Your Top 10 Favorite Composers

[Madiel]

Go on YouTube .. take a few of the names you've suggestion and punch them into the search engine and sample. OR use Google Videos. I didn't save or favorite the links.

ROFL. I don't need the links to hear the music. It's all sitting in my music collection. I'm sure you can figure out why I'm pressing you for specifics if you think about it.

It should all be in your recent browser history.

[James]

ROFL. I don't need the links to hear the music. It's all sitting in my music collection. I'm sure you can figure out why I'm pressing you for specifics if you think about it.

It should all be in your recent browser history.

I browse Incognito .. so no, I don't have the history. Just punch in the names, and search for perhaps an official video of a single or whatnot. Or simply sample stuff that comes up top (usually highest view count) ..

[Madiel]

Yeah.

We're done here.

[Todd]

It fits well with tons of anecdotal evidence...

I do not know if there is conclusive scientific evidence.

Lots of anecdotal evidence, no conclusive scientific evidence.  That renders the discussion nothing more than an exchange of opinions influenced by personal tastes and personal cultural/intellectual/ideological agendas. 

Something else that needs to be understood is that the "development of musical tastes" - I'm still not certain what that really means - may not even be important at all.  Why is it important, and what are the ramifications if the current stunted state of affairs continues?

[Todd]

https://www.youtube.com/v/pLqfXlIq6RE

[Jo498]

Again, you deliberately pick two things from popular music you can regard as close together, and pick several things from classical music that are as far apart as you can think of.

This is my whole problem, the habit of making consciously unfair comparisons. You're not picking the popular musical examples to be far apart, you're picking them to be close together. The straw man nature of what you're doing is obvious.

Sorry. You introduced the finer shades of heavy metal as an example further above. I am not building up straw men. And I never claimed that it "all sounds the same".

Whatever the variety among popular music may be it is a simple historical fact that most of it shares features that both stem from its origination in certain forms of traditional black music and its co-evolution with mass media like the "single" and the Long Playing Record.
To deny this would be like denying that almost all baroque music shares figured bass as a key structural element.

I did not listen to all of it all through but your examples from "thrice" might superficially sound different but they obviously confirm to standardized models and patterns (angry, fast shouting in 1 vs. reflective ballad style in 2 etc.). They are clearly "songs", they are sung in English by an untrained voice into a microphone, they employ the typical range of sounds and instruments of anglo-pop/rock since the 60s, the first two have a continuous "beat" going through etc. There is nothing wrong with that, all music does conform to patterns. The point is that those patterns are actually largely the SAME ones for pop, rock, heavy metal, etc. Otherwise the audience would hardly recognize the music as "songs" and it would be virtually unmarketable.
(I grant that there is some electronic music, "ambient" or whatever, that is somewhat different. But almost everything is not.)

I grant that there can be quite a bit of variety within those constraints.
I also grant that Tintin comic books are rather different from superheroes and that more recent "graphic novels" are again different. But they are all comic books and it would be grotesque to give someone who wants to know about 20th century literature 6 different style comic books, one genre fiction (e.g. SF) novel and one "highbrow" novel. Leaving out poetry, drama and different styles of "highbrow" stories because that's all in one category "serious literature", but Franco-Belgian and Carl Barks comics would have to rate different categories because they are obviously different (and these two are originally in different languages as opposed to 90% or so of the contemporary popular music that determines what most people think of as "music" today). This would create the impression that it was odd for books to have no pictures in them (which is the case for instrumental music in the landscape of modern popular music) and to be longer than 100 pages or so. That's why I object to the record store categories in a sociological study.

And my hypothesis about the cognitive conditioning is that for about 5 decades most people have been raised with music as "songs" confirming (often very strictly and without a lot of variety, often the most impactful and popular music is not the subtle or sophisticated one) to the patterns mentioned above. They also take it for granted that some such music almost always plays in the background everywhere. Obviously there are some dedicated listeners of popular music and there is some of it that is more sophisticated. I never said that it destroys all possibility of appreciating (different) music.

But it can hardly be denied that there are plenty of factors that tend to fix a certain impression of what music is and a certain stance approaching music that is hardly conducive to appreciating classical music because the latter is often very different. As is only to be expected because despite a lot of both traditional/folksy and classical music that more or less follows patterns similar to popular songs there is also a lot that is organized rather differently.

[Todd]

Todd ..

