Your Top 10 Favorite Composers

[Karl Henning]

My reply was to Todd´s claim that Paul McCartney´s Helter Skelter is the equivalent of Schubert´s Erlkoenig. I don´t quite get what Satie and Brahms have got to do with the issue. 

Anyway, here is McCartney himself on Helter Skelter:

"Umm, that came about just 'cause I'd read a review of a record which said, 'and [the Who] really got us wild, there's echo on everything, they're screaming their heads off.' And I just remember thinking, 'Oh, it'd be great to do one. Pity they've done it. Must be great – really screaming record.' And then I heard their record and it was quite straight, and it was very sort of sophisticated. It wasn't rough and screaming and tape echo at all. So I thought, 'Oh well, we'll do one like that, then.' And I had this song called 'Helter Skelter,' which is just a ridiculous song. So we did it like that, 'cuz I like noise." (emphasis mine)

I simply fail to see any similarity between a ridiculously noisy song written solely for the purpose of outdoing the competition in the genre (I use its composer´s own words) and Schubert´s Erlkoenig. That is all.

A most interesting post, thanks, дорогой 

To work backwards, (1.) we can announce that Boléro is not music, using its composer´s own words:

I have written one masterpiece, and that is the Boléro. Unfortunately, it contains no music.

A simple illustration that it will not do simply to refer to the composer´s own words as a definitive indicator.

(2.) In neither case, though, is the context especially simple.  In both cases, meseems, we have a composer coping with his relations to the public.  Ravel was, perhaps, sniping at what the public has fixated upon, and complaining that other works of his, which cost him greater effort and of which the composer himself thought more highly, go unregarded.  McCartney, as any reasonably intelligent pop artist who has had more than one popular success, wrestled with the conflicting elements of the public´s expectations (expectations established by his own successes), and the artistic impulse of expanding one´s palette, of not simply repeating oneself.  What did he mean by this remark?  I don´t have the definitive answer.  There may be elements of modesty, of which (in the context of a discussion of a "classical composer") we would typically speak well.

(3.) Your rhetorical dismissal, too, depends on regarding the two elements in a negative light.  Let´s concede for argument´s sake that it is a ridiculous song.  Why is that suddenly ineligible in vocal music?  Offhand, we should probably call Игорь Фёдорович´s Тилим-бом ridiculous, but not consider it anything negative.  And you´re really going to dismiss "Helter Skelter" as noise, dismiss McCartney´s exulting in cooperating in a song which is a celebration of noise?  What are you, your own grandmother, that we only allow songs which sound pretty?    In short, sure:  it´s ridiculous, and it´s noisy;  and that´s how it´s made.

(4.) Parenthetically, when one has written something ridiculous and noisy as a caprice (a time-honored musical occupation), and it is the material for an adaptation such as the following, we have the beginning of an argument that one has created a classic:

http://www.youtube.com/v/TywEOijcLDE

(5.) I am a little surprised to hear you, a fellow fan of the musical 19^th century, pooh-poohing outdoing the competition, which (broadly interpreted) also enjoys an ancient musical pedigree.  But as I read it, McCartney was not trying to out-do The Who, but that he had formed a certain idea from a written review of the record (again: the faculty of imagination, which, if our subject were Schubert, we would be lauding); that on listening to the actual record, he found that it did not match his mental profile of the music — and so he set out to create a recording which matched his mental expectations.  I do call that drawing inspiration where one finds it.

(6.) As to Todd´s post, you asked for his opinion on an equivalent, without specifying what would satisfy you as equivalence.  I should have called it a suggestion, rather than a claim;  it´s true that he offered the suggestions without explanation, but I expect there could be reasonable and interesting discussion on the question.  Perhaps he will enlarge.

[Florestan]

Why, you supplied the essay I had been expecting from Todd. Thank you too. 

What did he mean by this remark? 

I don´t know. He made it two days before the release of The Beatles, which contained the piece.

Your rhetorical dismissal, too, depends on regarding the two elements in a negative light.  Let´s concede for argument´s sake that it is a ridiculous song.  Why is that suddenly ineligible in vocal music?

You read "ineligible" where I implied "non-similar"or "non-equivalent".

And you´re really going to dismiss "Helter Skelter" as noise, dismiss McCartney´s exulting in cooperating in a song which is a celebration of noise?

Thank you for producing further evidence for Helter Skelter not being anywhere near remotely similar /equivalent to Erlkoening, of which we might perhaps agree upon it not being a celebration of noise.

What are you, your own grandmother, that we only allow songs which sound pretty? 

The idea that I allow only songs which sound pretty is false and I don´t know which part of my post lead you to infer it.

