mostly my favorites from when I was very young. Kind of a nostalgia thing.

My classical music collection has easily overtaken the rest, even without counting the box sets.

Quote from: James on May 10, 2007, 05:22:30 AM
when i say art music im referring to the classical tradition...1000 yrs vs. 100 of jazz?

and i was asking more about the specific pieces created in jazz come way of improvising that come close to the great heights found in classical music, you just do not hear it, nothing i have heard really comes close to the depths found in the very best music of Messiaen or Bach or Beethoven or Shostakovich or Bartok or Stravinsky or Brahms or Schoenberg or Debussy or ANY major classical composer of note, i saw the list posted earlier & that stuff just does not compare, the artists of those "albums" would even admit that im sure...other than some "standards" (which are based on simple/popular song form, legacy changes), jazz will never travel as well. and its not designed with the same level of craftmenship. we will see how much of the jazz listed earlier will be performed and recorded 300 years from now, not going to happen. the best musicans in popular music themselves (jazz or otherwise), whether it be Charlie Parker, Duke Ellington, Miles Davis, Chick Corea etc. truly stand in awe of whats in classical music, and i know thats a tough pill to swallow for some folks here, but believe it, its true....

Sorry, I hear lots of depth and craftsmanship in jazz. You just need to know what to listen to and how to listen to it, to be open to to what it has to say and how it works. If you go into it expecting it to sound like Bach, you'll be disappointed--and vice versa. It offers things--sounds, emotions, instrumentation, rhythmic subtleties--I don't find in classical music--and again, vice versa.

Btw, I know "art music" is sometimes used as a synonym for "classical music", but that sets up a false dichotomy. Of course other forms of music are art and can require artistry. Also, the classical music tradition might be a thousand years old in an abstract academic sense, but most of what's performed and recorded spans just a few hundred years, and within those centuries, the classical "mainstream" is highly selective. And it's to jazz's credit that it's managed so much in so short a time.

I (Of Course) agree with the above post. A lot of people think classical music is simple, boring and wanky-if you don't listen to the music with empathy, to any sort of music no matter how "good" it is, you will not hear it. There is some incredibly written jazz out there, but you have to listen empathetically, not just do the shallow drive-by. Yes, jazz has been around only a hundred years; that is what is so amazing about it (and the 20th century in general). If you listen to the earliest jazz and compare it with some of the latest, it can blow you away how much innovation happened in just over a hundred years. I don't think there is any time period in classical music that compares (not even the 20th century stuff). The difference between Louis Armstrong, Charlie Parker, John Coltrane, Miles Davis, Albert Ayler, Sun Ra, Evan Parker, Alexander von Schlippenbach, is so vast as to be dizzying, and to render the general term "jazz" almost useless.

When people say they like jazz (or dislike jazz) it tells you almost nothing. Did they listen to 70s fusion, West Coast cool jazz, swing, bebop, hard bop, avant-guard, European free improvisation, chamber jazz, new orleans dixieland, vocal jazz, third stream, latin, hard bop, post bop, sweet band jazz, world fusion jazz....

see what I mean...


almost like when people say they like "classical" WTF does that mean anyway.

Quote from: sonic1 on May 11, 2007, 05:08:56 AM
almost like when people say they like "classical" WTF does that mean anyway.

Or, even better, when people state vehemently that they "hate" classical . . . and then you ask them what they've heard . . . .

Quote from: karlhenning on May 11, 2007, 05:13:34 AM
Or, even better, when people state vehemently that they "hate" classical . . . and then you ask them what they've heard . . . .

I usually just take the "haters" cum grano salis; I have certainly spent time being hornswaggled by some Classic music.

I'll never forget when Beethoven's 3rd Symphony "clicked" for me...my life was better afterward.

Quote from: James on May 11, 2007, 06:50:24 AM
sorry i don't, and how can it, when it's usually tossed off then and there, and the majority of it's practitioner are mere dabblers....in terms of listening, its a piece of cake i find, being that it's just homophonic texture etc...there is more music to be heard in a just a few 20th century classical works, believe it......and if these jazzers were as good as you think they are, they would be able to not only indulge in noodling (like Ives, Beethoven, Mozart & Bach and countless others did in their day), but also would have the comparative musical knowledge/skills to write serious stuff like.... symphonies, string quartets etc. but they don't do that do they, and when some have tried the results are quite sub-par.

