'The thing that blew my mind first hearing the Strokes was that they were the closest I had heard rock come to classical,' she says. 'Their music is extraordinarily orderly and composed. It's almost

"almost"

(xp)

Yeah, I know, I was more distressed at the fact he didn't shank Mayo in the neck while he had the chance.

But she also has a brilliant, original voice on piano, so doesn't really enter into this conversation.

"Spektor's also patriotic as only an immigrant can be, even sparring occasionally with U.S.-bashing Europeans. Recently a British merch manager drew her ire by responding to Regina's request for large T-shirts with a dry reference to large American men. "It brings out the 'don't fuck with me,' " she recalls, "considering that you have a huge neo-Nazi population here, and your banks are full of my grandparents' teeth, and you only gave women the vote in, like, 1989."

But rock musicians talking about Mozart always makes me think of this:

Marty DiBergi: It's very pretty.

Nigel Tufnel: Yeah, I've been fooling around with it for a few months.

Marty DiBergi: It's a bit of a departure from what you normally play.

Nigel Tufnel: It's part of a trilogy, a musical trilogy I'm working on in D minor which is the saddest of all keys, I find. People weep instantly when they hear it, and I don't know why.

Marty DiBergi: It's very nice.

Nigel Tufnel: You know, just simple lines intertwining, you know, very much like - I'm really influenced by Mozart and Bach, and it's sort of in between those, really. It's like a Mach piece, really. It's sort of...

Marty DiBergi: What do you call this?

Nigel Tufnel: Well, this piece is called "Lick My Love Pump".

I wear a large T-shirt.

I'm 5'10" and only like 180 pounds! :(

This only reinforces my point about this being a boring annual marketing phenomenon - each year some major label finds some young ingenue they can trot out as the "hot new thing"/"a girl that can write pop tunes!", who proceeds to maybe win a couple grammys, gets the press to rattle on about how refreshing it is to have a woman who's classically trained but loves the Beatles (or the Strokes or whoever), and then make an album that may/may not rocket to the top of the charts, only to be forgotten a year later and replaced with the next "hot new thing". Like I referenced in my original post - THIS YEAR'S MODEL = yawnsville, get a new fucking gimmick already.

http://gigs.t-mobile-campaign.co.uk/

-- Shakey Mo Collier (audiobo...), June 30th, 2006.

bravo young man, you have discovered capitalism.

shakey's point could equally well apply to garage bands or rappers or r&b divas or post-punk outfits or indie emo crap or or or; i don't know why the female singer-songwriter strain of it should be any more offensive. it can be irritating but if i enjoy the music it's easy to put aside.

ToriAmosJewelNorahJonesAliciaKeysNellieMcKay

three of those are amazing, one is kind of dull, the other is appalling in a rather amusing way (all very different OBV) - this is a good strike rate!

this entire comment is amazing and makes me want to forgive her for the Strokes one.

its not all that different, I didn't mean to imply it was - there are slight variations (the new hot rapper cycle usually concludes with his starring in a crappy movie about struggling to escape the 'hood, for ex.)

Though that teeth line really is one of the better things I've read in a while.

I can sort of see what she means - they are a rather neat and tidy version of NY skinny tie art rock.

(1) So far there's like one person on the thread who's actually bothered to spend half a second thinking about what she seems to mean. Not coincidentally, that person seems to understand the comment approximately the way I understood it when I read this piece on the train yesterday: as of the first couple albums, at least, there is something almost insanely orderly about the Strokes' eighth notes, in a way that's pretty much the opposite of the "raw sloppy rock" tag they once got. I seem to remember Tom Ewing saying it was no surprise to have a drum machine on "Hard to Explain," since the band always played like they were machined and sequenced anyway. It makes sense that this would be what Spektor means when she says the band is "like Mozart" -- and if anything, when I read that, it was mostly just interesting to me that Spektor would be drawing her comparison for that quality from the classical world. (Though one does get the sense, when she says "closest I'd ever heard," that she hasn't really spent a ton of time on rock, and was interested to come across something that seemed to share a certain compositional spirit with classical music.)