Just listened to Irganda .. their official video, from Music in Exile. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2GC7BVcsTo

Please tell me you are damn well kidding .. you're goofing with us right?

"13, Tame Impala, 'Currents'

Tame Impala's Kevin Parker is the sort of psychedelic studio wizard who can make finger snaps sound like a spaced-out revelation. The Aussie dreamer packed Currents full of weightless vocals and synthesized funk, for a set that's both blissed-out and mournful, like a set of diary entries from an astronaut floating off into oblivion. Three years ago, Tame Impala broke through with the foot-stomping beats and dirty glam guitar of "Elephant." But this time out, Parker dialed down the amps and pumped up the keyboards. Songs like "Yes I'm Changing" and "'Cause I'm a Man" are slow-moving tales of personal metamorphosis, and when guitar thunder does break out on "Eventually," it quickly gives way to sunshine-y organ. Song after song address relationship challenges, but the album closer, "New Person, Same Old Mistakes," suggests Parker has an easier time remaking his music than himself. That musical rethink, though, is expansive, resulting in wide-screen adventures like "Let It Happen," which jumps off from a melody lifted from the Supremes, then sails into the cosmos, where everything is lonely but beautiful."

[Jo498]

Lots of anecdotal evidence, no conclusive scientific evidence.  That renders the discussion nothing more than an exchange of opinions influenced by personal tastes and personal cultural/intellectual/ideological agendas. 

Except you. You have of course no agenda whatsoever, only the TRUTH...
What would be the kind of "scientific evidence" you would accept? Short of raising kids in different isolated situations. (I conceded already far above that there is no and not likely to be conclusive evidence.)

Something else that needs to be understood is that the "development of musical tastes" - I'm still not certain what that really means - may not even be important at all.  Why is it important, and what are the ramifications if the current stunted state of affairs continues?

What's deemed important depends on personal cultural/intellectual/ideological agendas, there is no way to get scientific evidence for what's "important".

Imagine a world where 99% of the populace are too stunted in their intellectual and aesthetic abilities to appreciate, e.g. Shakespeare or other classical/highbrow literature, but they are all immensely fond of certain animated cartoons their abilities are sufficient to appreciate vs. one where 50% can and do appreciate Shakespeare. Would you ceteris paribus prefer one situation?

It's back to the old question whether it's better to be a happy pig or a sad Socrates. If the only measure of happiness is that one feels somehow personally satisfied, regardless of fulfilling something like a potential, in our case experiencing and appreciating a certain range of aesthetic experiences, there is no reason to prefer the second scenario (vs. e.g. a Brave New World situation). If we do prefer the second scenario we have already implicitly granted that not all aesthetic pleasures are equal. The rest might need a dissertation length argument and still not convince everyone, but it does follow.

There is also the practical point that (most) classical music is expensive and needs a certain amount of friends to be economically feasible. If they die out, that's bad.

[Madiel]

There is nothing wrong with that, all music does conform to patterns. The point is that those patterns are actually largely the SAME ones for pop, rock, heavy metal, etc.

Yes, and I can go through about 150 years of classical music pointing out all the sonata forms. That's MY point.

Frankly, I've yet to hear any meaningful distinction between what classical music is capable of as opposed to what popular music is capable of beyond the fairly trite point that what people call "classical" extends over around 300 years and what people call "popular" only extends over around 60-70 years.  Even comparing the timespans is not a simple matter, given that the speed and forms of communication and travel has changed so much which inevitably alters the ways in which artistic currents move. We've gone from Bach journeying for days to hear Buxtehude to being able to stream live on the other side of the world.

Fundamentally what frustrates me about the various denigrations of popular music (and which would equally frustrate me about denigrations of classical music in some other forum) is that they are various methods of invalidating my own musical life. When James declares that popular music has nothing to offer someone, he is declaring that I am not someone. That I'm some kind of musical idiot in spite of the fact that I am well versed in a fair number of classical composers and have a diploma in piano, the result of many years of study up to near-concert level.

I've played a Bach prelude and fugue so well that someone who thought they didn't like Bach had to reevaluate, but there are times when certain people around here would treat me as if I don't have a clue about "real" music because I also get enormous pleasure out of certain things written in a verse-chorus-bridge format and sung in English. My old piano teacher recently told me I was one of the best 2 students he ever had in a career spanning... certainly over 30 years. But how can I be a decent classical musician? I like Beyonce and so therefore have poor musical taste because I've fallen for what's being shoved down everybody's throats.