That's quite a statement.  As I read it, you're saying that a composer who does not write any serious classical music must be inferior to one who does.  I think your disparagement of jazz is leading to very unreasonable views.

Quote from: James on May 11, 2007, 06:50:24 AM



yup, label it, divide it, separate it and call it what you will, but ive heard tonnes of it that falls under all of those...to me its all jazz/popular music, fusion probably being the worst, music marred with incredibly tacky sounds from dated technology, heck a lot of it isn't even jazz imo, boring ol' bop? free jazz? which has NO CONCEPT of *quality control* etc etc etc Zzzzzzz

Again, people say the exact same thing about classical music. They will base their judgments upon what they have heard which is often relatively little. You should know that it takes work to get into classical music, and into any genre.

I am not interested, however, in trying to convince you of that. You seem convinced already which is a terrible way to go about learning anything. If you were truly interested, and had YOUR MIND OPEN (like your quote suggests) you would not ask for examples then simultaneously tell us you have already heard all this stuff. You already know, and I will let you "already know".

At some point I decided not to try to interest people in music I love. If you were truly interested you would have the empathetic ear and would not need me or anyone else to convince you.

Your loss, not mine.

Quote from: James on May 11, 2007, 07:15:40 AM


that's correct.


p.s. i do like a fair bit of jazz/popular music btw, but my arguement here is that it doesn't compare to the serious writting & results found in classical, all you have to do is be exposed to a fair bit of both to come to this conclusion quite quickly...

Since I'm close to 60 years of age, I must be a very slow learner.  Although I don't often listen to jazz, I have great respect for it (unlike my views on most pop and country music). 

Quote from: James on May 11, 2007, 07:41:13 AM
Don.. but Bach is you main man, so I can tell you are a man of the best possible taste and insight.

You've got me on that one. :)

Quote from: James on May 11, 2007, 07:32:29 AM
the only reason why i ask sonic is because i want to see where you are coming from.

i have been exposed to lots and lots of jazz, i went through a whole period where that was all i was exploring.

i have been to lots of jazz concerts & i own lots of jazz albums btw, but id say that less than 5% of it i return to with any regularity...most of the stuff listed in this thread thus far i either own or have heard.

i got into classical right away, like i did with jazz, but after listening to a far bit of both it's easy to see which of the 2 is infinitely superior on all fronts. that may sound snobbish or even pretentious to you, but i have to be as objective as possible and tell it like a hear it....

can you give us some examples of exactly what you have been exposed to. also let me know five jazz concerts that you have been to over the last year.. I AM TRYING MY BEST TO GET A GRASP ON EXACTLY WHERE YOUR COMING FROM......I only wish I had half your music expertise...please elaborate....

Quote from: James on May 11, 2007, 06:50:24 AM
sorry i don't, and how can it, when it's usually tossed off then and there, and the majority of it's practitioner are mere dabblers....in terms of listening, its a piece of cake i find, being that it's just homophonic texture etc...there is more music to be heard in a just a few 20th century classical works, believe it......and if these jazzers were as good as you think they are, they would be able to not only indulge in noodling (like Ives, Beethoven, Mozart & Bach and countless others did in their day), but also would have the comparative musical knowledge/skills to write serious stuff like.... symphonies, string quartets etc. but they don't do that do they, and when some have tried the results are quite sub-par.

As I suspected, I don't think you really get jazz or appreciate it on its own terms. You seem to be comparing the intellectual depth (however that might be defined) of classical versus jazz compositions. That neglects two major points: music--certainly for most listeners--is in large part about emotional power, not just intellectual content. (Which isn't to deny the intellectual interest of jazz, which is prodigious--try to play it, and you'll see.) Secondly, jazz generally puts more weight on individual performance/utterance over composition. While the latter is significant, it largely functions as a framework for individual expression in a group context. The depth of jazz is in large part the depth of individual statements, how something is "said" as much as what is said.