(2) Shakey's totally conflating "press about a musician" with "the marketing behind a musician" -- the two things are more connected than most of us would probably like, but they're not at all the same thing. Besides which I'm not precisely sure what he's asking for, at least press-wise; if a classically trained woman pianist makes a good pop album, and people seem to like that sort of thing, I'm not exactly sure how they're meant to talk about that; the fact that profiles of them will feel beholden to mention those facts doesn't really seem like something to get bend out of shape about. (Shakey finds it annoying that people trot those things out as indications of value, rather than having anything penetrating to say about the content of the record -- I get that, yes -- but I wonder when that's ever NOT the case about pretty much any music ever; this is no different from writing about the Sex Pistols via their story.)

(3) The article the quote at the top comes from (it's in the Voice) is actually pretty much 2% about what Shakey's talking about, and in fact only mentions is passing that she's had any conservatory training at all. (It says she had "trouble adjusting to" the instruction.) In addition to which it's full of shit like this:

Perhaps that oomph will help Spektor avoid being typecast: "I'm not an intense girl with a piano," she says firmly, and while that's a little like Metallica objecting to being called a metal band, her point is clear—she's not like all the OTHER intense girls with pianos.

(4) To reiterate, not to sound like a random googler who doesn't Get It or anything, but it's totally true: the mood here among y'all is totally dumb and mean at this point, like somebody posts a thought someone had, and it's been selected -- and will inevitably be received -- in a spirit of endless how-fun-it-is-to-mock-the-car-crash dickery. Which is too bad, really. It would be nice if there were ever any pull on ILM to look at something with the expectation that maybe-just-maybe it will be useful for something better than eye-rolling.

I particularly remember someone writing that 'NY City Cops' 'sounded like the Stooges', which is perhaps the most outrageous example yet of 'sounds like the Stooges' meaning 'this band plays some sort of rock music as opposed to polka or Balearic dance'.

I don't know exactly what I expect from writing about "intense girls with pianos", just something different from the usual liturgy - do I have to offer a solution before I can complain about something that's boring and predictable?

The only thing I can think of that The Strokes do which could conceiveably be seen as a trait of classical music lies in formalized song structure, which really shows more of her lack of pop music knowledge than it shows anything relevatory about comparing The Strokes to Mozart.

Also, Bernard, what I'm complaining about is the dedication in here to considering the comment flatly "really stupid" instead of "potentially interesting."

I suppose I'm also sub-complaining about a few assumptions in here, including (a) the idea that the word "like" is a way of comparing value, as opposed to just drawing connections and associations, and (b) the idea that saying something is "like classical" is intended to exalt and praise the subject of the comparison.

Spektor was presumably asked what made her interested in working with the Strokes. I think it's rather interesting that she -- who may have more experience dealing with the nuts and bolts of classical music than rock music -- answered the question this way. She perceived something really "orderly" about the way they make and write music. And within her frame of reference, one of the things that reminded her of was the orderliness of, say, Mozart. I think that's interesting because I can see the association she's making, and it's one that I wouldn't personally have thought about, because classical music is not much within my frame of reference.

Keep in mind that it is not a grand statement -- it is a person explaining a mental association she made about one type of music versus another. (She does not say "and this is why the Strokes are the best rock band ever" -- all she says is that they were the first rock band she personally heard that seemed to have this quality, and it was a quality that interested her.)

Shakey the article is in the Voice, like I said; go to villagevoice.com, go to the music section, it's not hiding. It's an average-ass profile.

I can't say I'm at all interested in hearing her music after reading about her.

also, here is an idea. maybe the quote in the title is missing the clues from tone of voice and body language that help gloss that regina spektor does not, in fact, think the strokes and mozart are exactly the same thing, hurrah -

The Strokes do indeed produce a fearsomely orderly kind of rock music. So conceptually rigorous and controlled that listening to it is kinda nerve-wracking. Not just "tight", mind you, but marshalled to a specific end in EVERY sense. Composed. Deliberate. Calculating.

You can hear this near-fascist orderliness in the tunes themselves, in the way they're played and recorded, and you can even see it in the band's public image. Order is everything. The iron fist. All ducks in a row.

And their music has the odd tension of Mozart's music: all this massive restraint in the service of ostensibly "wild" and "joyful" expression. Mozart had an incredible pop ear, as do the Strokes, and his music toyed with the same order/chaos dichotomy.