BTW, I have never talked with my grandmother(s) about music so I don´t know what songs they would have allowed. Anyway, I would much prefer leaving aside any further reference to one´s family´s members, especially those that are presumably long since dead. Thank you.

  In short, sure:  it´s ridiculous, and it´s noisy;  and that´s how it´s made.

In short, sure: that´s precisely why I fail to see any resemblance between it and Лесной царь

Parenthetically, when one has written something ridiculous and noisy as a caprice (a time-honored musical occupation), and it is the material for an adaptation such as the following, we have the beginning of an argument that one has created a classic:

http://www.youtube.com/v/TywEOijcLDE

No argument from me here.

I am a little surprised to hear you, a fellow fan of the musical 19^th century, pooh-poohing outdoing the competition, which (broadly interpreted) also enjoys an ancient musical pedigree.

My dear Karl, I am (more than) a little surprised that you misunderstood my position completely. I should have thought anyone would understand that what I object to is not to Helter Skelter as such. Heck, I even like it, it clearly looked far ahead to the Heavy Metal genre of which I have been a fan in my early 20s. I object to it being offered as an equivalent (which is precisely what I asked for) to Erlkoening. I submit to your consideration that neither the history of their composition, neither their subject, neither their music nor finally their mood and atmosphere are in any way congruent. Musically, intellectually and aesthetically they inhabit different galaxies. You are of course free to disagree and adduce evidence to the contrary

But as I read it, McCartney was not trying to out-do The Who, but that he had formed a certain idea from a written review of the record (again: the faculty of imagination, which, if our subject were Schubert, we would be lauding); that on listening to the actual record, he found that it did not match his mental profile of the music — and so he set out to create a recording which matched his mental expectations.  I do call that drawing inspiration where one finds it.

Being inspired by something does not preclude trying to outdo it; oftentimes it is precisely the goal. The "Pity they´ve done it", "It wasn't rough and screaming and tape echo at all." and "So I thought, 'Oh well, we'll do one like that, then." sequence allows for interpreting it as "doing what the Who tried to do but did not really succeed", in other words "outdoing" them.

Parenthetically, I don´t know where you got the notion that I dismiss outdoing per se. I just pointed out one of the most blatant dissimilarities between Helter Skelter and Erlkoenig: the former was inspired by another musical work (your formulation) / trying to outdo another musical work (my wording), while neither applies to the latter.

(6.) As to Todd´s post, you asked for his opinion on an equivalent

Minor correction: I actually asked for Brian´s opinion.

without specifying what would satisfy you as equivalence.  I should have called it a suggestion, rather than a claim;  it´s true that he offered the suggestions without explanation, but I expect there could be reasonable and interesting discussion on the question.  Perhaps he will enlarge.

I certainly hope so but I don´t hold my breath.

[Brian]

I simply fail to see any similarity between a ridiculously noisy song written solely for the purpose of outdoing the competition in the genre (I use its composer´s own words) and Schubert´s Erlkoenig. That is all.

The great thing about art is that it transcends, and leaves behind, the artists' original intentions, and can claim meanings, in the eyes/ears of its audience, which the artist did not imagine.

EDIT:

Minor correction: I actually asked for Brian´s opinion.

And also, the great thing about discussion boards is, anyone can answer your question.  0:)

[Brian]

I'm damn glad I chose to go with chronological order.

Haydn
Beethoven
Brahms
Faure
Holmboe
Joni Mitchell
Tori Amos
Patty Griffin
Thom Yorke
Paul Dempsey

I really like this idea!!

Very rough draft:

1. Beethoven
2. Dvorak
3. Schubert
4. Mingus
5. Ravel
6. Janacek
7. Berlioz
8. Monk
9. Haydn
10. Lennon/McCartney

[Florestan]

The great thing about art is that it transcends, and leaves behind, the artists' original intentions, and can claim meanings, in the eyes/ears of its audience, which the artist did not imagine.

Perhaps Imagine would have been a better choice than Helter Skelter? 

EDIT:And also, the great thing about discussion boards is, anyone can answer your question.  0:)

Sure. And you know very well that I believe in absolutely free speech. 

[Ken B]

Perhaps Imagine would have been a better choice than Helter Skelter? 

Imagine there's no pointlessly repetitive debate on the same issues over and over on every damn GMG thread
You can do it if you try

[Madiel]

I really like this idea!!

I'm still not sure that I do...

[Florestan]

You can do it if you try

You have no idea how many times I´ve said that to myself. 

[Brian]

Perhaps Imagine would have been a better choice than Helter Skelter? 

No, because Paul McCartney didn't write it.

I'm still not sure that I do...

If there's one thing GMG specializes in, it's the ongoing comparison of apples, oranges, and a whole lot of other comestibles besides.

[Karl Henning]

My dear Karl, I am (more than) a little surprised that you misunderstood my position completely.