To call jazz improvisers noodlers and dabblers again betrays a lack of sympathy and critical listening, not to mention a disrespect to all the artists who practice and study hour after hour, year after year to perfect their craft. Is there bad jazz improv that falls back on cliched licks and stale ideas? Certainly. But good jazz artists construct solos with both emotional and intellectual weight.

To say that jazz is just "homophonic texture" is bizarre in light of the contradictory facts. Polyphony is hardly uncommon in jazz. (Though why the use of polyphony somehow makes music superior, I have no clue.)

You say that symphonies and string quartets are "serious stuff". Undoubtedly. But so is A Love Supreme and Brilliant Corners and countless other jazz albums. It may not be the music you like, but that doesn't negate artistic intent and craft. And, to turn your question around, why can't any old classical composer write/play brilliant jazz, seeing that it's supposedly just simplistic noodling, tossed off at a moment's notice?

Quote from: James on May 11, 2007, 07:15:40 AM
p.s. i do like a fair bit of jazz/popular music btw, but my arguement here is that it doesn't compare to the serious writting & results found in classical, all you have to do is be exposed to a fair bit of both to come to this conclusion quite quickly...

I've been exposed to way more than a fair bit of both and sure don't come to your conclusion.

By the poll standards my collection of non-classical (i.e. popular music) is large.  Mostly jazz, rock, and singer-songwriters.  Anyone who thinks jazz is not serious music or is performed by incompetents is uninformed.  Equating popular music with the popularity of music is equally wrong-headed.  Very little popular music sells in the millions.

Think I'll go listen to some Bob Wills now to get the day off right.

Quote from: James on May 10, 2007, 05:22:30 AM
when i say art music im referring to the classical tradition...1000 yrs vs. 100 of jazz?

and i was asking more about the specific pieces created in jazz come way of improvising that come close to the great heights found in classical music, you just do not hear it, nothing i have heard really comes close to the depths found in the very best music of Messiaen or Bach or Beethoven or Shostakovich or Bartok or Stravinsky or Brahms or Schoenberg or Debussy or ANY major classical composer of note, i saw the list posted earlier & that stuff just does not compare, the artists of those "albums" would even admit that im sure...other than some "standards" (which are based on simple/popular song form, legacy changes), jazz will never travel as well. and its not designed with the same level of craftmenship. we will see how much of the jazz listed earlier will be performed and recorded 300 years from now, not going to happen. the best musicans in popular music themselves (jazz or otherwise), whether it be Charlie Parker, Duke Ellington, Miles Davis, Chick Corea etc. truly stand in awe of whats in classical music, and i know thats a tough pill to swallow for some folks here, but believe it, its true....

Your post really hit a chord with me, James. One of my reasons for trying to tone down the influence of popular music on classical, is to emphasize the incredibly rich and incomparable tradition that is classical. Composers today can find influence among their contempoaries such as popular musicans, but they can also reach into an unblelievablely diverse and rich repotoire, which as you've mentioned, spans some thousand-years. While Jazz is a remarkable innovation in its own right, its harldly been around long enough to amass the sort of depth that classical has. It also explains why Western literature can be spoken of in a similar fashion, as writers in European languages have a rich, increbly deep artistic and literary tradition from which to extract influence. Classical music has grown over generations; stood the test of fallen aristocrats, dying monarchs, and the birth of republicanism. In short, it can never really be thought as confined to a single period of time in the way that popular music does.

Perhaps in a few-hundred years, we can speak that way about Jazz, but in the meantime, I cannot see giving up my limited time listening to music which has only seen its heyday in the past hundred years when I could just as easily be listening to music which has had eons to mature and grow. But, alas, I digress, noting the results of the poll which point to large populations on this forum with little interest in popular music, and a tremendous interest. We have a dichotomy, or so it seems.  ;D

Love Zeppelin, Hendrix, Zappa, Beatles, the McGarrigle sisters, Talking Heads, REM, etc,etc, and sees nothing artistically inferior in it. Classical music was, once upon a time, the popular music for the upper (and educated) classes. Baroque opera (which I love) was the soap series for a time without Television (provided you had enormous amounts of money).