That's why it's LUDICROUS to compare ELP with Mozart. Stuff like the Requiem Mass notwithstanding, Mozart was willing to work "small," to delight the ear. He often seemed to value beauty and even prettiness over the grand statement. ELP have no ear for beauty. Their music is big, ungainly, pretentious mush. Poorly-formed and grotesque. The Strokes, on the other hand, seem to value a lot of the same things that Mozart did: precision, ear appeal, formalism, symmetry, and superficial simplicity.

I read the quote in its original context the other day, not here on ILM, and my mind was a bit boggled at first, too.

But if you take the time to think it through, she's not making a totally lunatic comparison.

But their ability to generate an impression of Dionysian "rock 'n' roll abandon" to wash it all down does kinda tend to validate Regina's statement.

Right, I was responding more to your drum machine comments, and the notion that there is something unique about "[their] eighth-notes". Even if playing on the beat was somehow a unique quality of the Strokes, I fail to see how it is the unique quality which ties them to the classical music tradition, in a place apart from most rock music.

Also, Bernard, what I'm complaining about is the dedication in here to considering the comment flatly "really stupid" instead of "potentially interesting."

Well, I think the cynicism in here is kind of justified. It's very difficult for me to imagine someone listening to the Strokes and thinking "ohmygawd, this sounds like classical music!", but it becomes somewhat easier when I know that the person in question A) has previously worked with the Strokes, and B) is a classically-trained and classical-inspired musician who is being marketed as such.

I suppose I'm also sub-complaining about a few assumptions in here, including (a) the idea that the word "like" is a way of comparing value, as opposed to just drawing connections and associations, and (b) the idea that saying something is "like classical" is intended to exalt and praise the subject of the comparison.

Well, again, this would be less of an issue if not for her background and public image. If she had made a different ridiculous comparison ("The Strokes are the closest I've heard rock come to techno"), I think it would've at least earned a wtf instead of a *rolleyes*. I actually think the wtf-to-*rolleyes* ratio in this thread has been pretty high, aside from a few outspoken critics, but whatever.

The whole comment was an exaggeration, though. It's just a (stylish) reaction to annoying more-progressive-than-thou-smugness.

C'mon, The Strokes? Dionysian? I mean, really?

'Course it was all bullshit, but they clearly sold that image to a LOT of folks. Somehow or other.

I'm chalking it up to the "Mozart Factor"...

Yes, because we all know if the music marketers don't trot these women out they lie dormant in a closet like automated-robot-maids we charge up in the spring time to get rid of the dust in those hard to reach places.

Despite your anger I wish you'd just base your opinion on how the music actually sounded to you (and if you don't listen to it, it's my crazy opinion that you don't get to have an opinion! call me old fashioned!)

These songs are strange and beautiful in a way that doesn't directly relate to any of the women you name checked above.

(ps. the press didn't feel continually compelled to mention how Andrew WK is a classically trained pianist in every article, is that just because he has a penis?)

So who exactly is eating things up and defending them? This supposed boxing-in has only been raised as an issue by two people: the profile author, who seems to think Spektor doesn't deserve it, and you, vehemently arguing the exact same thing.

OH THE IRONING etc.

when i saw the strokes open for guided by voices in philly - before the first album came out - they were going for a VERY sloppy stooges via primal scream or mc5 + oasis type of thing. i figured it was cuz they couldn't play that well. they later played a week in philly in a swing club to a crowd of nobody to get their chops together (you gotta try out the show in philly first. it's tradition. or boston. one or the other). next thing i knew they were the reincarnation of television and all short sharp and shocked and shit on t.v. good move too, cuz the latter-day madchester stuff was horrible.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39978000/jpg/_39978511_smoke66.jpg

what you been smokin, nabisco?

Also, ELP may not have had much of an penchant for catchy tunes, orderly composition, or surface prettiness (I haven't heard enough ELP to judge) but Yes did.

I agree with Nabisco w/r/t the general mean-spirited nature of the thread, though the quotes from the artist are kind of off-putting to me nevertheless.

"Which was completely ridiculous -- they were orderly new-wave pop, and they sounded a million times more like the Romantics than the Stooges"

Like Scott says of the Strokes, in their early days gigging around Detroit the Romantics sounded a lot closer to MC5 than the Knack.

the stooges/velvets/television tradition received as folk music -- not classical.