My bewilderment from assertions that it's not possible to get this or that or the other from one of these kinds of music stems from the fact that I do get such a wide range of things, from both kinds of music. The whole reason I have a big (and regularly growing) music collection is so that I have this whole range of resources to tap into different moods and motivations and to enrich my inner life with them all.

I'm not some pop music fan coming in here with the intent of picking a fight with a bunch of classical listeners and showing them that classical music isn't all that great. I'm a classical music fan who has been taken to heights of ecstasy by it... and who has also been taken to heights of ecstasy by music that isn't classical. Invalidating my experience of one of those forms of music invalidates my experience of both of them. And in ways that are completely unnecessary. Expressing one's joy and pleasure in classical music does not, in any way or shape or form, require having digs at popular music.

[Todd]

Except you. You have of course no agenda whatsoever, only the TRUTH...

Nope, I'm very open about the subjective nature of what I write.  I explicitly stated so only a few posts ago in this thread.  You appear to be making considerable efforts to present your arguments as something more intellectually pure, more meaningful, more universal.  I'm not convinced.

Imagine a world where 99% of the populace are too stunted in their intellectual and aesthetic abilities to appreciate, e.g. Shakespeare or other classical/highbrow literature, but they are all immensely fond of certain animated cartoons their abilities are sufficient to appreciate vs. one where 50% can and do appreciate Shakespeare. Would you ceteris paribus prefer one situation?

A polemical thought experiment divorced from reality.  (And why would I not prefer being part of the 1%?)

It's back to the old question whether it's better to be a happy pig or a sad Socrates.

Not really.  Absurd dichotomies don't mean a whole lot.

If they die out, that's bad.

Why?

[Madiel]

he doesn't know what the hell he is talking about when it comes to music

You see? 17 years of classical lessons, another decade or so of playing after that, a diploma, various eisteddfod wins... and I don't know shit because James doesn't like the things that I like.

[Ken B]

You see? 17 years of classical lessons, another decade or so of playing after that, a diploma, various eisteddfod wins... and I don't know shit because James doesn't like the things that I like.

You must have forgotten it all. Early onset Alzheimer's?

[Madiel]

You must have forgotten it all. Early onset Alzheimer's?

Wasn't all this listening to classical music I've been doing supposed to prevent that kind of thing?

[(poco) Sforzando]

You must have forgotten it all. Early onset Alzheimer's?

At least I now know what "eisteddfod" means.

[Ken B]

Wasn't all this listening to classical music I've been doing supposed to prevent that kind of thing?

What kind of thing? What were we Talking about?

[Madiel]

What kind of thing? What were we Talking about?

I think it was Britney Spears.

[Christo]

Then why do you argue? James no doubt adores Britney Spears. 

[nathanb]

See my post in "Composers You Are Currently Exploring" before judging me.

I guess, if I'm totally honest after having a glance at last year's listening habits, I'm feelin' like something along the lines of this haphazardly thrown-together buncha names:

1. Karlheinz Stockhausen
2. John Cage
3. Pierre Boulez
4. Iannis Xenakis
5. György Ligeti
6. Helmut Lachenmann
7. Luciano Berio
8. Luigi Nono
9. Richard Barrett
10. Francisco López

[Mirror Image]

See my post in "Composers You Are Currently Exploring" before judging me.

I guess, if I'm totally honest after having a glance at last year's listening habits, I'm feelin' like something along the lines of this haphazardly thrown-together buncha names:

1. Karlheinz Stockhausen
2. John Cage
3. Pierre Boulez
4. Iannis Xenakis
5. György Ligeti
6. Helmut Lachenmann
7. Luciano Berio
8. Luigi Nono
9. Richard Barrett
10. Francisco López

Yikes! A lot of these composers would send me running for cover, but I do like some of Xenakis' music and I admire the hell out of Ligeti. He's really incredible. I love that Ligeti Project set on Warner. Essential stuff for people wondering where classical music headed after WWII.

[Spineur]

Yikes! A lot of these composers would send me running for cover

You are not the only one !  To illustrate the point, my favorite Berio piece is the ending he composed for Puccini Turandot !!
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2002/jun/08/artsfeatures
I do listen to Ligeti occasionally also, but not often.