Have around 300-500 "popular" - whatever that means - albums beside mye 3000 piece classical collection (which represents 80 -90% of my listening).

Quote from: Steve on May 12, 2007, 05:38:59 PM
Perhaps in a few-hundred years, we can speak that way about Jazz, but in the meantime, I cannot see giving up my limited time listening to music which has only seen its heyday in the past hundred years when I could just as easily be listening to music which has had eons to mature and grow.

But that raises the question: Who cares how long something has been around, as long as it's good? I think you're overstating the case just a wee bit, too :) Eons to mature and grow?

And what about Stravinsky, whose music has had less than 100 years to mature and grow? Certainly his music is as radically different to Leontin's organum as Miles Davis' music is, so the eons to "mature and grow" hardly applises to his music as well?

There's lots of music not worth my time, or which I'm not able to enjoy because of who I am and where I'm coming from (white European male etc), but in the end it all boils down to "there are only two kinds of music, goog music and bad music". Which I truly believe.

Quote from: erato on May 13, 2007, 12:20:36 AM
Love Zeppelin, Hendrix, Zappa, Beatles, the McGarrigle sisters, Talking Heads, REM,...

What do you think of their latest album? I've been a fan for years, but was very dissappointed by "Around the Sun." They just sound old.  :-\

Haven't heard it. They dropped in quality around 95, soon after their commercial breakthrough. Love their late 80-ies albums though.

Quote from: erato on May 13, 2007, 05:42:33 AM
And what about Stravinsky, whose music has had less than 100 years to mature and grow? Certainly his music is as radically different to Leontin's organum as Miles Davis' music is, so the eons to "mature and grow" hardly applises to his music as well?

There's lots of music not worth my time, or which I'm not able to enjoy because of who I am and where I'm coming from (white European male etc), but in the end it all boils down to "there are only two kinds of music, goog music and bad music". Which I truly believe.

Yes, but Stravinsky, is simply the modern recipient of a rich, aged artistic tradition. Its not a matter of his music having time to grow, but rather the time that the genre has grown.

But so are Hendrix, Miles Davis also. Ie; an manifestation of a long, artistic development.

African Music is probably older than European Music, and where would American popular music be without Jewish folk music, etc etc. And what about the Brucknerian Landlers? I find this line of reasoning particularly unfruitful as an argument about any kind of musics perceived superiority. Some ogf Griegs best music is influenced by Norwegian folk ballads with their roots in the middle ages, several hundred years before notated art musc was a fact in Norwegian society.

I'm amazed that anyone here would even seriously consider the notion that Stravinsky became what he became WITHOUT the influence of Russian folk music - which in Russia probably had a far longer unbroken tradition than the tradition af western art music, and of composers influenced by Russian folk music?

Of course there are something attractive in the notion of a composer influenced by lofty ideals, long study and hard work, but is this any guarantee for superb music? It helps but I think not.

If I had to choose between Hendrixs Are you experienced and Beethovens op 131 as my ONLY desert Island disc  would choose the latter, but that is just me. If anybody choose differently I wouldn't automatically assume they choose inferior music.

If they choose a rap record I would pity them, but again; that wouldn't be because I choose the apogee of several hundred years og artisitc development

Quote from: sonic1 on May 08, 2007, 05:10:43 AM
Totally off the subject: does anyone know of any classical pieces that are about teenage angst?

# On Sorrow, Anger and Reflection (1998), premiered by the CBC Vancouver Symphony
# Ashes of Memory (1998-99), premiered by the Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra, Mariss Jansons conducting
# Recollections of Fear, Hope and Discontent (1998), premiered by the New York Chamber Symphony

Michael Hersch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Hersch) was probably dumped sometime in early 1998...

Quote from: erato on May 13, 2007, 05:47:13 AM
Haven't heard it. They dropped in quality around 95, soon after their commercial breakthrough. Love their late 80-ies albums though.

Yes, Automatic for the People was their last great one IMO. I think its MUCH better than Out of Time.