I mean, I dunno, you can feel free to live a life where people who see things in unusual ways strike you as worthy of mockery and rejection; maybe that's satisfying in some way. But personally I quite like it when people with one frame of reference look at something from a slightly different frame and draw interesting connections -- personal connections, unofficial connections, and usually ones that say something kind of interesting.

But I guess Regina's just not allowed to draw any comparisons or have any thoughts until she's spent more time listening to Television (who have the same quality I think she's hearing in the Strokes), because it's absolutely essential that everyone on the planet do so (I'm pretty sure UNICEF is working on distributing Marquee Moon throughout Angola) -- and of course, similarly, it would not be okay to point out that one of the Strokes often plays a red semi-hollow guitar, because no, Chuck Berry played a red semi-hollow guitar, so it would be incorrect and stupid to notice that one of the Strokes did.

I have lapsed into bad sarcasm and thus should probably stop posting.

But like I was saying earlier, there is something really counterproductive about begging for that and then -- when someone like Spektor comes along with an odd observation about personal mental connections she's drawn between things -- being dead-set from the get-go on mocking it, and on mocking her. It would be possible, you know, to disagree with it, but just let that sit there: it would be possible to say that you don't really see what she's talking about, but that's fine either way. But the tendency is to ATTACK instead, on a vaguely personal level. And that tendency is the single biggest enemy of the call for people to say anything interesting. It's just fucking stupid to call for people to share interesting offbeat thoughts while simultaneously making it clear that you'll probably meet those thoughts with hostility rather than openness -- that you'll be actively searching for ways to attack any idea about music that doesn't properly conform to the pre-arranged grid of what's "okay" to think about music (or even just that you'll mock any association or connection that you don't understand or share).

So clearly I'm less interesting in defending Spektor's personal association here than I am interested in defending the idea that we might happily think -- god forbid -- about odd personal connections people make, even when they don't come from 10-year-old girls who are allowed not to be stuffed with received opinion. Because I think music and music-writing both would be way more interesting if people felt free to act on their more unusual thoughts in an environment where people were actually interested in seeing that happen, rather than an environment where people will take any opportunity to run down those unusual impulses, because god forbid any attention should be gotten by anyone who doesn't know or think exactly the same things they do.

Which is to say that I think the spirit of this thread is KILLING MUSIC, kind of.

Maybe if Regina Spektor's music weren't so thoroughly annoying and awful, she'd get the benefit of the doubt...

I'd like to think that a reasonably interesting quote from a reasonably talented artist wouldn't get everyone jumping on them. Personally, I do not feel that this is a reasonably interesting quote from a reasonably talented artist.

I'm still not entirely confident that certain people here are willing to let themselves understand the English language and the ways in which it's usually employed by people to express thoughts.

this is so patronizing it blows my mind.

We like the idea of, say, Frank Kogan asking pre-teen girls about teen pop and putting their conversation

"we" do eh? not all of us. speak for yourself.

And I do think some people are misinterpreting the second half of the quote. Remember, she actually knows something about classical music: when she says "they're almost like Mozart," she's presumably picking Mozart for a reason. She's not saying "they're almost like Brahms," or "they're almost like Haydn." In other words, I'm pretty sure she's specifying Mozart as a classical example of the qualities she's specified: orderliness and level of composition.

dude it seems like you want to lecture rather than discuss.

whatever.

Also nabisco surely you know that complaining that other people don't think the way you do is not really a surefire way to get a conversation swinging in the direction you want it to go?

Who is immature now? You sound like a bitter twelve-year-old, dude.

I am interested in defending the idea that we might happily think -- god forbid -- about odd personal connections people make

What people are trying to say is that they don't think that the possible connection between a prefab rock band and a classical composer is interesting, mostly because it's a totally ridiculous idea. Tallis would have made more sense, admittedly, but for Christ's sake: we're talking about the Strokes! They didn't even know how to play instruments a year before Is This It?. Comparing a group that is equivalent to a garage-rock boy band to Mozart makes little sense no matter who you are, Regina Spektor or my next door neighbor.

This thread is too weird.