Well, that's why we chat. Or one reason, anyway.

[Florestan]

No, because Paul McCartney didn't write it.

Imagine he did...

[Todd]

No, because Paul McCartney didn't write it.

Yep.

[Florestan]

Well, that's why we chat. Or one reason, anyway.

[Todd]

(6.) As to Todd´s post, you asked for his opinion on an equivalent, without specifying what would satisfy you as equivalence.

Nothing would or will.  Some people just want to harrumph from on high about plebeian pop music.

[Madiel]

If there's one thing GMG specializes in, it's the ongoing comparison of apples, oranges, and a whole lot of other comestibles besides.

My concern is that I'm moving out of the fruit group entirely.

[Jo498]

I doubt you know enough about heavy metal to make a proper assessment of it in comparison to 1800-1830 in classical music. Which is the whole point. Whereas I know that I don't know nearly enough about heavy metal to discuss it at the same level of detail that my nephew can (my nephew being quite musical), you just dismiss the very idea that it could be possibly as interesting as an intimate discussion about what was going on in Europe during a particular generation.
[...]
Statements like something being "too obviously wrong" are merely a way of avoiding a discussion you don't have something more to say in.

No. There can be no discussion, if only "experts" who have listened to 500 heavy (or doom/black/silly/...) metal albums and can name all the subdivisions are entitled to an opinion. And the mere existence of experts does not show anything. My cousin was an expert on Pokemon when he was seven or so.

I do not have to read more than a few pages of a superhero comic (and I certainly do not have to read 100s of them) to know that this genre will not be comparable to Russian novels in the second half of the 19th century or Greek tragedies or whatever. Even the best superhero comic that might rise far above the typical trash is extremely limited by the very genre.

But more importantly, throwing huge numbers around and claiming that one had listen to a considerably fraction of that music, like you and Todd seem to do, obviously proves too much. Noone of us can listen to 5000 albums per year (4900 of which we might not care for), not to mention the further 500,000 recordings by some garage band on myspace (or what this is called today). Or to hundreds of symphonies by Haydn's contemporaries.
We ALL rely on certain mechanisms filtering out worthwhile candidates from what is out there. And such mechanisms usually do not need hundreds of years to work. I claim no expertise but my brother is reasonably well versed and very interested in the last 4 decades or so of popular music and I am sure that he would have no problem to name what was the most important music of the 1990s and that most of those bands or songs were recognized as important in their day; so we do not have do wait even 20 years.

You apparently find some of these mechanisms unreliable and say that "popular" popular music gives a wrong or skewed impression. (Maybe not the mechanisms that lead from myspace to a buyable album but those from an album to a chart position.) And you seem to generally agree that a lot of what's in the charts is rather bad or forgettable.
So you should at least to some extent agree with my original point that the dominant popular culture does not help people developing their taste because otherwise the most popular stuff would be better or at least not so much of the bad stuff would be so popular. (Note that this "closing of the musical mind" was actually my point further above, not the absolute quality of some choice popular music.)

Nevertheless, I am also wary of the claim that there is some totally different "unpopular" pop music with lots of hidden gems.  I never was really into any popular music but I listened to some of the stuff that was supposed to be "better", e.g. Radiohead or REM or whatever back in the mid/late 1990s (when I was more sociable...). This stuff might be better, but it is/was both quite popular and not totally different at all. It usually follows very clearly the typical song patterns etc. (and at least in clubs or concerts it is almost always played so loudly that I can hardly bear it). Stuff called "alternative" or "underground" still sells half a million albums I guess and additional merchandise.

It is also hardly plausible that most would denigrate popular music to "look down on the plebs". First of all, you seem to do something very similar yourself if you claim that what is in the popular charts is usually bad. Secondly, if in a forum dedicated to classical music denigrators of pop are clearly in the minority it seems obvious that there is no social capital at all to be gained by such a position. So why not try the idea that this is really our honest opinion...

[Karl Henning]

Nothing would or will.  Some people just want to harrumph from on high about plebeian pop music.

Obviously, if any of us knew as much about music as James, or if we would simply read what he actually writes . . . .

[Florestan]

if in a forum dedicated to classical music denigrators of pop are clearly in the minority it seems obvious that there is no social capital at all to be gained by such a position. So why not try the idea that this is really our honest opinion...

Amen, bruder!

To this, as well as to the rest of your post.

[Ken B]

Amen, bruder!

To this, as well as to the rest of your post.

You persist in not understanding the game. The game is to prove one's worth by denying any such opinion could possibly be honest. The Higher Being sees through you.

[Florestan]

You persist in not understanding the game. The game is to prove one's worth by denying any such opinion could possibly be honest.

All the more reason to appreciate and salute an honest opinion, methinks.