Quote from: George on May 15, 2007, 12:04:48 PM
Yes, Automatic for the People was their last great one IMO. I think its MUCH better than Out of Time.

I would reverse that myself.

Quote from: rockerreds on May 15, 2007, 12:30:46 PM
I would reverse that myself.

Automatic has more songs that I like, "flows" better and still sounds fresh today. Out of Time I loved at first, but I don't think it hangs together well as an album and I got a bit sick of it.   :-\

The first album I owned. Never got over it.


Dio's quasi-operatics and Blackmore's Bach-influenced backings just seemed to make Rock Music more interesting in 1975.

Just my opinion, but Classical Music makes Popular Music more interesting. I can't say much for jazz, ska, or reggae's influence on Rock, as I don't care much for those styles of music. But I would be remiss in leaving out the fact that those styles also conclusively add something to the Rock "standard", something which will keep pushing the boundaries.

I just wrote a bit on the subject of Death Metal in the non-classical music listening thread which some might find of interest.

Ive been busy to keep up with the thread, but regarding the 1000 yrs of classical music vs the 100 years of jazz: isn't that what makes jazz so interesting? Jazz has progressed more in its 100 years, than did classical music in the same period. Plus, while classical music was often, and most often, the pursuit of rich, fortunate people, jazz was created by the most downtrodden, challenged people who often had no place to sleep at night, were not allowed to play in certain parts of town, etc. Whatever examples you could dig up about many classical composers, there is no comparison.

The progression of jazz from its beginning to its current state is so vast, that jazz fans are separated by great differences in taste. Even singular artists: say Coltrane or Davis, show a massive development in their art, while in comparison, many classical composers don't show as much development.

We could say that jazz is quite a respectable art. And while a few composers could improvise; they would be played into the grave by even some of the most mediocre recorded jazz improvisers. The speed and innovation of the jazz improviser, if you know anything about jazz, or anything about music, is quite impressive, especially the best of them.

Quote from: sonic1 on May 22, 2007, 07:26:32 PM
Ive been busy to keep up with the thread, but regarding the 1000 yrs of classical music vs the 100 years of jazz: isn't that what makes jazz so interesting? Jazz has progressed more in its 100 years, than did classical music in the same period. Plus, while classical music was often, and most often, the pursuit of rich, fortunate people, jazz was created by the most downtrodden, challenged people who often had no place to sleep at night, were not allowed to play in certain parts of town, etc. Whatever examples you could dig up about many classical composers, there is no comparison.

The progression of jazz from its beginning to its current state is so vast, that jazz fans are separated by great differences in taste. Even singular artists: say Coltrane or Davis, show a massive development in their art, while in comparison, many classical composers don't show as much development.

We could say that jazz is quite a respectable art. And while a few composers could improvise; they would be played into the grave by even some of the most mediocre recorded jazz improvisers. The speed and innovation of the jazz improviser, if you know anything about jazz, or anything about music, is quite impressive, especially the best of them.

Although I don't happen to like Jazz, I respect it very much. Not just for the obvious skill of the players, but for being in a way directly related to the Wagner-to-Mahler-to-Schoenberg-to-Shostakovich pioneering. Jazz really seemed to have pushed the boundaries of what was considered "tonality" during its (Jazz') nascent era.

Although I much prefer the "heavier" (some would say "radically condensed"/"rudimentary") stylings of Death Metal, I'd be pretty dumb not to admit that of the two "tonality-slaughtering" genres, Jazz is on a level of harmonic complexity and range that tends to garner more admiration from musicians on a worldwide level.

Again, as a musician, I really respect the amount of ear training and general jam-manship it takes to be able to improvise over the at times confounding sets of chord changes in jazz. My preferred forms of "popular" music (death and extreme metal) are perhaps centered more on the "effect" of the sustaining drum beat in general.

Quote from: James on May 23, 2007, 07:06:02 AM


It is in the nature of improvised music (i.e. jazz) that it will not "travel" as well - I suppose this is for many reasons. Obviously it is not well considered in the same way as art/classical music and it's aspirations are more localised. Because of it's 'design-brief' it is not built to last. So it does not have the right fuel for time travel, whereas best quality, thought-through, high-consciousness music (i.e. classical) does.