Okay, a note to everyone on this thread who's giving Spektor's association some thought and just not finding it very astute: I should be clear that that's fine by me.

But Trees, there are so many things in this quoted bit that don't make sense to me. One is the strange use of the word "compare" -- a person can compare any two things in the universe, even if it's just to find one small similarity between the two! ("The Strokes are like Mozart because they've both composed pieces in E major" -- there's no Eleventh Commandment which says we shalt not ever find limited similarities between two very different things.) And the differences you list here have nothing to do with the basis of Spektor's comparison. She doesn't say "the Strokes are like Mozart because they both have lots of formal training as players." She doesn't say "the Strokes are like Mozart because they're both teen heartthrobs." You seem to be saying that there's just no way -- like no way categorically -- that the "equivalent to a garage-rock boy band" could have one tiny quality that reminds anyone of Mozart, which is just ... well, weird. And it seems like the whole thing stems from your being dedicated to treating the statement as some kind of value judgment -- "the Strokes are as good/important/skilled as Mozart" -- when it doesn't go there at all. All it really says is "the thing that surprised me about the Strokes was how their orderly, composed vibe reminded me of classical music, like Mozart."

It would definitely read better if she hadn't said Mozart, because we tend to use Mozart (and Picasso, and Einstein) as shorthand for greatness -- as a superlative term. But I don't see anything to imply that she means it that way.

A person can compare any two things in the universe, but whether they should make such a comparison is a different story altogether.
Spektor's "almost like Mozart" comment is ridiculous, in my opinion, because there isn't anything about the Strokes' sound that is remotely like Mozart, except for perhaps its dullness. (Note: I do like The Magic Flute, but that's about it for Mozart.)

I think a value judgment is implied in her statement-- that the Strokes' orderliness is something mind-blowing, like the orderliness of Mozart.

Also, your Don King/Einstein bit should work but doesn't simply because it is spelled out in the first statement that you are talking about similarities in hair-style, making the second bit (spoken by 'everyone') rather stupid. But Spektor, in saying that the Strokes are almost like Mozart, is making a statement that is not based on physical characteristics or easily-discernible distinctions and similarities. Rather, she is saying that the Strokes are a composed and orderly-sounding band...which, while true, cannot justify comparing them to Mozart without any further elaboration.

xpost: yeah, that too

I still remember Mozart, but then there's only one of him.

Which is certainly a fucking strange thing to say!

And nabisco, I might be agreeing with you if you were saying the same thing about people's attitudes in another thread. But yeah, I think it's misguided to be doing so in this one.

"I knew right away that that was what she meant, but what makes the Strokes more orderly than the Cars or something?"

'Zactly. In my haste to defend the germ of Regina's idea, I overlooked the fact that the while it may be valid to draw some comparison between The Strokes' music and classical composition in a "Mozartian" vein, they're by no means uniquely elegant, formalist, orderly, restrained, ear-pleasing, etc.

Frankly, The Beatles, with their rococco extremes and formalist rigor, make a much better "modern-day Mozart" analog. And the Cars certainly match The Strokes for minimalist pop restraint.

Regina Spektor may not "know very much about rock music", but she's certainly heard The Beatles before!?

The quote is dumb, and Nitsuh's rants/rationalizations are bizarre!

the spirit of this thread is KILLING MUSIC
the spirit of this thread is KILLING MUSIC
the spirit of this thread is KILLING MUSIC

Every time a song on "Is This It" changes parts, the register of all the instruments changes dramatically and efficiently. Very much like Mozart.

Also, the guitars and bass are all composed/recorded/compressed to sound like a single instrument. It sounds exactly like what a classical ensemble tries to achieve.

Frankly, The Beatles, with their rococco extremes and formalist rigor, make a much better "modern-day Mozart" analog. And the Cars certainly match The Strokes for minimalist pop restraint.

YOUR THEORIES INTRIGUE ME AND I WISH TO SUBSRICBE TO YOUR NEWSLETTER

I'd like to use the word "vertical composition", although it may be perhaps too dogmatic, it is the precise word. There are few rock records I've heard that have paid as close attention to the vertical as "Is This It". The new Scott Walker is another, its vertical composition is what makes that record so good.

And cool it with the sexism oh my god oh my god.

And I do feel that "changing registers dramatically and efficiently," having "the guitars and bass composed/recorded/compressed to sound like a single instrument," and "attention to textural contrast" are superficial qualities shared by a great many composers and genres.

I'm still not seeing what it is about The Strokes that makes them particularly classical among rock bands, let alone particularly Mozartian.

Vertical composition, on the othern hand, refers to the sonic properties of the moment, and how one sound relates to the next sound. In the classical world, it's just "orchestration".

Most rock bands don't pay as much attention to this aspect of music making, although it's the "paydirt" in the electronic, r&b and pop world.

If this aspect of music making seems to you "superficial", that's fine. I consider it to be the most relevant aspect of making a recording.

Also, Regina Spektor is horrible. It's not sexism.

-- Owen Pallett

Interesting way of looking at it. Kinda exactly like the old 'montage vs. mise-en-scene' dichotomy in old film-criticism circles.

That's what I said.

Vertical composition, on the othern hand, refers to the sonic properties of the moment, and how one sound relates to the next sound. In the classical world, it's just "orchestration".

Then I don't know why you didn't say "orchestration" or texture. I've never heard anyone refer to orchestration as "vertical composition."

Most rock bands don't pay as much attention to this aspect of music making, although it's the "paydirt" in the electronic, r&b and pop world.

Many rock bands have payed a great deal of attention to orchestration; few have matched the skill of someone like Brian Wilson. And I certainly don't see why The Strokes are notable for their orchestrations.

Owen, I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and I'm genuinely curious about what you're trying to say, but honestly I'm not sure if you're just trying to yank my chain here. I'm a composition major, and I don't think you're making much sense so far.

Although, you're Canadian, right Owen? Is it possible that there are some terminology differences here? Then again, I studied music in England and didn't run into many. So perhaps you can clarify some more.

There really is no question that something like The Beatles were *far* "closer to classical music" than The Strokes are.

We'd need to narrow this down to specific Beatles songs -- and specific aspects of those songs -- to really begin to examine this. (Obviously we're not talking about any of the songs with heavy dominant-seventh moves and blues changes.) So ... what, "Strawberry Fields Forever?" Except I think that sort of thing is precisely the top-level resemblance to classical music (i.e. "it has multi-part non-blues-based arrangements for horns and cellos and stuff") that Regina isn't really talking about.

(That is to say, I think she's pretty clearly presenting the observation with an implied "you know, in a weird way..." or "on one level...")

Why not? That's silly. I'd expect you to realize, based on your earlier defense of Regina's quote, that harmonic content is not the only means for comparison here. The Strokes certainly don't have Mozart's harmonic vocabulary.

The Beatles had songs with a classical-like formal organization, melodic structure, and sense of proportion, even if those songs didn't use classical instrumentation or harmonic gestures. Of course, The Beatles also had songs with classical instrumentation and harmonic gestures. Ditto The Beach Boys, The Zombies.

I may have heard the term before - or some kind of reference to *thinking vertically* with regard to composition, anyway.

Don't get me wrong, I'm familiar with the term. But I've never heard it used to refer to orchestration, or what you're talking about. Like I said, vertical refers to the harmonic aspect of composition, and horizontal refers to the linear. It's one of the major distinctions between the Baroque and the Classical - harmonic composition with a homophonic texture rather than contrapuntal writing. That's a very common usage.

x-post: Oh yeah, you're right. I was mixing the terms up!

He hasn't said anything that changes my mind about the value of the comparison. But I'm trying to give him the chance to explain. Were Regina posting here, I'd give her the same.

And Alan W. Pollack's notes on The Beatles points out many instances where The Beatles make some classical maneuvers.

As before, I find the argument here rather hand-wavy and insubstantial, and I don't see how it applies in any significant way to The Strokes.

I really should shut up, though, because I was just introduced to these ideas on this thread.

Fwiw, I'm gonna have to side with Steve here and say that the Strokes/Mozart comparison seems pretty superficial and uninteresting.

Ok, but the term for the tone or sonic quality of an instrument is timbre. The term for the arrangement or layering of sounds is texture. I'm just saying that tossing out inappropriate buzzwords like "vertical composition" is obfuscatory, and is only good for getting agreement from people who don't really have the background to give meaningful input to begin with.