I beg to differ on this point. I bet there are many jazz albums that travel just fine. In fact, many very good jazz albums from the 40s-60s, when jazz was at its most interesting, sell very well, even better than most classical music. Jazz fans are typically people who are music freaks, and who also like classical music. This is assuming I know what you mean by "travel", assuming that the music still touches the audience, and that its meaning is lasting. In the world of more complicated art musics (which I include jazz in, not omit) jazz sells pretty well, especially the albums that are groundbreaking. And labels are constantly digging up historical recordings due to the intense interest.

I voted none.
A year or two ago I would have voted differently, but popular music is something I feel I've substantially absorbed. As I've gotten older my tastes have progressed into more complex and subtle areas. I think that applies to more than music, really.

Quote from: sonic1 on May 23, 2007, 10:58:38 AM
I beg to differ on this point. I bet there are many jazz albums that travel just fine.

This is very interesting, Jared, and I hope you won't mind my stopping by.

I think you are both right, you that jazz albums travel well, and James that improvisation doesn't travel.

There's something like a moebius strip that happens when you have a recording of improvisation . . . what was at its inception and in some measure pure spontaneity, becomes itself a document, and completely unspontaneous.  And when it travels as a document, it doesn't travel as improvisation . . . .

James, your language is very self righteous and disrespectful. It says a lot about you maybe.

Some jazz albums are over half a century old, and the audience is still interested. I hardly call that ephemeral. Maybe it is not 1000 years yet, but then again, neither is Stravinsky. Can you just accept that some people think of it as artistically valid and not necessarily below the importance of classical music, even if you don't? I mean, if jazz was interesting enough for Bernstein, Shostakovich, Stravinsky, etc. surely their opinions are worth considering. Or is YOUR opinion the only one that matters on this issue.

BTW, when I agree about improvisation not traveling, I mean Messiaen or JS Bach as well . . . .

Quote from: karlhenning on May 23, 2007, 11:34:06 AM
This is very interesting, Jared, and I hope you won't mind my stopping by.

I think you are both right, you that jazz albums travel well, and James that improvisation doesn't travel.

There's something like a moebius strip that happens when you have a recording of improvisation . . . what was at its inception and in some measure pure spontaneity, becomes itself a document, and completely unspontaneous.  And when it travels as a document, it doesn't travel as improvisation . . . .

Jazz is interesting not just because of the improvisation (and as an aside, I agree that some improvisation, maybe even much of it, is not something that travels well). The writing/song structure/tonality/rhythms are all innovative at different points in jazz history, even more so than a lot of classical music of the same period. And the historical background for jazz, the hurdles crossed by jazz artists give the art even more of an amazing tone. These people often had no place to sleep at night, or were beat up in the very venues they tried to play in, and suffered class/race problems that most people on this board could not even begin to understand on a personal level. Yet they still with their minimal formal training changed the entire field of music forever. Jazz is indeed important and significant to the whole field of music. I don't see how anyone can deny the effect jazz has had on the music tradition unless they were not very well informed.

Quote from: sonic1 on May 23, 2007, 11:42:11 AM
Jazz is interesting not just because of the improvisation [snip] . . . Jazz is indeed important and significant to the whole field of music. I don't see how anyone can deny the effect jazz has had on the music tradition unless they were not very well informed.

Agreed, completely.

Had you not used such demeaning language in posts like the above, I could take what you are saying a little more. But you have exposed your prejudices a few times on this thread. You intend no due respect to the jazz tradition. But lucky thing: the jazz tradition hardly needs YOU to justify its importance.

And as far as the longevity of its being played live, while the improvisations will not be duplicated, I can assure you that more live jazz is appreciated in the world than live classical music (unless you are going to count student recitals). I have seen a lot of incredible jazz performances in my time, and I am too young to have seen some of the best. The tradition of jazz is not dead, and in fact, has increased since the 80s. This is especially true in Europe where jazz is generally more respected (sad, being that jazz is such an American contribution).

On any given night in NYC, Chicago, SF, LA, and most any cosmopolitan  city, you will find 10 times the performance of serious jazz, than you will classical music. Your suggestion that classical music will continue while jazz does not is mere prejudice, and just wrong. I mean, nobody can predict the future, but I would venture to say that if jazz music is dead in a few decades (meaning no more recording or performances) so will classical music. They are in the same boat for requiring more from a listener than most popular music.

But I don't know why I am arguing this with you. You seem pretty convinced of yourself. Your above language is offensive and uppity. I was not sure if you were suggesting I grow up, or the artists themselves grow up. But this suggest you feel superior in your tastes. I myself am comfortable with the fact that I let myself be entertained by some very bright musical minds in jazz, and that their contribution to music is not ephemeral, but perennial. Just like in classical music, there are ephemeral moments-to suggest that only jazz, and not classical music, is subject to the quality of ephemeral-ness is quite silly. And to suggest that jazz has not had huge moments, as has classical, is also silly. The only difference is the span of time in which these arts occur. They both draw upon the same basic tradition. And I will admit that a lot of classical music is more complicated in nature than the majority of jazz. However, the quality of being "complicated" is not all that makes an art great. With jazz, it was the simple innovations that were so amazing. By the jazz-like quality of synchopation, blues notes, complex chords, etc, etc, music was changed forever. And it did have a great influence on classical music. Maybe not the pasty white stuffy guys who went on to create nothing important. But I cannot imagine a Bernstein or a Stravinsky outside of the period that jazz shaped. When you think of the 20s, the 30s, the 40s to most people they have a jazz soundtrack. When you see documantaries on the era, mostly jazz music is played in the background (though classical music is often played as well).

It was not just the cultural influence of jazz that made it what it was. It was the quality of the music. Jazz has no close relative in classical music. It was its own music by definition. Nothing sounds like jazz. Those musical innovations expressed the quality of the times. And classical composers used those innovations liberally. It greatly shaped the post Ivesian American classical tradition.

That is JUST my opinion though. I am not saying this for YOU James. You seem already convinced of yourself.

Bach and Haydn didn't write for posterity either and would certainly be amazed that their music was listened to today. A confluence of factors has changed that. I'm sure some amount of todays popular music will survive in for the future even though it isn't written for eternity either. Why do we talk about evergreens?

It's easy to be  overwhelmed by classical musics great complexity and think that that makes it automatically great, but most of the music written contemporary to eg Haydn has been forgotten, often deservedly so. And lots are in simple ABA forms, and greatness only comes from a great composer. But there are great song composers today as well, and if you think that the text of a song like "A Day in the Life" by John Lennon has less literary value than the text to an aria by Handel, or less sophisticated structure than a Lied by Franz Schubert, you are sorely mistaken. But that doesn't translate into an obligation to like it.

Of course the commercial pressures, and easy production and distribution , assures that there's produced a lot of crap today. But lots of Haydns contenmporaries were composing mainly to keep their children fed as well.

As an aside: there is also a lot of great music out there that never sees radio play. You have to look for it to find it. Most of what is on the radio is shite. I bet in some time the music gets rediscovered, just as today reissues of lesser known jazz and rock albums get released for music collecting fanatics.

Quote from: Haffner on May 23, 2007, 02:12:40 AM


Although I don't happen to like Jazz, I respect it very much. Not just for the obvious skill of the players, but for being in a way directly related to the Wagner-to-Mahler-to-Schoenberg-to-Shostakovich pioneering. Jazz really seemed to have pushed the boundaries of what was considered "tonality" during its (Jazz') nascent era.

Although I much prefer the "heavier" (some would say "radically condensed"/"rudimentary") stylings of Death Metal, I'd be pretty dumb not to admit that of the two "tonality-slaughtering" genres, Jazz is on a level of harmonic complexity and range that tends to garner more admiration from musicians on a worldwide level.

Again, as a musician, I really respect the amount of ear training and general jam-manship it takes to be able to improvise over the at times confounding sets of chord changes in jazz. My preferred forms of "popular" music (death and extreme metal) are perhaps centered more on the "effect" of the sustaining drum beat in general.

that's the exact same way i feel about jazz