If I said: "The liberal usage of anacrusic rhythms, upper-neighbor modulations, and melodic appogiaturas in The Strokes songs is reminiscent of Mozart's piano sonatas," would people say "Hmm, interesting, good point?" Because that's just a bunch of random crap that I made up.

And I haven't listened to the Strokes all that much, but from what I've heard, I can see that being a significant thing in their early songs. What it has to do with Mozart in particular, I'm not sure (Owen refers to string quartets, but I don't know).

x-post: yeah, I don't know how valuable the term "vertical composition" is either! And yes, it's confusing because, as you say, *thinking vertically* usually has more to do with harmony. Sorry for any confusion.

That's ok, Tim. I think if anyone is going to clear up Owen's position, it will probably be Owen.

And I hope I'm not coming across too obnoxiously here - as someone who studies composition and writes pop music, I am very interested in the intersections and parallels between the two.

But is Mozart really known for rubato? My cursory knowledge of him, based on an opera or two and my daughters's toy Mozart Cube (an excellent gift to new parents, by the way) is that his rubato ratio is low compared to, say, Puccini.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0306806495/002-8012783-3903221?v=glance&n=283155

It's not the greatest book in the world...

What can I say to defend myself that won't make me sound even more over-academic and boring? Nothing.

But serious! Listen to any Mozart quartet or divertimento, even Eine Kleine Nachtmusik. You must agree, at least, that it sounds more like The Strokes than The Beach Boys or The Cars or The Zombies.

Well, yes. Puccini was also composing 100 years after Mozart was. Also, this doesn't mean Mozart never uses rubato (check, for example, "Vedrai carino" from "Don Giovanni" or "Ach, ich fuehl's" from "The Magic Flute"). Mozart was not a rigid metronome the way that someone like Bach was.

Interesting quote. Makes me wonder what she has been smoking.

-- Geir Hongro (geirhon...), June 30th, 2006. (later)

perhaps marijuana ;-)

-- gear (speed.to.roa...), June 30th, 2006. (later)

she should've sighted some super obscure composer, not the most famous one in the world. i doubt she's really classically trained - she's not even good at being pretentious.

All the Slate piece points out is that (a) lots of people are "classically trained," and that (b) "classical trained" does not imply mastery, just study; you can study in that mold and be lousy at it. But I don't know that people are necessarily often saying it that way -- I think usually they're trying to point out that someone's frame of reference is coming from a more classical mold, whether or not there's mastery or virtuosity attached to it.

it's like saying a harvard phd and a semester at a community college is the same thing. those educations may contain some of the same elements and maybe generalizing that someone went to college might even provide some insight - but it's pretty sloppy and often employed deceptively.

Ha, the funny part is that there are plenty of places where someone would say "hey, I have a college education" and mean community college (wasn't that on the Matos stepdad thread?) -- situations where someone's presuming that kind of education to be a rare thing in general. That might be another problem with the way "classically trained" gets used. There's this idea that formal training is a rare thing in rock (which it doesn't actually seem to be, but whatever) -- but when you're talking about Tori Amos or something, I'm not sure there's any context that should lead anyone to be surprised or impressed by training. I can't really think of any style of music right now where people should be surprised to find training.

P.S. Steve, yes, OTM on arrangements -- I've always assumed the thing is that the average brain can pretty easily hold a melody and chord structure and see all that at once, whereas the more complex an arrangement gets, the more you need an actual musical language to codify and symbolize it all in your head. (Maybe there's the odd untutored genius who can hear and conceptualize that kind of thing just as raw information, but most people surely need tools to keep it under control.)

the strokes should do some ken russell "lizstomania" style mozart biopic to really fuck with regina spektor.
this thread is balls

Yes, I am indeed being patronizing and complaining about everyone's attitude, because I think people's attitudes in here are stupid and sucky and bullshit.

-- nabisco (nabisco), Saturday, July 1, 2006 7:48 PM (2 years ago) Bookmark Link

lol i love this fucken post

when nabisco stops bein polite and starts gettin REAL~

is that guy an aspie? who makes numbered lists?

ha nabisco got really mad on this thread!

Apparently this thread inspired Owen P.'s cover of "Hard to Explain" for Stereogum.